Social theorists in education: Notes from module 2

This new  module is slightly less of a mental workout initially. Only initially. The weekend sessions were taken up with discussing a few social theorists who are linked to education. We looked (briefly) at Dewey, Wenger and Eraut.

Numbers relate to the slide numbers on the presentation.

Dewey

11. Dewey stresses the importance of progressive education, and that "the most important attitude that can be formed is that of desire to go on learning" - it is our duty to educate to promote the importance of learning.

12. Dewey is concerned with the outcomes of education - the learner voluntarily subjecting themselves to the learning process as an enduring feature of their life.

13. Education resembles democracy - education does not occur within a vacuum - the education system must be democratic for democratic citizens to be produced. Authoritarian education cannot produce democratic citizens - "freedom, decency, kindness" - these word of Dewey are from 1938, when they had a much stronger meaning than they would appear to now.

14. The argument for freedom - why do we want to live in a democracy? What features make democracy good? Why shouldn't we use these features within education? Working in a democratic way gives a better experience. what's the alternative?

15. Dewey insists that teachers shouldn't enforce control (even of they fear chaos).

16. Teachers should not impose authority. The children should believe that the rules are there for the good of them. Problems occur if they believe that the rules are there for the benefit of authority; then, they challenge that authority. Learning is imposed by the teacher when there isn't establishment of shared responsibilities. When you say you need to know this because of exams etc., learning becomes an imposition  upon the students - give the children responsibility for what they want to learn, then there is a shared responsibility.

17. Why do we educate? Education is dynamic - why we learn is always changing. The pupil is a participant in the formation of the reasons why they are learning. This links to Friere.

Participation is not just doing an activity but determining what is taught and why it is taught.

18. Quality of the education experience: progressive education is hard work for the teacher - they need to find out what the pupils want to learn, then resource it and manage individual differences. Therefore it is impossible to realistically achieve.

19. Boxed knowledge: there is no way that traditional teaching is a shared experience. Knowledge is given to pupils in order to pass a test, etc. Have a look at Hannah Arendt's view of this as 'human culture'.

20. Habit - Bourdieu's habitus largely comes from Dewey's 'habit'. A diet of authoritarian education and boxed knowledge cannot lead to democratic individuals.

21. Experience, for Dewey, is constituted by interaction and continuity. Lived experience provides a richer, deeper understanding. Continuity relates to the experience beyond school being brought into the classroom (i.e. the habitus of Bourdieu).

Wenger and Communities of Practice

This theory was introduced in relation to learning outside of formal institutions. It is a social form of learning, - a community which coalesces around a practice. Its original setting was situated learning (Lave and Wenger).

It is important to remember that the theory developed outside of formal education, so if used within formal education as a theory, this needs to be explored and considered - there may be a transference issue.

22. Lave and Wenger - Situated Learning: There is a drawing in to practice, from the periphery - like on an apprenticeship - all informal social learning. Situated learning solely looks at the learning taking place in the situation - how they pick up the knowledge. Knowledge is CO-CONSTRUCTED, developing through practice between people within a particular social and physical environment. even getting the 'in jokes' is a co-construction of knowledge within that particular community.

24. Shared domain iNTEREST indicates a DESIRE to learn - only a desire to learn can lead to these informal learning practices, otherwise there is no interest in learning about it.

25. COMMUNITY: can be very loosely defined and fragmented.

26. PRACTICE: the doing. Learning continues in informal ways, always rooted in practice.

27. The community has to exist previously so that new members recognise the traditions/history and knowledge is passed on over time. Participants must believe that they're part of the tradition and know and be able to narrate their place within that tradition It is ontological - your 'being' as part of that CoP, and a belief that you will acquire that knowledge.

28. Trajectory through the CoP: entering, belonging and outbound. The identity develops in relation to the community, developing a sense of belonging, engagement and alignment.

29. There is the development of stories/narratives/fables about the community an its practices. Participation vs reification: the binary. Participation: what you do, e.g. a plumber; reification: the symbolic aspects - documentation, adverts, formal/informal rules, regulations: there is a disjunction between the two. The binary is often paradoxical, with contradictions e.g. in teacher education, there are the teaching standards and then there is actual practice.

What am I going to do with this?
Well, I have to write an 8,000 word discussion of a particular theory relating to social theory of education. I was quite excited to read about Wenger's communities of practice and could relate that to an experience from my previous job. Dewey's work is more limited in its interest to me. I can understand the argument, and find it of interest, but it's so far removed from 'reality' for me that I don't feel moved to think about how it could relate to my work.

The other theorist we looked at, Eraut, initially piqued my interest with his discussion of different types of knowledge, and that practical knowledge is looked down upon by those who pursue epistemic knowledge. However, the theory we explored is, again, of not so much interest. I find myself leaning towards developing my understanding of Bourdieu, which I started in the first module. I need to go away and think about how I can explore Bourdieu's theories of habitus, field and cultural capital in relation to the development of academic skills.

The end of the module...

No blogging for quite some time as reading and research took over all the time I had available to devote to the EdD.

Since my last post, I have interviewed three participants, transcribed the interviews, analysed them using IPA and completed an 8,000 word assignment discussing both my theoretical perspectives and the research project. Well, 8,791 words to be precise, as we are permitted +/-10%. The first draft ended up being 11,003 words, so serious pruning was required. The finished assignment didn’t really have the depth I wanted in some areas, especially in relating my findings to wider literature, but 8,000 really wasn’t enough.

What have I learnt?

1.       I *loved* doing this assignment. From initial total confusion at entirely new concepts, to moments of clarity as when the fog shifts and you can see your destination before the fog closes back in to obscure your route again. There’s still a lot of fog, but with islands of clarity. I suppose I should wait and see what the feedback is before I consider how fog-bound I remain. 

2.       The more I read, the more I found that just about every area of research into transition has been done to death. It’s an area I’m still really interested in, but quite where the gap in the research is that I can make my own, I just don’t know. Around two weeks before submission I felt I had nothing to add. How on earth do you find that slight gap in the knowledge that you can add to, especially as there is a lag between research being completed and publishing?

3.       I was so lucky with my first interviewee – he could talk the hind leg off a donkey. My interviewees became progressively more reticent but that was good experience, of a sort.

4.       Immersion in the data is easy when you’re as slow at transcribing as me.

5.       Oh how I loved those ‘aha’ moments when I noticed something in the way an interviewee said something – not just what they said, but how they said it: repetition of a phrase such as “I know x, I know y, I know z, I’m ready…” or the change from the very personal ‘I’ to using ‘you’ when talking about how other people perceived one participant.

6.       Despite what some articles say, don’t try to arrange your themes into superordinate themes using pieces of paper. It’s so much easier to cut and paste and move things around on a PC.

And what did I find? Well, my reflexive thoughts prior to the research were that students from vocational backgrounds would feel at a disadvantage to students from the traditional A level route with regard to academic skills used at university. However, what I actually found was a group (albeit small and idiographic) of confident, self-motivated learners who felt more than ready for study at HE, and considered themselves better equipped with academic skills than their A level colleagues. I started to consider this in relation to Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural capital and habitus, but that is where my word count ran out.

With the new module starting tomorrow, I hope to explore this area of educational theory in more detail, and just keep looking, looking, looking for the novel angle through which I can take this topic through to the final thesis.

Weekend 3: Handwritten notes

Theorising data

The quality of theorising data is key in doctoral research. See Dean’s two papers to explore what it means to theorise something, for example application of Foucault’s ideas to policies surrounding safeguarding in sports coaching.

Rorty stats that “All we have is interpretation”, so all we have is differing interpretations of experiences. Should we strive towards truth, in its absence.

Jean-Luc Nancy explored the concept of “being with”: we cannot exist as individuals, as we are social beings. Our identity emerges through our interaction with others. Identity captures our engaging with others within particular contexts.

Judith Butler discussed performativity – we perform differently in different contexts. There is no ‘essence’ of ourselves.

We bring meaning to data – it is a process of construction of meaning. The data does not exist without the meaning and the significance we put on it. Context is of key significance, and helps us to produce meaning. There is construction of the context between interviewer and interviewee.
This links to reflexivity – the narrative of who we are, our aspects of self and our connections to the research.

There was a brief discussion over research data anomalies – it is of great interest to explore anomalous data rather than to try and ignore it. Why is it there? What does it mean in relation to the agreeing data?

 Key issues arising from the evening activity

Truth is plural – there are multiple truths.
Who we are and how we see influences our perception of truth. Our interpretations cause us to see the world differently. We privilege some things and deselect others – perception is very individual.
We need to relate this to our ontological and epistemological position.
Ontology is existence.

If truth is a plural concept, the ontological status is relativism. Interpretation is critical. We are not dealing with the ontological realism of a singularity of truth but a plurality of multiple truths.

BUT – does this mean ‘anything goes’? – The tutor asked us to question whether this was actually important. We always have to live with uncertainty, so why not with uncertainty over research. However, there are certain truths which hold sway at different times – these are not foundational but are based on community debate as to what is temporarily/provisionally held to count as ‘truth’. However, within this community, there may be different perspectives, with tensions between them. Therefore, there is no total agreement on interpretation/truth.

Other key issues:

Meaning does not reside in the data itself – meaning is brought into being and partly constructed through our interaction with it. The sense we make of data is affected by what we bring (culturally, socially, historically located) i.e. CONTEXT.

Discovery as a metaphor for research is inaccurate. It is more a construction and creation than a discovery. For example phenomenological hermeneutics acknowledge the importance of ‘self’ in the construction and telling of the ‘other’ – self and other are conjoined.
We cannot bracket off our subjectivity but we must embrace it – this is who I am and this affects how I understand and interpret.

Heidegger suggests that we are already located in presuppositions – ie our ‘being in the world’ – our social, historical, cultural context.

Nancy: ‘being with’ locates you – who you are with affects who you are.

Michael Polanyi discussed ‘tacit knowledge’: knowledge we cannot explicitly explain but that we have. We cannot render a feeling fully explicit (e.g. my choice of IPA?)

Other issues raised:

The criteria with which our research is judged: where I position myself in relation to onto-epistemic issues. I  need to articulate how I want to be judged – I will need to discuss the criteria for judgement.

Conventional criteria do not apply in qualitative contexts. Remodelling of the criteria to include, for example, authenticity and verisimilitude are still ‘fudging’ the issue – still appealing to accuracy but by different names. We only have the power of rhetoric to take the reader into your word – you need resonance with the reader, and this will not always happen.

What you write will only ever ring true for some people. Validity shifts from accuracy to a plain that recognises the importance of resonance and experience – connection to the information. This is not a simplistic correspondence, such as ‘does the report accurately represent reality?’

This shifts the test of validity – the truth of the account partly resides in the standpoint of the reader. Truth isn’t solely controlled by the authorial account.

Dean is going to send out a paper on the flexibility of validity.

Presentation (PowerPoint) on Heidegerrian Phenomenology

Slide 1:

Ò  … utilises a hermeneutic approach that is fundamentally ontological

Ò  This informs us of ‘how’ a ‘what’ is to be treated, and is primarily methodological

Ò  ‘what does this data mean’ becomes ‘how is this data meaningful’?

The activity we took part in was fundamentally ontological – we drew on our own being. The questions move from ‘what does this mean’ to ‘how is this meaningful?’ – our interaction and construction bring meaning into being.

 Slide 2:

Ò  The latter cannot be answered except in relation to Dasein (da – here; sein – being)

Ò  Thus, descriptions are impossible without interpretation

Ò  ‘the meaning of phenomenological description as a method lies in interpretation’ (Heidegger 1962: 61).

Descriptions are impossible without interpretation and construction of meaning. Our identities (plural rather than singular) are exposed differently depending on our ‘being with’. Identities are contextually located.

Slide 3:

Ò  Being and becoming are hermeneutic:

Ò   ‘the phenomenology of Dasein is a hermeneutic in the primordial significance of the word, where it designates this business of interpreting’ (Heidegger 1962: 62).

Becoming: Being isn’t fixed – it is dynamic. We ‘become’ according to those around us – it is relational.

Slide 4:

Ò  Interpretation is ‘grounded in something we have in advance fore-having … we see in advance fore-sight … and something we grasp in advance fore-conception (Heidegger 1962: 193)

Ò  The implication for research is that data is analysed through these fore-structures

Ò  Such structures suggest that understanding is not ground in data but in what people have in advance – the always already Being

‘Fore-having’ – we have ‘fore-conception’ – we analyse data through these fore-structures. The understanding is not grounded in data but in being and fore-having – i.e. we have preconceptions and ‘baggage’.

Therefore, research is always already theoretically over-determined – we are always already theoretical as we are always already schooled in some sense, e.g. through family, community, culture, tradition. We cannot bracket that.

 Slide 5:

Ò  Key points

Ò  The object and subject of the world are inseparable

Ò   Dasein is the Being that is peculiar to humans who must paradoxically live in relationships while simultaneously being ultimately alone with oneself

Ò  To understand the Other, a person’s behaviour or expressions, one has to study that person in context

It is impossible to know when what is outside of ourselves starts and what is internal begins in regard to interpretation. Interpretation is an interaction but we cannot pin it down. We cannot recognise the extent of our self. Ethically, this is very powerful as we as the author have to consider equity, responsibility, whose voices we choose to privilege and whose we silence.

Reflexivity involves engaging critically with what we recognise as our position and subjectivity, to interrogate but we will always fail as we cannot fully recognise the extent of our influence.

Reflexivity: positioning our professional values that are shared with the contextualisation of the work.

Grounded Theory

Slide 1:

… addresses the ‘important enterprise of how the discovery of theory from data - systematically obtained and analyzed in social research - can be furthered’

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative research, London:  Aldine, p.1).

Glaser & Strauss (1967): The discovery of theory from data

Theories from the study are based on data – theories emerged from the data, i.e. the authors weren’t bringing anything to it – the data drove the themes. This assumes that we enter the context of research without baggage, in order to see what’s occurring. It assumes that no literature has been read beforehand, there are no lenses to see through, allowing data to drive theory production – data “springs forth”. BUT there is no acknowledgement of a lens.

 

Slide 2:

—  … relies upon ‘a general method of comparative analysis’ (p.1)

‘we would all agree that in social research generating theory goes hand in hand with verifying it’ (p.2).

This is problematic as it suggests that there is logical induction. Karl Popper critiques logical induction through the black swan story. There is no way of verifying a theory based on induction. There is always the possibility of an anomaly in the next observation. We can only ever falsify a theory rather than verify it.

How can we ever know how close we are to ‘the truth’? Verify against what? We cannot know how near or far we are from a ‘truth’.

The categories we develop in our minds are influenced by our framing of the context. We cannot verify it – if something (a theme) keeps repeating itself, it is because we keep seeing it. We may not see other things.

There is a tension in grounded theory – it wants us to be open-minded, inductive and generative BUT it is also seeking to verify – that is, it is narrowing, reductive and deductive.

What are the external references allowing us to verify something, other than keeping seeing the same thing? – affirmation of the self.

 

Slide 3:

—  According to Glaser and Strauss – grounded theory appeals to the ‘interrelated jobs of theory in sociology:

                (1) to enable prediction and explanation of         behaviour; (2) to be useful in theoretical advance in                 sociology; (3) to be usable in practical applications –        prediction and explanation should be able to give                 the practitioner understanding and some control of        situation; (4) to provide a perspective on behaviour                 – a stance to be taken towards data; and (5) to guide and provide a style for research on particular         areas of behaviour’ (p.3).

“Prediction and explanation” come up several times in these assumptions – these align with the key concepts of positivism. This holds to the view that there is a ‘real view’ of the world – theory is developed on that basis and we can remove our subjectivity, so in reality, GT is positivist.

Slide 5:

—  Located where? … possibly conceptual tensions?

—  Used in education research, nursing and organisational studies, but also elsewhere

—  Has much in common with ethnography, case study, action research

—  Rejection of a priori theorising – emergent theory

—  Implicit verification-ism

—  Not steeped in literature

—  Inductive, constructivist approach to data collection

—  Imperative to reach saturation, but why?

—  Interaction between data collection, analysis and theory building – ‘theory must “fit” the situation being researched’ (p.3)

Features of grounded theory: It is unsure where it sits – there are conceptual tensions. It rejects a priori theorising.

Slide 6:

—  ‘Categories must be readily (not forcibly) applicable to and indicated by the data under study; by “work” we mean that they must be meaningfully relevant to and be able to explain the behaviour under study

—  … categories are discovered by examination of the data’ (p. 3).

—  ‘the adequacy of a theory for sociology today cannot be divorced from the process by which it is generated’ (p.5).

To generate theory…

GT suggests that the meaning/theme is already there, and is not imposed by the self. But how can this be separate? We interact (with our baggage) – they suggest that this doesn’t happen and that the categories are there *before* our interaction.

Slide 8:

—  ‘The biographies of scientists are replete with stories of occasional flashes of insight, of seminal ideas, garnered from sources outside the data. But the generation of theory from such insights must then be brought into relation to the data, or there is great danger that theory and the empirical world will mismatch’ (p.6)

What is the ‘empirical world’ – we only know the phenomenal one through our own senses and constructions.

NOTE: The tutor did mention the work of CHarmaz with regard to grounded theory, but suggested that her developments took it away from grounded theory and it was closer to phenomenology.

Stress and coping in first year undergraduates - Denovan and Macaskill

This paper is of interest because of the participants, as well as the methodology. I’ve also tried to look at their excerpts, to try to get a feel for analysing data. It’s hard but sometimes I managed to pick up something which wasn’t in the text (though was probably highlighted in their full analysis of the transcription). IPA is going to be a challenge – and I’m interviewing in three days’ time!

Denovan, A. Macaskill, A. (2013). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of stress and coping in first year undergraduates. British Educational Research Journal, 39(6), 1002-1024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/berj.3019

Introduction

Against the background of increasing student numbers there also appears to be increasing levels of stress.

Stress

There is a discussion of models relating to stress, including the transactional model of Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and the updated model (Folkman, 2008).

Transition to university

Transition to HE is stressful for a number of reasons – academic, financial and social. Stress can be reduced by coping mechanisms associated with focussing on problem solving rather than emotions.

Positive psychology

Quantitative studies indicate that optimistic students cope better with the stress of transition. Meijer (2007) suggests that stress felt by students is affected by the “perceived level of guidance from lecturers”. Pekrun et al. (2007) find that students who demonstrate high levels of self-efficacy are more likely to have higher levels of achievement motivation. This, in turn, increases their likelihood of feeling in control of academic tasks.

Qualitative research

Greenbank (2007) found that the transition to more independent study was perceived as stressful. There is some qualitative evidence that positive coping techniques aided transition. The authors identify the role of phenomenology in the in depth exploration of individuals experiencing stress. They go on to link IPA to the area to be explored.

Methods

Participants

Purposive sampling with the use of a homogeneous sample. The authors discuss the sample size as linked to Smith’s work. They provide a demographic breakdown of the students, to indicate how they relate to national statistics on UK undergraduates.

Interview schedule

Semi-structured and open-ended, non-directive questions to provide deep responses. Use of a ‘vignette’ to develop rapport and put the participant at ease. This is something to consider. The authors identify what the questions focus on. The authors perform a verbatim transcription.

Procedure

The authors considered the place, ethics, recording and length of the interview process.

Data analysis

The authors gained familiarity with the transcripts through the transcription process, reading and re-reading –immersing themselves in the text. On the left hand margin were written the thoughts, reflections and preliminary codes, with the preliminary themes being recorded on the right hand side. The authors discuss the iterative process the analysis went through. The themes were then grouped, and these were then validated by checking against the text, and these themes were supported with quotes. Each transcript was subjected to the same process, leading to the development of master themes. The themes were verified by the use of a colleague. The researchers do not mention the ‘bracketing’ of findings from prior interviews before starting on a new analysis, which might be considered a failing. There is also no mention of drawing attention to areas of divergence as well as those of convergence. Perhaps, therefore, some of the individuality of the interviews has been lost.

Quality

The authors mention several sets of criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research. They use Elliott et al.’s (1999) criteria as these are “…rooted within a phenomenological hermeneutic tradition”. I need to have a look at this and explore how it relates to Yardley’s criteria as they seem pretty similar. The criteria include ensuring that the researcher’s perspective is made clear, in depth discussion of the procedures, use of rich data as illustration of themes, the use of a colleague to assess the interpretation of themes, and use of a reflexive journal.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity aids transparency and demonstrates how the researcher’s work has been framed by prior experiences and by assumptions and preconceptions.

Results and discussion

Five main themes were drawn out by the authors. These are: all the change; expectations of university; academic focus; support network; difficulties.

Theme 1: All the change

This discusses transitions to independent living. Coping was better in those who planned and prepared for the transition to living away from home. The authors discuss their findings and then draw out the theory associated with the findings.

Homesickness is also discussed within this theme. There is a gradual adjustment and acceptance of the change in their life. Social support aided their adjustment.

I started to look at the excerpts used within this paper, and became interested in one excerpt, where the change in language is apparent. David starts off with the more impersonal ‘you’, talking about living with others, then moves to the personal ‘I’, admitting his struggles. The authors don’t mention this within the discussion, but I’m sure they must have picked up on it in the analysis.

Differences between post-compulsory education and university

Participants initially struggled with independent learning. Once they adjusted to the new methods, they became more confident. Lack of initial feedback was a concern. Greenbank (2007) found that there were increased levels of stress due to the emphasis on independent learning in HE. There is a difference in the level of independent learning required between FE and HE. With increasing student numbers, increased class sizes lead to a more difficult transition. This links to Meijer’s (2007) model where stress is linked to reduced tutor guidance. Research by Greenbank (2007) suggests that there should be greater focus on the development of independent learning skills in FE. Furthermore Urquhart and Pooley (2007) suggest key areas for support. The authors acknowledge that some support in provided in most HEIs.

Theme 2: Expectations

Realistic expectations of university life led to better adjustment to the new environment. More passive approaches or negative thoughts led to issues with transition. A key influence on transition is the information received beforehand, whether from official or unofficial sources. Positive expectations represent optimistic thinking, which aids transition.

Theme 3: Academic focus

The importance of self-discipline is discussed by the respondents, as well as the development of strategies to improve time management led to positive feelings. Goal focus improved motivation. Learning from experience was a theme within the major theme of academic focus: stress was caused by deadlines, especially missed ones caused, for example, by poor time management. Students appeared to learn from their mistakes and acknowledge this. There is a discussion of the role of self-control and self-efficacy.

Theme 4: Support network

Establishing a support network: the participants expressed anxiety over making new friends, and acknowledged isolation in those not making new friends as quickly or as easily as they expected. The findings of other research (Kantanis, 2000) indicated that nearly 50% of first year undergrads hadn’t established a friendship group by the end of the first semester.

Support for coping with the transition came from three sources: family, acting as reassurance; friends, especially those experiencing similar problems; university staff. However, the authors, despite saying that provision of rich data is important in supporting the quality of the themes, do not provide any evidence for this final support group.

Theme 5: Difficulties

Housemates were a major source of difficulties, causing high levels of stress which was ongoing and hard to avoid. A range of coping mechanisms were used. Financial stress was also of concern, with more students working at the same time as studying, and the work/study/life balance being difficult. Within the sub-theme of academic difficulties, the authors (and so, presumably, the students) focus primarily on presentations as stressors. Stress was also incited by exams, though this tends to be short-term.

Conclusions

Transition to HE involves change. This can cause stress. A range of coping mechanisms were used by the participants. Adaptive coping was more effective, leading to positive adjustment. The authors acknowledge limitations such as sample size (though this is appropriate for IPA), and using a single university.

They suggest several potential interventions, which are: interventions to promote autonomy; support networks; preparation classes; support from colleges and schools.

 

Possible references to explore:

Barter & Reynold (1999) The use of vignettes in qualitative research

Brown, Moerkamp, & Voncken (1999) Facilitating progression to higher education from vocational paths

Elliott, Fischer & Rennie (1999) Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields.

Golsworthy & Coyle (2001) Practitioners’ accounts of religious and spiritual dimensions in bereavement therapy – this looks at reflexivity and how the researcher’s perspective affects interpretation

Greenbank (2007) From foundation to honours degree: the student experience.

Henwood & Pidgeon (1992) Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. This is quality in QMs

Lyons & Coyle (2007) Analysing qualitative data in psychology – about IPA & sense making

Meijer (2007) Correlates of stress in secondary education.

Robotham & Julian (2006). Stress and the higher education student: a critical review of the literature.

Seguin & Ambrosio. (2002). Multicultural vignettes for teacher preparation.

Smith (2003) Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods

Smith & Eatough (2006). IPA in Breakwell et al.’s Research methods in psychology.

Tinto. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.

Urquhart & Pooley (2007). The transition experience of Australian students to university: the importance of social support.


 

Note to self - to bracket or not to bracket?

I need to get my head around whether one attempts Husserl's bracketing in IPA. The literature seems inconclusive. I think if I can write down in one place all of the literature I've found relating to the topic, then I can come to some sort of conclusion.

It does not seem clear in Smith et al.'s book on IPA where they sit. They do talk about bracketing but it appears to be a more limited way than espoused by Husserl.

I'll leave the rest of the thinking to another day. I know where my thoughts currently stand. We'll see how the literature guides me.

What makes good quality qualitative research for me?

The first readings I had to complete for my first EdD weekend all revolved around the concept of the validity of research. How do we measure (if indeed we can?) what “good” qualitative research is? There were a range of viewpoints, depending on the philosophical and methodological viewpoints of the authors. I could see that each made sense in its own context. However, I didn’t really have any background understanding to critique the ideas adequately, and nor did I then know which way my own research would take me.

Since then, I’ve made the decision to use IPA, and feel comfortable with the relationship between this and my own views on truth and knowledge. I’ve been thinking back as to how I can ensure the quality of the research I am about to undertake. In my quantitative research past, I’ve been concerned over methods, statistics, reproducibility etc. But now, as they say, for something completely different.

Smith and the other IPA stalwarts discuss quality, but in my limited timescale and support for this small scale research, use of other people to determine whether my interpretations are appropriate is not possible. I’ve seen several papers mention Yardley (2000) in relation to quality, so I’ve had a look at her paper. Her thoughts are interesting and relevant, and above all, achievable in my timescale.

Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and Health, 15(2), 215-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440008400302

The suggested reason for the increase in the use of qualitative methodologies (QMs) in health psychology is that it provides a detailed exploration of the experiences of the participant. Yardley clearly identifies that these are true methodologies, with differing underlying assumptions, rather than just a proliferation of methods of data collection and analysis.

The author highlights the reason for the paper as to how to evaluate qualitative research. She suggests that there is a gap in the understanding of how to evaluate qualitative studies in accredited health psychology. Yardley identifies that qualitative research is defined as ‘not quantitative’, rather than the diverse range of qualitative methodologies having a unified definition. Even within a single tradition, such as phenomenology, there is diversity in its assumptions and approaches.

Yardley suggests that it is the very subjectivity allowed by qualitative work that leads to it being used so extensively. However, because meaning is constructed and negotiate between researcher and participant, the imposition of set criteria for truth would restrict the construction of knowledge and could prejudice particular groups who subscribe to alternative criteria for truth. Therefore, a standardised procedure for performing qualitative methodologies cannot be entertained.

There is a concern in the field of health psychology that QMs most closely resembling quantitative methodologies are gaining precedence over other methods because of familiarity in terms of quality and measurements/assessments of validity. Another concern is a tendency to be drawn towards those methodologies providing a framework within which to complete research, leading to isolated methodologies without the flexibility to understand the benefits of other approaches.

This is something which does niggle away at me. I’m not really fully sure why I chose IPA as a methodology. It seemed ‘right’ for the question I wanted to answer. However, I do wonder whether I am drawn to it because, compared to other methodologies, it seems to provide a ‘process’ through which to work. The guidelines are broad and inclusive, but nevertheless, perhaps I am clinging to the set procedures of quantitative research. Perhaps in later work I should explore some in more detail other areas of phenomenology such as van Manen.

Yardley discusses the issue of quality control, suggesting that we cannot apply quantitative standards of quality, such as representative sampling, reliability and replicability, to QMs. These would be unlikely to be achievable and may also not be desirable. She believes that structured coding and interpretation fashioned by rules means that there is a loss of nuance in the rich data provided by QMs. Nevertheless, a means of ascertaining the quality of qualitative research is needed, so that the work can be judged accordingly.

The author identifies what she believes are four characteristics of good quality research, along with some examples of how these can be achieved. The four characteristics are:

1.       Sensitivity to context;

2.       Commitment and rigour;

3.       Transparency and coherence;

4.       Impact and importance.

Yardley suggests these characteristics but stresses that they are not meant to be applied rigidly. Indeed in order to be useable in a range of QMs they must be flexible.

Sensitivity to context:

The author acknowledges the vital aspect of context within qualitative research. However, whilst it is important to have an understanding of related theories and relevant literature, this knowledge must not cloud the researcher’s interpretation of the data. Areas of divergence from theory must be sufficiently explored, as well as those data which do link the specific study to more abstract theories and generalisations discussed in previous research.

The social and cultural context of participants and researchers must also be considered. Contextualisation of findings can shed new light on meanings. The social context of the data gathering needs to be considered including the shared understandings and conversations between researcher and participant and consideration of the researcher’s position in relation to the participant is vital.

A concern for the perceived power imbalance between researcher and participant is required. Whilst some QMs seek the viewpoint of the participants on the researcher’s interpretations to determine the ‘truth’ of the interpretation (perhaps an example of this is the Patricia Hill Collins reading from week 1), it must be remembered that the opinions of the participant should not over-ride the academic independence of the researcher.

Commitment:

Commitment is suggested through the longer-term involvement of the researcher with the topic being researched, as well as an appropriate ability in the methodology of research and immersion within the data.

Rigour:

This is, Yardley suggests, indicated by the completeness of the data analysis and a sufficient amount of data collection. This will vary depending on the chosen methodology – grounded theory will require more participants than IPA. Within phenomenological research, there should be sufficient depth of interpretation, not just surface level analysis.

Transparency and coherence:

This explores the persuasiveness of the research in constructing a reality. Another area to consider to provide coherence is whether the research question and the philosophical underpinnings of the research are appropriate.

Transparency is achieved through thorough documentation of the process of data collection and analysis and provision of rich data, that is, extensive excerpts. Within IPA, it’s my understanding that this is at least in part provided by the tables of themes and annotated transcripts produced as part of the analysis process. Reflexivity is also needed to demonstrate transparency – identifying the experiences and motivations which underlie the research.

Impact and importance:

The impact of the research is a key factor in determining its value. The value may be theoretical but may also have a wider impact within other fields. There may also be a socio-cultural impact to the research. Yardley suggests that an advantage for QMs in health research is their close link to practice. This would, presumably, be similar within educational research.

Yardley concludes by stressing the importance of integrity in QM, whilst taking into account the diversity of these methodologies.

Further reading?

Stern (1997) Strategies for overcoming the rage of rejection. In Morse (ed.), Completing a qualitative project: details and dialogue (pp. 135-145). This covers how to get over editors rejecting work for publication. Its relevance is, perhaps, stressing that you need to clearly demonstrate to the reviewer/reader how you expect your research to be measured against concepts of quality. If you're explicit, there's less room for misunderstanding.

Panic stations

There's nothing like getting a response to your request for research participants for making you panic. Or is it just me? The research project has suddenly become real, as opposed to just reading about research paradigms and methodologies. I will have to look like I know what I'm doing to a real person, and then transcribe and analyse the interview. Gulp. I hope I can do the student's experiences justice.

Just need one more (assuming that the current respondee is happy to proceed). Assignment hand-in date 10th March. Can it be done in time? The Countdown clock is ticking...