qualitative research in the l2 classroom research in the l2 classroom a reader ... it's not...

Richards on Qualitative Research: feedback on activity L2R103

Research in the L2 Classroom O Narváez Agosto ’09 1

Qualitative Research in the L2 Classroom

A Reader

Oscar Manuel Narváez Trejo

UV

Oscar Manuel Narváez Trejo Licenciatura en Enseñanza del Inglés

UV



The Nature of Qualitative Research

The accusation that qualitative research (QR) doesn‘t measure the more demanding standards

of ‗hard‘ or ‗scientific‘ is a common one, drawing strength from a fund of prejudices that arise

from our everyday exposure to the word ‗research‘. This chapter sets out to identify the

distinctive contribution that QR can make to our understanding of the social and educational

world. It introduces research traditions particularly associated with QR and examines the

intellectual foundations of a qualitative stance.

Qualitative research

I‘ll start this section by outlining two fundamental misconceptions about QR. Because QR can

be based on a single case that involves no quantification and is neither ‗scientific‘ nor

‗objective‘, it is (a) not a research at all; and (b) at best a soft opinion. In fact, QR is anything

but a soft option –it demands rigour, precision, systematicity and careful attention to detail. In

order to account for this misguided perspective, we need to reflect on the view of research that

pervades our everyday experience, a view that threats ‗experiment‘ and research as almost

synonymous and that threats ‗scientific‘ as a term of praise for almost anything.

It's not really surprising that people associate experiments with research. Here are a few

influential factors that spring immediately to mind:

For a long time, research has been towards finding out about the natural world in an effort

to understand its laws, and experimentation plays an important part in this.

Most people's first exposure to research is through experiment.

The expression 'experiments have shown' is part of our everyday vocabulary, and where

we find 'experiment' the word 'proof' is rarely far away, usually accompanied by its

quantitative minders.

Although it would be perverse to deny the immense contribution that science and

experimentation have made to our happiness and wellbeing, we should nevertheless not

underestimate the effects of this on our assumptions about research. The desire for

quantification is a perfectly natural one: we find ourselves better in argument when we have

the figures at our fingertips.



Finally, there is the decidedly odd reference to looking for the presence of absence of data.

Given the exam conditions, we can treat this as no more than a slip (for 'data', read 'specific

features'), but it does fit in with the general tenor of the extract: qualitative research is soft,

speculative, and concerned with 'data'; quantitative research is scientific (experimental),

serious, and concerned with facts.

Unfortunately, such prejudices have not been helped by the dismissive attitude adopted by

some researchers in our own field. For example, when van Lier (1994) introduced qualitative

perspectives in a 'complementary' way into a discussion of second language acquisition

research in the journal Applied Linguistics, the editors of the special issue involved (Beretta et

al. 1994:347) judged, from their 'rationalist' perspective, that this was 'not a piece that can be

replied to, even if we thought it worth our while'. What, then, is the case for QI?

Why bother with qualitative research?

There are at least three compelling reasons for rejecting the claim that we ought simply to build

on the success of quantitative approaches by putting all our efforts into refining their

procedures. The first of these arises from the fact that experiments or surveys will only take us

so far. They can explain many things and can provide us with valuable information and

insights, but they are not designed to explore the complexities and puzzles of the immensely

complicated social world that we inhabit. Even in more narrowly defined circumstances, there

are situations where a qualitative approach offers the best source of illumination. For example,

I can conduct experiments until I'm blue in the face in order to identify 'effective' procedures for

designing language learning tasks, but if I want to know how successful task designers think

and work, then I need to find other ways of exploring this. At least one leading researcher has

identified this need to get close to practice as one of the main reasons for the recent growth of

qualitative research:

One reason for change is that scholars have become attracted to the idea of getting close to

practice, to getting a first hand-sense of what actually goes on in classrooms, schools, hospitals

and communities. That kind of knowledge takes time. The one-shot commando raid as a way to

get the data and get out no longer seems attractive. You need to be there. A clean research



design with tight experimental controls might be right for some kinds of research, but not for all

kinds. (Eisner 2001: 137)

A second reason for adopting a qualitative approach is that it is above all else a person-

centred enterprise and therefore particularly appropriate to our work in the field of language

teaching. This is dangerous territory for the experimental researcher for, as Peshkin (1993:27)

notes, 'most of what we study is truly complex, relating to people, events, and situations

characterized by more variables than anyone can manage to identify, see in a relationship, or

operationalize'. Human beings are wonderfully adept at confounding the sort of predictions that

operate in the natural world, which is why a different sort of investigative approach is needed in

the human sciences, one that will seek to understand the patterns and purpose in our

behaviour and provide insights that will enrich our understanding. As practising teachers, we

operate in a professional context which is at best only loosely predictable but where we can

draw strength from our shared understandings and experiences.

The third profound strength of qualitative inquiry is its transformative potential for the

researcher. The claim to objectivity implicit in the representation of quantitative outcomes and

explicit in experimental research allows the researcher to stand aside from the findings, but

this is not an option in qualitative inquiry. Investigation depends on engagement with the lived

world, and the place of the researcher in the research process itself is something that needs to

be addressed. The investigation impacts on the person doing the research and may have

profound effects upon them.

Richards, K. 2003. Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire: Palgrave.

U1: Natural-Sciences vs Naturalistic Research: Activity L2R104 L2R105


‘Natural-sciences style’ and ‘Naturalistic’ research

Both ‗natural-sciences style‘ and ‗naturalistic‘ research are legitimate methods of research.

You use the methods – and therefore the underlying philosophy) which are best suited to what

you are trying to find out. The key question is: how appropriate is the method to the

phenomenon you are dealing with? In other words, does the method used mean that important

elements are missed out or constrained?

The main argument here is that ‗experimental science‘ type approaches are ill-suited to the

complexity, embedded character and specificity of real life (educational, social) phenomena.

Specificity is a key issue. Natural sciences research is aimed at generalizable findings: i.e. that

may have general implications for theory. But in human behaviour, generalization from one

group of people to others, or one institution to another, is often suspect –because there are too

many elements that are specific to that group or institution. As you may well know, what is true

about one group or school may well not be true of another.

Because of this unknown degree of specificity and the uniqueness of what are likely to be the

facts that the naturalistic researcher differs from the experimental investigator in another

important way. In the natural-sciences style you study the literature and work out existing

findings and theories are adequate. If you feel that certain theories need testing or challenging,

you set up an experimental procedure to yield new data to test existing theory. This is the

deductive model, using a predetermined procedure of investigation.

The naturalistic researcher cannot work like this: the data and theories in the literature may

have little bearing upon the phenomenon under investigation. The researcher needs to know

what others have done but cannot be sure they are relevant. The first step is to review the

context from which the research questions, the means of investigating them, and the likely

explanations will emerge. An emergent design is characteristic of this style along with inductive

theorizing, i.e. making sense of what you find after you‘ve found it.

U1: Natural-Sciences vs Naturalistic Research: Activity L2R104 L2R105


However, perhaps the major distinction between the two styles of research here described, is

the greater concern of naturalistic research with subjectivity: with phenomenological meaning.

This doesn‘t mean that you ignore the objective (what people do, what records show, and so

on) but that you are after the qualitative element. How people understand themselves, or their

setting –what lies behind the more objective evidence. Nor does it mean that you ignore

results, but that you seek to find the underlying reasons –in people‘s feelings or perceptions, or

their experiences of what is going on. This concern with process (leading to outcomes or

‗results‘) can be key to understanding what needs to be done to change things.

All this means that the naturalistic researcher is not a detached ‗scientist‘ but a participant

observer who acknowledges their role in what they discover. A research investigation is not

neutral; it has its own dynamic and there will be effects (on individuals, on institutions)

precisely because there is someone there asking questions, clarifying procedures, collecting

data. Recognizing this is part of doing good research. Ignoring it is bad ‗science‘.

Characteristics of Naturalistic (Qualitative) and Natural-Sciences (Quantitative)

research

Point of Comparison Qualitative Research Quantitative Research

Focus of research Quality (nature, essence) Quantity (how much, how

many)

Philosophical roots Phenomenology, symbolic

interactionism Positivism, logical empiricism

Associated phrases Fieldwork, ethnographic, naturalistic, grounded,

constructivist

Experimental, empirical, statistical

Goal of investigation Understanding, description,

discovery, meaning, hypothesis generating

Prediction, control, description, confirmation,

hypothesis testing

Design characteristics Flexible, evolving, emergent Predetermined, structured

Sample Small, non-random,

purposeful, theoretical Large, random, representative

Mode of analysis Inductive (by researcher) Deductive (by statistical

methods)

Findings Comprehensive, holistic,

expansive, richly descriptive Precise, numerical

Table 1.1

U1: Mason on Challenges for Qualitative Research: Activity L2R107


Mason‘s book is an excellent reading for those who are to start qualitative research. The book

is organised around questions that novice researchers may ask themselves when facing

research challenges. She states:

"… I focused the book on 'difficult questions' that qualitative researchers need to ask

themselves, and to resolve, in the process and practice of doing their research." (p. vii)

The questions she posed are "reflexive acts, and constitute a way of doing qualitative

research, … Reflexivity, in this sense means thinking critically about what you are doing and

why, confronting and often challenging your own assumptions, and recognizing the extent to

which your thoughts, actions and decisions shape how you research and what you see." (p. 5)

CHALLENGES FOR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

1. QUALITATIVE research should be systematically and rigorously conducted. I do not

think there are any excuses for a casual or ad hoc approach to qualitative research.

The difficult questions … are intended to make researchers think, plan and act in

systematic and rigorous ways in the research process.

2. QUALITATIVE research should be accountable for its quality and its claims, … it

should not attempt to position itself beyond judgement, and should provide its

audience with material upon which they can judge it.

3. QUALITATIVE research should be strategically conducted, yet flexible and contextual.

… QUALITATIVE researchers should make decisions on the basis not only of a sound

research strategy, but also of a sensitivity to the changing contexts and situations in

which the research takes place.

4. QUALITATIVE research should involve critical self-scrutiny by the researcher, or

active reflexivity. This means that the researchers should constantly take stock of their

actions and their role in the research process, and subject these to the same critical

scrutiny as the rest of their 'data'. This is based on the belief that a researcher cannot

be neutral, or objective, or detached, from the knowledge and evidence they are

generating. Instead, they should seek to understand their role in that process. Indeed,

the very act of asking oneself difficult questions in the research process is part of the

activity of reflexivity.

U1: Mason on Challenges for Qualitative Research: Activity L2R107


5. QUALITATIVE research should produce explanations or arguments, rather than

claiming to offer mere descriptions. … all QUALITATIVE research should be

formulated around an intellectual puzzle -- that is, something which the researcher

wishes to explain. … descriptions and explorations involve selective viewing and

interpretation; they cannot be neutral, objective or total. The elements which a

researcher chooses to see as relevant for a description or exploration will be based,

…, on a way of seeing the social world, and on a particular form of explanatory logic.

… QUALITATIVE researchers [should] recognize that they are producing arguments,

and [should be] explicit about the logic on which these are based.

6. QUALITATIVE research should produce explanations or arguments which are

generalizable in some way, or have some demonstrable wider resonance. …

7. QUALITATIVE research should not be seen as a unified body of philosophy and

practice, whose methods can simply be combined unproblematically … QUALITATIVE

research should not be seen … in opposition to Quantitative research. The distinction

between quantitative and qualitative methods is not entirely clear-cut, and all

researchers should think very carefully about how and why they might combine any

methods …

8. QUALITATIVE research should be conducted as a moral practice, and with regard

with its political context …

(pp. 7-8)

Mason, J. 2002 (2nd Ed.). Qualitative Researching. London:SAGE

U1: Narvaez on Methodological Orientations and Characteristics of QR: Activity L2R108


When studying or learning about research, it is useful to identify the methodological orientation

that underpins any study. In this section, I will outline the premises underlying the interpretive

paradigm and its foundations. I will briefly discuss relevant issues regarding the epistemology

that illuminates the theoretical perspective behind it. I consider this to be relevant to the

discussion of the methods of data generation, dealt with in the following section. As a novice

researcher, I consider that defining the methodology was one of the most difficult parts in this

research process. I wish my fellow EFL teacher-researchers to go through this stage in a less

problematic way, thus I hope they find this section a useful reference for future qualitative

research.

General Underlying Premises

We, teacher-researchers, need to move away from previous studies in which educational

phenomena is simplistically reduced to figures and statistics; it should be any researcher‘s

intention to obtain a different, in-depth account of the phenomena under study. Thus, an EFL

researcher may be interested in revealing:

(1) how people interpret their learning/teaching experiences,

(2) how they construct their worlds, and

(3) what meaning they attribute to their experiences.

It is important to find an epistemology and a theoretical perspective that match your intentions

as a researcher; it is necessary to have sound theoretical foundations in which to base the

methods of data generation you wish to employ. A brief discussion on such issues is presented

below.

Epistemological and ontological position

If your intention is to study the way educational actors interpret an educational phenomenon

based on their lived experience, then you should consider that people‘s knowledge, views,

understandings, interpretations, experiences, and interactions are meaningful properties for

research purposes. As such, keep in mind that in order to gain access to informants‘

perspectives, it is imperative to talk to them, to ask them questions, and, perhaps more

importantly, to listen to them. You should expect that through their accounts and articulations



you could be in a position to construct a mutual (dialogic) understanding of the phenomenon

under study.

Theoretical perspective

A theoretical perspective is, simply put, the philosophical stance that lies behind a chosen

methodology; e.g. interpretivism. The interpretive approach to research emerged in opposition

to positivism in an effort to provide more realistic understandings (and explanations) of human

and social reality. This approach to research "looks for culturally derived and historically

situated interpretations of social life-world" (Crotty, 1998:67, emphasis in original).

Interpretive Qualitative Research is nourished from different theoretical perspectives, mainly

hermeneutics, symbolic interactionism and phenomenology. I will briefly outline how these

influence qualitative research.

Hermeneutics

From hermeneutics comes the idea that in order to understand a situation, one must not only

consider the intentions and histories of the actors but also the relationship of this actor with

others around her or him, therefore the importance of being in the same situation, in the same

setting where the phenomenon under study is taking place so that all things surrounding the

scene are considered as part of and influencing the phenomenon. Also informing is the fact

that hermeneutics assumes a relationship connecting the two that make the exercise possible,

placing emphasis on the sharing of meaning between persons, an indication that "it has

practical purposes in view… Determination of meaning is a matter of practical judgment and

common sense, not just abstract theorising" (Crotty, 1998:91).

Phenomenology

The notion that people interpret their daily experiences according to the meaning it has for

them comes from phenomenology. ―What Phenomenologists emphasize, then, is the

subjective aspects of people‘s behaviour. They attempt to gain entry into the conceptual world

of their subjects (Geertz, 1973) in order to understand how and what meaning they construct

around events in their daily lives‖ (Bodgan and Biklen, 1992:34, cited in Merriam, 2002:37).



Because phenomenology as a school of philosophical thought underpins all qualitative

research, some assume that all qualitative research is phenomenological, and certainly in one

sense it is. However, Crotty points out that this is not the idea of phenomenology since ―The

phenomenology of the phenomenological movement is a first-person exercise. Each of us

must explore our own experience, not the experience of others, for no one can take that step

‗back to the things themselves‘ on our behalf‖ (1998:83).

Symbolic Interaction

Symbolic interaction informs qualitative research for its interest on interpreting phenomena

within the context of the society. According to this, meaning is derived from the social

interaction between a person and others: ―It deals directly with issues such as language,

communication, interrelationships and community … is about all those basic social interactions

whereby we enter into the perceptions, attitudes and values of a community‖ (Crotty, 1998:8).

Also informative is the belief that humans act on the basis of meanings that things have for

them. Crotty adds, ―the meaning of objects and acts must be determined in terms of the actors‘

meanings, and the organization of a course of action must be understood as the actor

organizes it‖ (ibid. 75). Meanings are modified through an interpersonal process. In other

words, meaning only emerges as a result of the interaction of a social actor with other

members of that society. Thus, interpersonal meanings may be brought forth and shared by a

process of dialogue, of interaction. It all derives from ―the emphasis on putting oneself in the

place of the other and seeing things from the perspective of others‖ (ibid. 76). Crotty

summarizes:

"This role taking is an interaction. It is symbolic interaction for it is possible only because of the ‗significant symbols‘ --that is, language and other symbolic tools-- that we humans share and through which we communicate. Only through dialogue can one become aware of the perceptions, feelings and attitudes of others and interpret their meanings and intent. Hence the term ‗symbolic interactionism‘." (Crotty, 1998:75-76)

To symbolic interactionists, ―Even the self is a social construction, a self-definition generated

through interaction with other people‖ (Merriam, 1998:37), as a result of this ever-changing

interaction, people can ―change and grow as they learn more about themselves through this

interactive process‖ (ibid. citing Bogdan and Biklen, 1992:37).



So far I have described the underlying epistemology behind qualitative research and its

connected theoretical perspective. The following figure provides a summary of the issues

discussed in this chapter.

Qualitative research can be seen as an umbrella concept that covers a number of different

forms of inquiry. These forms of inquiry have been called theoretical traditions (Patton, 1990),

genres (Wolcott, 1992), major traditions (Jacob, 1987, 1988), paradigms and perspectives

(Holliday 2002), traditions (Richards, 2003), strategies of inquiry (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003).

However, the term qualitative research is confusing because it can mean different things to

different people (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:11). For example, qualitative research is used

interchangeably with terms such as naturalistic inquiry, interpretive research, field study,

participant observation, inductive research, case study, and ethnography (Merriam, 2001:5).

Holliday (2002:18-22) classifies qualitative research into naturalistic (postpositivism, realism)

and progressive. To him, case study, ethnography, ethnomethodology, phenomenology,

grounded theory and participatory action research are strategies of inquiry.

Methods

the techniques or procedures used to gather and analyse data related to some

research question or hypothesis.

Methodology

the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice

and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods

to the desired outcomes.

Theoretical perspective the philosophical stance informing the methodology and thus

providing a context for the process and grounding its logic and

criteria.

Epistemology the theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical

perspective and thereby in the methodology.



Within what he has called the Progressive paradigm, Holliday (2002) places critical theory,

constructivism, postmodernism, and feminism. In this paradigm:

i. reality and science are socially constructed

ii. researchers are part of research settings

iii. investigations must be in reflexive, self-critical, creative language

iv. aims to problemize, reveal hidden realities, initiate discussions (2002:18)

Holliday explains his position by stating:

"I have distinguished two major paradigms, naturalism and progressivism. … I have taken the liberty of imposing the term ‗progressivism‘ because it seems a useful heading under which to group together a range of different paradigms … which have much in common their opposition to naturalism" (Holliday, 2002:19).

In the field of TESOL, Richards (2003: 13-28), has identified seven core traditions in qualitative

research that are relevant to TESOL practitioners: ethnography, grounded theory,

phenomenology, life history, action research, conversation analysis and case study.

Even though there seems to be discrepancy regarding the labels attached to traditions or

perspectives or paradigms of qualitative research, there appears to be consensus on the basic

characteristics of qualitative research. These are described in the following pages.

Characteristics of Qualitative Research

"In conducting a basic qualitative study, you seek to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process, the perspectives and worldviews of the people involved, or a combination of these" (Merriam, 2002:6-7).

Qualitative research adopts the idea that ―meaning is socially constructed by individuals in

interaction with their world‖ (Merriam, 2002:3). Qualitative Research (QR hereafter) aims at

understanding and making sense of experience from the participants‘ viewpoints. In order to

do this, it approaches the phenomenon under study from an interpretive stance. Interpretive



qualitative approach to research is characterised by ―Learning how individuals experience and

interact with their social world, [as well as] the meaning it has for them‖ (Merriam, 2002:3). To

interpretivists, reality is constructed by varying interpretations that change over time. From a

criticalist position, reality is the result of the interaction between the knower and the

researcher: they construct reality during their dynamic interaction: ―The knower and the known

are Siamese twins connected at the point of perception‖ (Kincheloe, 2003:49). Therefore,

researchers using QR aim to identify what these interpretations are at a particular point in time

and in a particular context; what meaning a particular phenomenon has for the people involved

since ―…the world in general … is … a constructed, dynamic interaction of men and women

organized and shaped by their race, class and gender‖ (ibid.48). Ho lliday explains this by

contrasting naturalists‘ belief ―that meaningful social worlds can be discovered by ‗being there‘‖

while ―progressivists argue that there is no ‗there‘ until it has been constructed‖ (2002:21 citing

Gubrium and Holstein 1997:38).

Qualitative research is ―an inquiry process of understanding based on a distinct methodological

tradition of inquiry that explores a human or social problem‖ (Crewswell, 1998:255). Denzin

and Lincoln (1998b: 3) mention, ―Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection

of a variety of empirical materials … that describe routine and problematic moments and

meanings in individuals‘ lives‖. It is therefore the aim of qualitative research to ―study things in

their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the

meaning people bring to them‖(ibid.) Interpretive approaches see people, and their

interpretations, perceptions, meanings and understandings, as the primary data sources.

"Interpretivists are concerned with understanding the social world people have produced and which they reproduce through their continuing activities. This everyday reality consists of the meanings and interpretations given by the social actors to their actions, other people‘s actions, social situations, and natural and humanly created objects. In short, in order to negotiate their way around their world and make sense of it, social actors have to interpret their activities together, and it is these meanings, embedded in language, that constitute their social reality." (Mason, 2000:56, citing Blaikie, 2000:115)

After the discussion on general aspects of qualitative research presented above, the following

section presents the main elements any interpretive and descriptive qualitative research

consists should have.



The researcher is interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed

―…the researcher must go back and forth between the observed situation and its meaning, as

experienced by the participants and as grasped metaphorically. Meaning is not given in the

situation, but emerges from the situation built on both observation and the researcher‖ (Maykut

and Morehouse, 1994:39). ―Ethnography is an approach which is grounded in a particular

ontology. It is generally about the study of culture, and is based on an epistemology which

says that culture can be known through cultural and social settings‖ (Mason, 2002:55).

The researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis

Another characteristic that distinguishes a qualitative study is the role of the researcher as the

main means of data generation. Instead of using detached questionnaires or survey methods

of data collection, the researcher himself serves as the main instrument of data generation and

data analysis. ―The qualitative researcher has the added responsibility of being both the

collector of relevant data … and the culler of meaning from that data, which most often is in the

form of people‘s words and actions‖ (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994:46). Th is presents both

advantages and disadvantages and is perhaps the most disputed area for qualitative

researchers. Among the advantages we should take into consideration the immediately

responsive and adaptive way of conducting an interview that the interviewer may have; this

allows for the researcher to interpret both verbal and nonverbal communication; what is more,

the researcher can process information immediately, s/he has the ability to clarify and

summarize material right on the spot; besides, s/he is able to check with respondents for

accuracy of interpretation, not to mention the possibility to explore unusual or unanticipated

responses.

One of the most controversial issues has to do with bias; naturalists warn about the risks of

biasing the study; however, this ‗bias‘ can be diminished by identifying them and monitoring

them. We will come back to this issue when discussing the role of the researcher.

Research usually involves fieldwork

Indeed, data is collected in the field, not in a created environment. In fact, that is one of the

problems when trying to distinguish between ethnography and case studies, for example, as



both involve data collection at the site under investigation. This is based on the belief that ―The

natural setting is the place where the researcher is most likely to discover, or uncover, what is

to be known about the phenomenon of interest‖ (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994:46). To Brewer,

the ―Ethnographic case study is distinguished by the exploration of the case or cases as they

present themselves naturally in the field and by the researcher‘s direct involvement and

participation in them‖ (2000:77).

Inductive research strategy

In a ‗pure‘ qualitative study, there are no preconceived hypotheses to be tested; quite on the

contrary, much of the task of a qualitative researcher is to ‗produce‘ hypotheses based on the

data he is analysing. It is, in this regard, an inductive process of generating ‗theory‘. It is

exploratory and descriptive in focus since,

"researchers gather data to build concepts, hypotheses, or theories rather than deductively deriving postulates or hypotheses to be tested. … In attempting to understand the meaning a phenomenon has for those involved, qualitative researchers build toward theory from observations and intuitive understandings gleaned from being in the field" (Merriam 2002:6).

Inductive means starting from a single unit of data and compare it to another unit of data, and

so on, looking for common patterns across the data. These are coded (classified) and are

refined and adjusted as the analysis proceeds. The result of such inductive processing of

information might be an attempt to fill an existing gap in the theory or because there is no such

theory to explain the phenomenon.

The product is richly descriptive

What mostly distinguishes a qualitative study from a quantitative one is the kind of report

obtained. A qualitative research report may take many forms, depending on the particular

strategy followed by the researcher, but they will have something in common: they will be

thickly described. The issue of quality versus quantity applies here. A qualitative study relies

heavily on the richness of the description of the phenomenon under study, not with the aim of

generalizing from it, but of portraying a profound description of the people and or situations

involved; a quantitative study bases on the number of responses obtained, no matter how



superficial they may be. Qualitative research sacrifices quantity of responses for quality, it

usually involves a small number of ‗cases‘ which are studied in depth. Importance is given to

the perspectives of those involved in the phenomenon under study and not those of external

people. The aim of this approach to research is to gain an account from an emic

(understanding from within, insiders) perspective. ―Words and pictures rather than numbers

are used to convey what the researcher has learned about the phenomenon. There are likely

to be descriptions of the context, the participants involved, the activities of interest‖ (Merriam,

2002:6). It is very likely that the researcher supports his findings by ‗voicing‘ the participants

through verbatim quotations obtained during interviews, descriptions of events from field

observations and/or documentary evidence.

Sample is purposive or purposeful

The researcher is not in search of a ‗representative‘ group of people from which to generalize

but rather after a number of people who can richly provide information relevant to the study. As

the aim is to provide a thick description of the phenomenon, another principle applies here: the

less the better; so the researcher makes use of people, documents and events that may

provide good accounts of the phenomenon.

"Since qualitative research seeks to understand the meaning of a phenomenon from the perspective of the participants, it is important to select a sample from which most can be learned".

The researcher should work with his eyes wide open in order to detect ‗information-rich’ cases

for study in depth (Patton, 1990, cited in Merriam, 2002: 12). This does not allow for an apriori

selection of informants, making sampling an evolving task/quest.

In these pages I have tried to provide you with a summary of the main methodological

orientations that give foundations to Qualitative Research. I have also presented to you the

features that every qualitative study should have, regardless of the methodological orientation

followed.

U1: Crotty on the Foundations of Social Research: Feedback to Activity L2R108


Below you will find a brief summary of Crotty‘s interesting book on the foundations of social research. I

have clustered a set of quotations taken from the relevant sections of the book as well as a set of

definitions that helped me in understanding qualitative research. However, this should not be sufficient

to grasp Crotty‘s ideas so I strongly suggest that you find the original source or several other sources

explaining the issues here presented.

Relevant definitions:

Methods: the techniques or procedures used to gather and analyse data related to some

research question or hypothesis.

Methodology: the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use

of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes.

Theoretical perspective: the philosophical stance informing the methodology and thus

providing a context for the process and grounding its logic and criteria.

Epistemology: the theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical perspective and thereby

in the methodology.

Research Methods: activities we engaged in so as to gather and analyse our data. … It is

important that we describe these methods as specifically as possible … indicate in very

detailed fashion what kind of interviews they are, what interviewing techniques are employed,

and in what sort of setting the interviews are conducted.

Research methodology: our strategy or plan of action. … what is called here is not only a

description of the methodology but also an account of the rationale it provides for the choice of

methods and the particular forms in which the methods are employed.

Theoretical perspective: the philosophical stance that lies behind our chosen methodology.

We attempt to explain how it provides a context for the process and grounds its logic and

criteria…. We need to state what our assumptions are … a statement of the assumptions

brought to our research task and reflected in the methodology as we understand and employ it.

If, for example, we engage in an ethnographic form of inquiry and gather data via participant

observation, what assumptions are embedded in this way of proceeding? By the very nature of

participant observation, some of the assumptions relate to matters of language and issues of



intersubjectivity and communication. How, then, do we take account of these assumptions and

justify them? By expounding our theoretical perspective, that is, wherein such assumptions are

grounded. (p. 7)

Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical perspective that grounds these assumptions in most

explicit fashion. It deals directly with issues such as language, communication,

interrelationships and community. … symbolic interactionism is all about all those basic social

interactions whereby we enter into the perceptions, attitudes and values of a community,

becoming persons in the process. At its heart is the notion of being able to put ourselves in the

place of others --the very notion we have already expressed in detailing our methodology and

have catered for in the choice and shaping or our methods. (p. 7-8)

Epistemology: the theoretical perspective we have described is a way of looking at the world

and making sense of it. It involves knowledge, therefore, and embodies a certain

understanding of what is entailed in knowing, that is, how we know what we know.

Epistemology deals with 'the nature of knowledge, its possibility, scope and general basis'

(Hamlyn 1995, p. 242). Maynard (1994, p. 10) explains the relevance of epistemology to what

we are about here: 'Epistemology is concerned with providing a philosophical grounding for

deciding what kinds of knowledge are possible and how we can ensure that they are both

adequate and legitimate'. Hence our need to identify, explain and justify the epistemological

stance we have adopted. (p. 8)

Epistemologies

Objectivism: holds that meaning, and therefore meaningful reality, exists as such apart from

the operation of any consciousness. That tree in the forest is a tree, regardless of whether

anyone is aware of its existence or not. As an object of that kind ('objectively', therefore), it

carries the intrinsic meaning of 'tree-ness'. When human beings recognise it as a tree, they are

simply discovering a meaning that has been lying there in wait for them all along. We might

approach our piece of ethnographic research in that spirit. … in this objectivist view of 'what it

means to know', understandings and values are considered to be objectified in the people we

are studying and, if we go about it in the right way, we can discover the objective truth. (p. 8)



Constructionism rejects this view of human knowledge. There is no objective truth waiting for

us to discover it. Truth, or meaning, comes into existence in and out of our engagement with

the realities in our world. There is no meaning without a mind. Meaning is not discovered, but

constructed. In this understanding of knowledge, it is clear that different people may construct

meaning in different ways, even in relation to the same phenomenon. Isn't this precisely what

we find when we move from one era to another or from one culture to another? In this view of

things, subject and object emerge as partners in the generation of meaning. (p. 9)

Subjectivism comes to the fore in structuralist, post-structuralist and postmodernist forms of

thought (and, in addition, often appears to be what people are actually describing when they

claim to be talking about constructionism). In subjectivism, meaning does not come out of an

interplay between subject and object but is imposed on the object by the subject. Here the

object as such makes no contribution to the generation of meaning. It is tempting to say that in

constructionism meaning is constructed out of something (the object), whereas in subjectivism

meaning is created out of nothing. We humans are not creative, however. Even in subjectivism

we make meaning out of something. We import meaning from somewhere else. The meaning

we ascribe to the object may come from our dreams, or from primordial archetypes we locate

within our collective unconscious, or from the conjunction and aspects of the planets, or from

religious beliefs, or from … That is to say, meaning comes from anything but an interaction

between the subject and the object which it is ascribed.(p. 9)

In making a distinction between constructivism and constructionism:

"It would appear useful, then, to reserve the term constructivism for epistemological

considerations focusing exclusively on 'the meaning-making activity of the individual mind' and

to use constructionism where the focus includes 'the collective generation [and transmission] of

meaning." (p. 58)

"Whatever the terminology, the distinction itself is an important one. Constructivism taken in

this sense points up the unique experience of each of us. It suggests that each one's way of

making sense of the world is as valid and worthy of respect as any other, thereby tending to



scotch any hint of a critical spirit. On the other hand, social constructionism emphasizes the

hold our culture has on us: it shapes the way in which we see things (even the way in which

we feel things!) and gives us a quite definite view of the world. This shaping of our minds by

culture is to be welcomed as what makes us human and endows us with the freedom we

enjoy. For all that, there are socials constructionists aplenty who recognise that it is limiting as

well as liberating and warn that, while welcome, it must also be called into question. On these

terms, it can be said that constructivism tends to resist the critical spirit, while constructionism

tends to foster it." (p. 58)

"Theoretical perspective is being taken here to mean the philosophical stance behind a

methodology." (p. 66)

Interpretivism (a theoretical perspective) emerged in contradistinction to positivism in attempts

to understand and explain human and social reality. … The interpretivist approach … looks for

culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life-world." (p. 67,

emphasis in original)

The interpretative stance to research has its origins in hermeneutics, phenomenology and

symbolic interactionism.

"What we understand today as Verstehen [German for understanding] or interpretivist

approach to human inquiry has appeared historically in many guises. … in its historical order of

appearance, these are hermeneutics, phenomenology, and symbolic interactionism." (p. 71)

[Symbolic interactionism and phenomenology] contrast with each other quite sharply in their

attitude towards culture as our inherited meaning system. Symbolic interactionism explores the

understandings abroad in culture as the meaningful matrix that guides our lives.

Phenomenology, however, treats culture with a good measure of caution and suspicion. Our

culture may be enabling but, paradoxically, it is also crippling. While it offers us entrée to a

comprehensive set of meanings, it shuts us from an abundant font of untapped significance."

(p. 71)



Symbolic interactionism

"Methodologically, the implication of the symbolic interactionist perspective is that the actor's

view of actions, objects, and society has to be studied seriously. The situation must be seen as

the actors sees it, the meanings of objects and acts must be determined in terms of the actor's

meanings, and the organization of a course of action must be understood as the actor

organizes it. The role of the actor in the situation would have to be taken by the observer in

order to see the social world from his perspective. (p. 75, citing Psathas, 1973, pp. 6-7)

Some interpretive sociologists --those identified as 'symbolic interactionists' for example --are

content to operate with a relatively naïve set of assumptions about how we come to know

about social phenomena. They are prepared to accept the meanings that the actors attribute to

social phenomena at face value, and proceed to erect their systematic interpretations on these

foundations. This implies that the sociological observer must exercise sufficient discipline on

himself to ensure that it is indeed the actor's meanings that are recorded in his notebook and

not merely his own. (p. 75, citing Mitchel 1977, pp. 115-16)

Methodologically, symbolic interactionism directs the investigator to take, to the best of his

ability, the standpoint of those studied. (p. 75, citing Denzin 1978, p. 99)

This role taking is an interaction. it is symbolic interaction, for it is possible only because of the

'significant symbols' --that is, language and other symbolic tools-- that we humans share and

through which we communicate. Only through dialogue can one become aware of the

perceptions, feelings and attitudes of others and interpret their meanings and intent. Hence the

term 'symbolic interactionism'. (p. 75-6)

"Given the emphasis on putting oneself in the place of the other and seeing things from the

perspective of others, it is not surprising that symbolic interactionism should take to its bosom

the research methodology developed within cultural anthropology, that is, ethnography."

For ethnography, as for the symbolic interactionism that now commonly form its matrix, the

notion of taking the place of other is central.



"… ethnography is a form of research in which the social settings to be studied, however

familiar to the researcher, must be treated as anthropologically strange; and the task is to

document the culture --the perspectives and practices-- of the people in these settings. The

aim is to 'get inside' the way each group of people sees the world. (p. 76, citing Hammersley

1985, p. 152)

Phenomenology

[In the English speaking world] phenomenology is generally seen as a study of people's

subjective and everyday experiences. …researchers claiming to be phenomenological talk of

studying experience from the 'point of view' or 'perspective' of the subject. … If they talk at all

of 'phenomenon', it is either used interchangeably with 'experience' or presented as an

essence distilled from everyday accounts of experience, a total synthesised from partial

accounts." (p.83)

"The phenomenology of the phenomenological movement is a first-person exercise. Each of us

must explore our own experience, not the experience of others, for no one can take that step

'back to the things themselves' on our behalf." (p.83)

Hermeneutics

"The hermeneutic mode of understanding assumes an affinity of some kind between text and

reader … [texts] are means of transmitting meaning --experiences, beliefs, values-- from one

person or community to another. Hermeneutics assumes a link between the two that makes

the exercise feasible". (p.90-91)

Implications of this understanding:

1. it obviously grounds the meaning of texts in more than their sheerly semantic

significance (intentions and histories of author, relationship between author and

interpreter, or the particular relevance of texts for readers, need to be taken into

account)

2. hermeneutics as 'sharing of meaning between communities of persons is already to

indicate that it has practical purposes in view. … determination of meaning is a matter

of practical judgment and common sense, not just abstract theorising." (p.91)



"It is now become commonplace to say that 'we all interpret'. However, hermeneutics --the

critical theory of interpretation--is the only current in western thought that has made this issue

its own, notwithstanding its presence in both Marxism and that so-called science of

phenomena, Phenomenology. Through hermeneutics, interpretation has become part of our

cultural self-understanding that only as historically and culturally located beings can we

articulate ourselves in relation to others and the world in general. (p.91, citing Rundell 1995, p.

10)

Crotty, M. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage

U1: Research Traditions: Activity L2R111


Introduction

In the following pages, you will find a summary of five research traditions usually employed to

investigate educational phenomenon. Once more, the summary is only presented with the aim

of providing you an introduction to them. You are strongly suggested to find other sources to

further understand the research tradition of your choice, the one you will use in your particular

study. The texts on Action Research and Conversation Analysis are taken from Richards‘

(2003) excellent book on Qualitative Inquiry (a must for you). The following summaries on

Ethnography, Case Story and Life History are taken from Merriam‘s (2002) outstanding book

on qualitative research, which illustrates these and other traditions. Although it is not aimed at

educational researchers, I strongly recommend you consult it as in each chapter –i-e. each

tradition— Merriam presents a sample study using each tradition.



Action research

Basic position

Although this research tradition is also firmly case-based, it represents a move from a

descriptive/interpretive stance to an interventionist position, where a key aim of the research is

to understand better some aspect of professional practice as a means of bringing about

improvement. This may involve institution-wide investigation, producing recommendations that

are implemented by relevant groups, the new practices being assessed by the researchers,

who report back and, if necessary, recommend further changes or refinements. Alliteratively,

an individual may engage in action research with a view to improving their own practice.

Participatory or emancipatory action research involves groups of concerned practitioners who

work together to improve not only their own practice but also the situation in which they work.

As two leading proponents of this approach note, its aims are not merely instrumental:

There are two essential aims of action research: to improve and to involve. Action

research aims at improvement in three areas: firstly, the improvement of a practice;

secondly, the improvement of the understanding of the practice by its practitioners;

and thirdly, the improvement of the situation in which the practice takes place. The

aim of involvement stands shoulder to shoulder with the aim of improvement (Can

and Kemmis 1986:165, original italics).

The element of personal and professional investment in the research itself and in its outcomes

is another aspect that marks this research as different from the other traditions described here.

Methods used

The characteristic approach associated with this tradition is the action research spiral of

planning -- acting and observing -- reflecting-- planning, and so on. (The following description

follows a tradition familiar in TESOL and focuses on the practitioner-researcher, though it is

possible for the researcher not to be involved in the practice.) The process begins with

reflection on some aspect of the practitioner researcher‘s work that leads to possible lines of

intervention, then once the nature of the intervention has been decided a plan is developed



and implemented within the context of professional practice. The implementation is monitored

by the practitioner-researcher(s) (and possibly others, in the case of a tea m project or

complementary projects) and when analysis of this leads to a better understanding of relevant

processes, this is used as the basis for further reflection, which in turn may indicate the need

to plan further intervention. The description suggests an eternal cycle spiralling through a

professional life, but in practice there will be limits to what is possible or desirable, and a

project may concentrate on a single cycle. The data sources we have seen in the first three

traditions (interviews, recordings, documents, observation) may be used here to inform the

planning and to provide a picture of the implementation, though journal keeping by the

practitioner-researcher is perhaps more prominent than in other traditions.

Possible outcomes of research

The language teacher in our hypothetical TESOL situation might reflect on their treatment of

new students and decide that intervention would be appropriate. The nature of appropriate

intervention might be apparent to the teacher, or it may be necessary to wait for a new intake,

keep a journal and record lessons in order to build up a picture of the ways in which induction

is handled in class. Analysis of this might reveal very prescriptive teacher-centred approaches

that are not conducive to building a classroom community, so the teacher might develop a set

of more appropriate strategies for achieving this end. These strategies could then be

implemented with the next intake and their success evaluated on the basis of journals,

recordings and perhaps interviews.

Some key concepts

Action research is typically associated with a cycle of activities and the term empowerment is

often associated with its outcomes. Where this is used, it embeds the research within a

professional context where the practitioner seeks, through deeper understanding and

intervention to bring about changes in their working practices and to explore the emancipatory

potential of their activities.



Potential relevance to TESOL

In the light of its popularity, the case for action research in TESOL perhaps does not need to

be made (for an eloquent expression of its value, see Edge 2001b), but its legitimacy as a

serious research tradition needs to be underlined. Provided that appropriate methods of data

collection and analysis are used, it offers a potentially rich source of professional

understanding (and incentive to action) derivable from the fuIly articulated particular case.

Challenges

Unfortunately, the status of action research has not been accepted in all quarters because its

popularity with practitioner-researchers and with others involved in professional development

has led to the term being applied to a wide range of practices, some of them falling far

short of the minimum criteria for acceptable Qualitative Inquiry. Its instrumental

orientation wiIl always bring with it this risk, but that should not be aIlowed to undermine

its appeal to the serious researcher.



Conversation analysis

Basic position

This tradition originated in a series of lectures delivered by Harvey Sacks in the 1960s in

which he used the careful analysis of conversation to highlight significant aspects of

social organisation. For him, ordinary conversation provides a unique insight into the

ways in which people understand and represent their social world. The analytic emphasis

faIls on how speakers jointly construct conversation and their shared understanding of

what is happening in it, or ‗the means by which individuals participating in the same

interaction can reach a shared interpretation of its constituent activities and of the rules to

which they are designed to conform‘ (Taylor and Cameron 1987:103).

Methods used

Conversational analysis (CA) focuses on the sequential development of the conversation:

how each turn relates to what has gone before and looks forward to what will foIlow.

Nothing is considered in isolation and everything is interpreted in terms of the

participants' own understanding of it as revealed in their talk; there are no appeals to

wider social rules or to extraneous con textual factors. Utterances, like actions, are context

shaped and context renewing (Drew and Heritage 1992:18). When Sacks said 'do not let

your notion of what could conceivably happen decide for you what must have happened'

(1985:15), he was drawing attention to an analytical stance that finds expression in four

fundamental methodological rules:

1. Use naturally occurring data. This is the most basic condition of research: invented data is never

used, even for the purposes of illustration. Sacks emphasises the point repeatedly: 'the kind of

phenomenal deal with are always transcriptions of actual occurrences in their actual sequence'

(1984:25).

2. Move from observation to hypothesis. Conversation analysis is not hypothesis testing. The

analyst's aim is to treat the talk as something fresh, something to be approached on

its own terms.



3. Rule nothing out. This derives directly from the first two points and might therefore be

subsumed under them. Atkinson and Heritage (1984a:4) make the point weIl: 'nothing

that occurs in interaction can be ruled out, a priori, as random, insignificant, or

irrelevant'.

4. Focus on sequences. Because conversation is jointly constructed, we must treat each

utterance in the context of its response to what has gone before and its relevance to

what follows; isolated turns or utterances do not represent legitimate units of analysis.

Possible outcomes of research

A CA project might focus on an aspect of classroom interaction such as the way in which

certain talk is oriented to by the class. Perhaps a new overseas teacher has recently

begun to teach an intermediate class and there seems to be something unusual about

the ways in which certain teacher turns are received, even though it is not immediately

clear what is distinctive about them. By collecting lots of examples of classroom talk,

transcribing extended sequences in which this phenomenon occurs as well as others

where the response is different, and analysing these carefuIly, the researcher might

discover that the teacher's turn in these cases has particular features to which the

students are demonstrably orienting, so that the exchanges develop in quite a distinctive

way. This might then provide valuable information about the nature of interaction in this

classroom and perhaps open up possibilities that might otherwise have remained

unnoticed.

Some key concepts

Much of the vocabulary in CA relates to the sequential evidence of jointly constructed

talk, where participant design and procedural relevance (or consequence) are important.

Specific features of this include turn-taking, repair of talk, preference organisation and pre-

sequences, terms that will feature in analyses in Chapter 4.



Potential relevance to TESOL

In a profession with language at its heart, an analytical tradition such as CA will always

have a contribution to make, and particular areas of interest are likely to be those of

classroom interaction and cross-cultural encounters. These and other potential topics are

discussed in Schegloff et al. (2002).

Challenges

Although the influence of CA is growing, it is methodologically very demanding and

requires a ferocious attention to detail that not all researchers can muster. Some critics

have also argued that its insistence on looking only at what can be discovered in the talk

means that its contribution to our understanding, however valuable in itself, must

necessarily remain very limited. However, in Chapter 4 I adopt an analytic approach that

draws heavily on this tradition precisely because of its rigorous approach and its refusal

to be distracted by aspects extraneous to the talk itself.



ethnography

An ethnographic study is one that focuses on human society with the goal of describing and

interpreting the culture of a group. Historically associated with the field of anthropology,

ethnography has come to refer to both the method (how the researcher conducts the study)

and the product (a cultural description of human social life). This dual use of the term has led

to some confusion in what is called ethnography; that is, the mere use of data-gathering

techniques associated with ethnography does not result in an ethnography unless there is a

cultural interpretation of those data. ―Ethnographies re-create for the reader the shared beliefs,

practices, artifacts, folk knowledge, and behavior of some group‖ (LeCompte & Preissle,

1993:42).

Culture, the cornerstone of ethnography, has been studied from a number of perspectives.

One common approach is to view culture as the knowledge people have acquired that in turn

structures their worldview and their behavior. Working from this framework, the researcher

would be interested in describing what people do, what they know, and what things people

make and use. Another approach is to see culture as embodied in the signs, symbols, and

language or the semiotics of culture. Here the research would focus more on understanding

the meaning and importance of what is said and what is taken for granted. A more recent

approach called ―critical‖ ethnography accounts for the historical, social, and economical

situations. Critical ethnographers realize the structures caused by these situations and their

value-laden agendas. Critical ethnographers see themselves as blue-collar ‗cultural workers‘

(Giroux, 1992) attempting to broaden the political dimensions of cultural work while

undermining existing oppressive systems‖ (Fontana & Frey, 1994:369).

An ethnographic study involves extensive fieldwork wherein one becomes intimately familiar

with the group being studied. As Van Maanen (1982:103-104) notes: ―The result of

ethnographic inquiry is cultural description. It is, however, a description of the sort that can

emerge only from a lengthy period of intimate study and residence in a given social setting. It

calls for the language spoken in that setting, first-hand participation in some of the activities



that take place there, and, most critically, a deep reliance on intensive work with a few

informants drawn from the setting.‖

Immersion in the site as participant observer is the primary method of data collection for

ethnography. Interviews, formal and informal, and the analysis of documents, records, and

artifacts also constitute the data set along with a field-worker‘s diary of each day‘s happenings,

personal feelings, ideas, impressions, or insights with regard to those events. This diary

becomes a source of data and allows researchers to trace their own development and biases

throughout the course of the investigation.

At the heart of an ethnography is ―thick description‖ – a term popularized by Geertz (1983).

―Culture,‖ he writes, ―is not a power, something to which social events, behaviors, institutions,

or processes can be causally attributed; it is a context, something within which they can be

intelligibly –that is, thickly—described‖ (p. 14). The write-up of an ethnography is more than

description, however. While the ethnographers want to convey the meanings participants make

of their lives, they do so with some interpretation on their part (Wolcott, 1999).

Ethnographers arrive at the cultural interpretation of their data through various data analysis

strategies. Anthropologists sometimes make use of preexisting category schemes to organize

and analyze their data.

For ethnographies in education and other applied fields, the classification scheme is likely to

be derived from the data themselves. This is called the ―emic‖ perspective, that of the insider to

the culture, versus the ―etic‖, that of the researcher or outsider. If the topics within the scheme

are seen to be interrelated, a typology may be created. Whatever the origin of the organizing

concepts or themes, some sort of organization of the data is needed to convey to the reader

the sociocultural patterns characteristic of the group under study. It is not enough, then, to

describe the cultural practices of the group; the researcher also depicts his or her

understanding of the cultural meaning of the phenomenon.



Ethnographic studies imply a methodological approach with specific procedures, techniques

and methods of analysis. Most ethnographic studies in educational research are designed to

influence educational policy and practice. Educational ethnography has grown rapidly because

of dissatisfaction with the limitations of traditional quantitative design. In essence, this

approach requires a trained person who becomes a participant observer in the classroom or

other natural location in which the subjects of the study conduct their activities. The researcher

conducts an in-depth study of some or all aspects of a cultural, social or ethnic group or even

of an entire community.

Wolcott (1988:87) found it useful ‗… to distinguish between anthropologically informed

researchers who do ethnography and … researchers who frequently draw on ethnographic

approaches in doing descriptive studies‘. As language teachers we are in adavantegous

position to ‗do‘ ethnography, provided we situate ourselves in the second category: an EFL

teacher drawing on ethnographic approaches in doing descriptive studies.

Most observational research is undertaken by researchers who have already formed some

hypotheses and their observations are designed to collect specific information related to those

hypotheses [= ethnographic approach to research]. Yet, the essence of an ethnographic study

is that the researcher starts with no specific hypotheses [= pure ethnography] This issue will be

explored at length when dealing with Critical Voiced Research.

In educational research, the ethnographic approach presents a number of problems: the

presence of an outsider in the natural setting may change the behaviour of those being

studied, particularly if the observational phase is of short duration. Therefore, it is essential

that, in analysing the data, this issue is kept in mind. Educational researchers are often

criticized for adopting ethnographic techniques since they tend to deviate from the procedures

developed by anthropologists.

Despite its limitations and difficulty, the ethnographic approach has unique benefits. At its best,

it provides data unobtainable by other means and, as we have seen, can generate hypotheses

which can then be tested by other techniques.



case study

Most of us have encounter case studies in our training as professionals and in our work in

applied fields of practice. However, despite its prevalence in the literature, ―the phrase ‗case

study‘ … is not used in any standard way‖ (Hammersley & Gomm, 200:1) and is often used

interchangeably with other QR terms. The fact that a lawyer, a social worker, a medical doctor,

and even a detective can be involved in research on a ‗case‘ further clouds the issue as to

what constitutes case study research. While some define case study research in terms of the

process of doing a case study (Yin, 1994), or in terms of the end product, other scholars define

the case in terms of the unit of analysis. As Stake (2000:235) suggests, case study is less of a

methodological choice than ―a choice of what is to be studied.‖ The ‗what‘ is a bounded system

(Smith, 1978), a single entity, a unit around which there are boundaries. The case then has a

finite quality about it either in terms of time (the evolution or history of a particular program),

space (the case is located in a particular place), and/or components comprising the case

(number of participants, for example). Stake (1995:2) clarifies the bounded system as follows:

―The case study could be a child. It could be a classroom of children or a particular mobilization of professionals to study a childhood condition. The case is one among others. … An innovative program may be a case. All the schools in Sweden can be a case. But a relationship among schools, the reason for innovative teaching, or the policies of school reform are less commonly considered a case. These topics are generalities rather than specifics. The case is a specific, complex, functioning thing.‖

While the study of a bounded system can include historical, quantitative as well as qualitative

data, the focus on case studies in this guide is qualitative. Qualitative case studies share with

other forms of QR the search for meaning and understanding, the researcher as the primary

instrument of data collection and analysis, an inductive investigative strategy, and the end

product being richly descriptive. Of course defining a case study in terms of the unit of

analysis, the bounded system, allows for any number of qualitative strategies to be combined

with the case. Ethnography is one of the most common. Ethnographic case studies are studies

focusing on the sociocultural interpretation of a particular cultural group; grounded theory can

be built within a case, and people‘s stories could be presented as narrative case studies.



The process of conducting a case study begins with the selection of the ‗case‘. The selection is

done purposely, not randomly; that is, a particular person, site, programme, process,

community, or other bounded system is selected because it exhibits characteristics of interest

to the researcher. The case might be unique or typical, representative of a common practice,

or never before encountered. The selection depends upon what you want to learn and the

significance that knowledge might have for extending theory or improving practice. Often, one

must select samples within the case as for example when studying a school. Who should be

interviewed? When and which activities should be observed? Except for the selection of a

―bounded system,‖ qualitative case study researchers proceed in data collection and data

analysis like other qualitative researchers. The findings of the investigation are written up as a

comprehensive description of the case. And as Stake (2000) notes, there are a number of

stylistic options for this case write-up including ―how much to make the report a story,‖ and

―how much to compare with other cases‖ (p. 448).

Perhaps because a case study focuses on a single unit, a single instance, the issue of

generalizability looms larger here than with other types of QR. However, as several writers

point out, much can be learned from a particular case (Merriam, 1998). Readers can learn

vicariously with an encounter with the case through the researcher‘s narrative description

(Stake, 2000). The colorful description in a case study can create an image – ―a vivid portrait of

excellent teaching, for example— can become a prototype that can be used in the education of

teachers or for the appraisal of teaching‖ (Eisner, 1991:91). Further, Erickson (1986) argues

that since the general lies in the particular, what we learn in a particular case can be

transferred to similar situations. It is the reader, not the researcher, who determines what can

apply to his or her context. Stake (2000:442) explains how this knowledge transfer works:

―Case researchers, like others, pass along to readers some of their personal meanings of events and relationships –and fail to pass along others. They know that the reader, too, will add and subtract, invent and shape – reconstructing the knowledge in ways that leave it… more likely to be personally useful.‖



Stake goes on further to sustain that:

"An essential feature of case study is that sufficient data are collected for researchers to be able to explore significant features of the case and to put forward interpretations of what is observed. Another essential feature is that the study is conducted mainly in its natural context." Case study is study of a singularity conducted in depth in natural settings. (p. 47)

Ethnographic Case Studies

There can be a combination of traditions such as ethnographic case studies, which make up a

yet another way of approaching educational phenomenon. In the selection of quotes below, I

intend to provide how some other authors have made sense of this:

Hitchcock and Huges (1995:320) define ―… case study methods will get as close to the

subjects as they possibly can, partly to the access to subjective factors (thoughts, feelings and

desires)‖. Bassey (1999:47) defines case study as ―[the] study of a singularity conducted in

depth in natural settings‖. To Bassey, a case is singular when it is conducted within a localized

boundary of space and time and focuses in a particular set of events. Thus, case study is the

study of a specific set of events located within clearly defined boundaries conducted in natural

settings.

―… ethnographic case study is the research approach that offers most to teachers because its principal rationale is to reproduce social action in its natural setting … and it can be used to develop new theory or improve and evaluate existing professional practice‖ (Hitchcock & Huges, 1995:323).

―It has been argued that, in general, case studies are the preferred strategy when ‗How‘ and ‗Why‘ questions are being posed. When the investigator has little control over events or when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context then it is here that the case study will come into its own‖ (Hitchcock & Huges, 1995:322).



It is the use of a limited bounded system, which may be reduced to the study of a single

person that makes case studies the point of attack. It is difficult to generalize from a case

study; however, there are theorists who believe this can be done (Bassey 1999, Hitchcock and

Huges, 1995, Brewer, 2000). To comment on the issue of whether researchers can generalize

from case studies is not the issue in this paper so I will not follow the discussion further. I will

limit to take the position that much can be learnt from the study of a particular case.



life history

Life history is a form of QR growing in popularity. Narratives are first-person accounts of

experience that are in story format having a beginning, middle, and end. Other terms for these

stories of experience are biography, life history, oral history, auto-ethnography, and

autobiography. Although informed by a myriad of disciplines, and theoretical perspectives,

―most scholars … concur that all forms of narrative share the fundamental interest in making

sense of experience, the interest in constructing and communicating meaning‖ (Chase, 1995:

1). The same story for example, could reveal how culture shapes understanding, how

developmental change affects personal identity (Rossier, 1999), how language structures the

meaning of experience. But the recognition that stories are powerful tools for understanding is

not limited to the world of research. Storytelling has found its way into therapy, education, and

even the workplace. Durance (1997:26), for example, writes that ―the story is our oldest,

proven motivational tool, and it‘s now being used in corporations large and small to motivate

and educate employees and to consolidate corporate culture. … A story … carries the share

culture, beliefs, and history of a group. Moreover, it is a means of experiencing our lives.‖

The story is a basic communicative and meaning-making device pervasive in human

experience; it is no wonder that stories have moved center stage as a source of understanding

of the human condition. First-person accounts from experience form the narrative ―text‖ of this

research approach. Whether the account is in the form of autobiography, life history, interview,

journal, letters, or other material that we collect ―as we compose our lives‖ (Clandinin &

Connelly, 1994:420), the text is analyzed via the techniques of a particular discipline or

perspective.

There are several methodological approaches to dealing with the narrative. Each approach

examines, in some way, how the story is constructed, what linguistic tools are used, and the

cultural context of the story. Biographical, psychological, and linguistical approaches are the

most common.



In Denzin‘s (1989) biographical approach, the story is analyzed in terms of the importance and

influence of gender and race, family of origin, life events and turning point experiences, and

other persons in the participant‘s life. The psychological approach concentrates more on the

personal, including thoughts and motivations. This approach ―emphasizes inductive processes,

contextualized knowledge, and human intention. …[It] is holistic in that it acknowledges the

cognitive, affective, and motivational dimensions of meaning making. It also takes into account

the biological and environmental influences on development‖ (Rossiter, 1999:78).

The growing popularity of narrative as a means of accessing human action and experience has

been accompanied by discussions as to how to best tell people‘s stories, the role of the

researcher in the process, and how trustworthy these narratives are in terms of validity and

reliability. In a thoughtful discussion of these points, Mishler (1995:117) reminds us that ―we do

not find stories; we make stories.‖ In fact, we ―retell our respondents‘ accounts through our

analytic redescriptions. We, too, are storytellers and through our concepts and methods –our

research strategies, data samples, transcription procedures, specifications of narrative units

and structures, and interpretive perspectives—we construct the story and its meaning. In this

sense, the story is always coauthored, either directly in the process of an interviewer eliciting

an account or indirectly through our representing and thus transforming others‘ texts and

discourses‖ (ibid. 117-118).

U1: A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated: Activity L2R111


A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated Thomas Groenewald Professional Educational Services, University of South Africa, Florida, South Africa

Abstract

This article distills the core principles of a phenomenological research design and, by means of

a specific study, illustrates the phenomenological methodology. After a brief overview of the

developments of phenomenology, the research paradigm of the specific study follows.

Thereafter the location of the data, the data-gathering the data-storage methods are explained.

Unstructured in-depth phenomenological interviews supplemented by memoing, essays by

participants, a focus group discussion and field notes were used. The data explicitation, by

means of a simplified version of Hycner’s (1999) process, is further explained. The article

finally contains commentary about the validity and truthfulness measures, as well as a

synopsis of the findings of the study.

Keywords: phenomenology, methodology, Husserl Citation Information:

Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1). Article 4. Retrieved [15 October 2008] from http://www.ualberta.ca/iiqm/backissues/3_1/pdf/groenewald.pdf



Introduction

Novice researchers are often overwhelmed by the plethora of research methodologies, making

the selection of an appropriate research design for a particular study difficult. The aim of this

article is to illustrate to researchers, both novce and experienced but with little experience in

phenomenology, a thorough design, complete with an explication of how it was implemented.

Following seven years of study of research methodology (including periods of formal study, as

well as the attendance of short courses and self study) I came to the conclusion that one

needs a grasp of a vast range of research methodologies in order to select the most

appropriate design, or combination of designs, most suitable for a particular study. One further

needs to make a thorough study of the methodology(ies) chosen, to execute good research

practice. Often, authors contradict one another, which requires that researchers need to

exercise well informed choices, make their choice known and substantiate it.

I wanted to do research regarding an aspect of teaching and learning practice, namely co-

operative education, which, based on my experience and literature review, I found to be often

misunderstood or poorly practised. Needing a suitable explorative research design that would

prevent or restrict my own biases, after some investigation I chose phenomenology. Having

selected a suitable research design, I found that the Rand Afrikaans University library held a

collection in excess of 250 titles on phenomenology. Most of the titles are shelved under

philosophy and the remainder with psychology, literature/languages, education and sociology.

However, I experienced major difficulty in finding literature that provides guidelines on

conducting phenomenological research Therefore, although I do not regard this article

authoritative, I offer it as a guide to spare other researchers some agony.

This article includes a briefly explanation of phenomenology as research paradigm, followed by

an exposition of the research design as it unfolded for a particular study (Groenewald, 2003).

This includes the location of the research participants, the data-gathering and data-storage

methods used, and the explicitation of the data. An informed consent agreement and an

example of the various explicitation phases of one of the interviews are further included.

Because the aim of the article is to illustrate a phenomenological study, the literature review of



the actual study is not included and only a synopsis of the findings is given. An overview of

phenomenology follows.

What is phenomenology?

Europe lay in ruins at the end of World War One (1914 – 1918). Eagleton (1983, p. 54)

captures the situation vividly:

The social order of European capitalism had been shaken to its roots by the carnage of the

war and its turbulent aftermath. The ideologies on which that order had customarily depended,

the cultural values by which it ruled, were also in deep turmoil. Science seemed to have

dwindled to a sterile positivism, a myopic obsession with the categorizing of facts; philosophy

appeared torn between such a positivism on the one hand, and an indefensible subjectivism

on the other; forms of relativism and irrationalism were rampant, and art reflected this

bewildering loss of bearings.

In the context of this ideological crisis, the German philosopher, Edmund Husserl (1859 –

1938), ―sought to develop a new philosophical method which would lend absolute certainty to a

disintegrating civilization‖ (Eagleton, 1983, p. 54). Although the origins of phenomenology can

be traced back to Kant and Hegel, Vandenberg (1997, p. 11) regards Husserl as ―the

fountainhead of phenomenology in the twentieth century‖.

Husserl rejected the belief that objects in the external world exist independently and that the

information about objects is reliable. He argued that people can be certain about how things

appear in, or present themselves to, their consciousness (Eagleton, 1983; Fouche, 1993). To

arrive at certainty, anything outside immediate experience must be ignored, and in this way the

external world is reduced to the contents of personal consciousness. Realities are thus treated

as pure ‗phenomena‘ and the only absolute data from where to begin. Husserl named his

philosophical method ‗phenomenology‘, the science of pure ‗phenomena‘ (Eagleton, 1983, p.

55). The aim of phenomenology is the return to the concrete, captured by the slogan ‗Back to

the things themselves!‘ (Eagleton, 1983, p. 56; Kruger, 1988, p. 28; Moustakas, 1994, p. 26).

Holloway points out that Husserl was a student of Franz Brentano (1838 – 1917), who

provided the basis for phenomenology. Brentano first stressed the ‗intentional nature of

consciousness‘ or the ‗internal experience of being conscious of something‘ (Holloway, 1997,



p. 117). A student of Husserl, Martin Heidegger (1889 – 1976), introduced the concept of

‗Dasein‘ or ‗Being there‘ and the dialogue between a person and her world. Heidegger and

Husserl respectively explored the ‗lived-world‘ and ‗Lebenswelt‘ in terms of an average

existence in an ordinary world (Schwandt, 1997). A follower, Alfred Schultz (1899 – 1956),

furthered the idea that ―the human world comprises various provinces of meaning‖

(Vandenberg, 1997, p. 7). The existential phenomenology of Heidegger was carried forward by

among others Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 – 1980) and Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908 – 1961). The

works of Sartre and Merleau-Ponty extensively expanded the influence of Husserl and

Heidegger (Vandenberg, 1997).

However, by 1970, phenomenology ―had not yet establish[ed] itself as a viable alternative to

the traditional natural scientific approach in psychological research‖ (Stones, 1988, p. 141).

The reason, according to Giorgi ( as cited in Stones), was that a phenomenological praxis, a

systematic and sustained way, had not yet been developed (Schwandt, 1997). In this regard,

Lippitz (1997, p. 69) remarked that after phenomenology flourished ―during the first twenty

years after the Second World War, this approach was forgotten for a while‖. However, in the

1970s, phenomenological psychologists established a praxis, which is a methodological

realisation of the phenomenological philosophical attitude (Stones, 1988).

For Giorgi, the operative word in phenomenological research is ‗describe‘. The aim of the

researcher is to describe as accurately as possible the phenomenon, refraining from any pre-

given framework, but remaining true to the facts. According to Welman and Kruger (1999, p.

189) ―the phenomenologists are concerned with understanding social and psychological

phenomena from the perspectives of people involved‖. Husserl‘s philosophical phenomenology

provided a point of departure for Alfred Schultz who turned it ―toward the ways in which

ordinary members of society attend to their everyday lives‖ (Gubrium & Holstein, 2000, pp.

488-489). A researcher applying phenomenology is concerned with the lived experiences of

the people (Greene, 1997; Holloway, 1997; Kruger, 1988; Kvale, 1996; Maypole & Davies,

2001; Robinson & Reed, 1998) involved, or who were involved, with the issue that is being

researched. The words of Van den Berg, translated by Van Manen (1997, p. 41) profoundly

capture what is stated in this paragraph:



[Phenomena] have something to say to us — this is common knowledge among poets and painters. Therefore, poets and painters are born phenomenologists. Or rather, we are all born phenomenologists; the poets and painters among us, however, understand very well their task of sharing, by means of word and image, their insights with others — an artfulness that is also laboriously practised by the professional phenomenologist.

Holloway (1997) states that researchers who use phenomenology are reluctant to prescribe

techniques. Hycner (1999, p. 143) concurs by stating that ―[t]here is an appropriate reluctance

on the part of phenomenologists to focus too much on specific steps‖. He goes on to say that

one cannot impose method on a phenomenon ―since that would do a great injustice to the

integrity of that phenomenon‖ (p. 144). However, some guidelines are necessary, especially for

novice researchers.

Now that phenomenology has been explored, the following section outlines how the research

unfolded. It starts with a synopsis of the research paradigm, then a description of the locating

of the research participants, followed by the data-gathering methods, whereafter data-storage

methods are outlined. Thereafter follows an explanation of the explicitation of the data

(comprising several stages).

How the study unfolded

The research paradigm of a study undertaken

A good research-undertaking starts with the selection of the topic, problem or area of interest,

as well as the paradigm (Creswell, 1994; Mason, 1996). Stanage (1987) traced ‗paradigm‘

back to its Greek (paradeigma) and Latin origins (paradigma) meaning pattern, model or

example. A paradigm is the patterning of the thinking of a person; it is a principal example

among examples, an exemplar or model to follow according to which design actions are taken.

Differently stated, a paradigm is an action of submitting to a view (Stanage, 1987). This view is

supported by Denzin and Lincoln (2000, p. 157) who define a research paradigm as ―a basic

set of beliefs that guide action‖, dealing with first principles, ‗ultimates‘ or the researcher‘s

worldviews.

A researcher‘s epistemology according to Holloway (1997), Mason (1996) and Creswell (1994)

is literally her theory of knowledge, which serves to decide how the social phenomena will be



studied. My epistemological position regarding the study I undertook can be formulated as

follows: a) data are contained within the perspectives of people that are involved with co-

operative education programmes, either in a co-ordinating capacity or as programme

participant; and b) because of this I engaged with the participants in collecting the data.

Based on Davidson (2000) and Jones (2001), I identified a phenomenological methodology as

the best means for this type of study. Phenomenologists, in contrast to positivists, believe that

the researcher cannot be detached from his/her own presuppositions and that the researcher

should not pretend otherwise (Hammersley, 2000). In this regard, Mouton and Marais (1990, p.

12) state that individual researchers ―hold explicit beliefs‖. The intention of this research, at the

outset (preliminary focus), was to gather data regarding the perspectives of research

participants about the phenomenon of the growing of talent and the contribution of co-

operative education in this process.

For the sake of clarity of this illustration by example, I consider it necessary to specify what I

mean when referring to co-operative education and talent. In the first instance, the

International Dictionary of Adult and Continuing Education (Jarvis & Wilson, 1999, p. 37)

defines co-operative education and co-operative programme respectively as follow:

A form of education in which the school [educational institution] and the occupational field co-operate in order to provide a joint educational programme with alternate attendance in both school and work. A concept used in US [United States of America] education. The US equivalent of the sandwich course in the United Kingdom, where a student spends blocks of time in an educational institution and blocks in the workplace. Courses of this nature are usually either at professional qualification or undergraduate level.

The second term, talent, is generally understood to mean the natural endowments of a person,

a special aptitude (often creative or artistic), a gift, or high mental ability/ intelligence. Michaels,

Handfield-Jones, and Axelrod (2001), three consultants at McKinsey & Company, coined the

phrases ‗the war for talent‘ and ‗the talent mind-set‘, based on the belief that the sustained

success of business enterprises depends on acquiring and retaining talent at all levels of the

organisation. They define talent in terms of key employees who are characterised by an astute

strategic mind, leadership ability, good communication skills, the ability to draw and inspire



people, having entrepreneurial instincts, possessing the relevant functional skills, and able to

deliver results.

So far, I have explained what is meant by phenomenology and outlined the research paradigm

of completed research undertaking. In the next section I discuss the research sample, or more

appropriately in a qualitative research design of this nature, how the research participants were

located.

Locating the research participants/informants

According to Hycner (1999, p. 156) ―the phenomenon dictates the method (not vice-versa)

including even the type of participants.‖ I chose purposive sampling, considered by Welman

and Kruger (1999) as the most important kind of non-probability sampling, to identify the

primary participants. I selected the sample based on my judgement and the purpose of the

research (Babbie, 1995; Greig & Taylor, 1999; Schwandt, 1997), looking for those who ―have

had experiences relating to the phenomenon to be researched‖ (Kruger, 1988 p. 150) . I made

use of Internet searches and telephonic inquiry to the offices of the academic vice-principals of

all higher education institutions in Gauteng, South Africa, to identify the programme managers

at such institutions, who are responsible for educational programmes that are tailored to the

needs of and offered in collaboration with commerce, industry and/or government. Interviews

were arranged with these programme managers. These interviewees are the primary unit of

analysis (Bless & Higson-Smith, 2000), with their 'informed consent' (Bailey, 1996, p. 11;

Arksey & Knight, 1999; Street, 1998).

In order to trace additional participants or informants, I used snowball sampling. Snowballing is

a method of expanding the sample by asking one informant or participant to recommend

others for interviewing (Babbie, 1995; Crabtree & Miller, 1992). Bailey (1996), Holloway (1997),

and Greig and Taylor (1999) call those through whom entry is gained gatekeepers and those

persons who volunteer assistance key actors or key insiders. (Historically, the common term

was informants, a term which is losing popularity owing to negative connotations.) Neuman

(2000) qualifies a gatekeeper as ―someone with the formal or informal authority to control

access to a site‖ (p. 352), a person from whom permission is required. Key insiders often adopt



the researcher. Bailey (1996) cautions that such adoption may isolate the researcher from

some potential informants or subjects. I requested the purposive sample interviewees to give,

at their discretion, the names and contact details of persons based in commerce, industry

and/or government who a) were co-responsible for the educational programmes; and b) who

had participated in the programme presented. Regardless of these strategies, the most

accommodating gatekeepers did, as Neuman (2000) cautions, to some extent influence the

course of the research unfolding by, for example, steering me to look into ‗learnerships‘. In

order to ensure ethical research, I made use of informed consent (Holloway, 1997; Kvale,

1996). Bailey (1996) cautions that deception may be counter-productive. However, not asking

the leading (Kvale, 1996) central research question (given under the next heading) is not

regarded as deception. Based on Bailey‘s (1996, p. 11) recommended items, I developed a

specific informed consent ‗agreement‘, in order to gain the informed consent from participants,

namely:

• That they are participating in research

• The purpose of the research (without stating the central research question)

• The procedures of the research

• The risk and benefits of the research

• The voluntary nature of research participation

• The subject‘s (informant‘s) right to stop the research at any time

• The procedures used to protect confidentiality (Arksey & Knight, 1999; Bless & Higson-Smith, 2000;

Kvale, 1996, Street, 1998)

Bailey (1996) further observes that deception might prevent insights, whereas honesty coupled

with confidentiality reduces suspicion and promotes sincere responses. The ‗informed consent

agreement‘ form was explained to subjects at the beginning of each interview. Most potential

subjects signed the agreement and those who did not were not pressured to participate in the

study. All who ended up being participants were in agreement with its content and signed.

Because Boyd (2001) regards two to 10 participants or research subjects as sufficient to reach

saturation and Creswell (1998, pp. 65 & 113) recommends ―long interviews with up to 10

people‖ for a phenomenological study, a sample size of ten managers, five responsible for

educational programmes and five at collaborating enterprises, were selected. In addition to the

ten interviewees, one group of programme participants (students) was requested to write



essays on their experiences. With another group of programme participants, some participated

in a focus group discussion, whereas others wrote essays. The purpose of collecting data from

three different kinds of informants is a form of triangulation – ‗data triangulation‘ to contrast the

data and ‗validate‘ the data if it yields similar findings (Arksey & Knight, 1999; Bloor, 1997;

Holloway, 1997). Data-collection interviews continued until the topic was exhausted or

saturated, that is when interviewees (subjects or informants) introduced no new perspectives

on the topic.

Data-gathering methods

The specific ‗phenomena‘ (from the Greek word phenomenon, meaning appearance) that I

focused on is co-operative education, and more particularly the joint ventures (completed

and/or under way) between educational institutions and enterprises in order to educate people

and grow talent. My central research question was: what is the contribution that co-operative

education can make in the growing of talent of the South African people? However, Bentz and

Shapiro (1998) and Kensit (2000) caution that the researcher must allow the data to emerge:

―Doing phenomenology‖ means capturing ―rich descriptions of phenomena and their settings‖

(p. 104). For this reason, the actual research questions that were put to participants (both

academics and enterprise representatives involved) were:

• How did/do you experience the joint educational venture?

• What value, if any, has been derived from the collaborative effort?

Kvale (1996) draws a similar distinction between the research question and the interview

question. Further, it was important to keep in mind that the findings may, or may not, illustrate

that the practice of co-operative education contributes to the growing of talent. In this regard

JonKabat-Zinn state that ―inquiry doesn‘t mean looking for answers‖ (cited in Bentz and

Shapiro, 1998, p. 39).

I conducted unstructured in-depth phenomenological interviews with both the educational

institution-based programme managers and with the enterprise-based representatives. The

remainder of this paragraph explains how these interviews were conducted. My questions

were ―directed to the participant‘s experiences, feelings, beliefs and convictions about the



theme in question‖ (Welman & Kruger, 1999, p. 196). According to Bentz and Shapiro (1998),

Husserl called it bracketing when the inquiry is performed from the perspective of the

researcher.

Bracketing (Caelli, 2001; Davidson, 2000; King, 1994; Kruger, 1988; Kvale, 1996) in this study

entailed asking the participants/informants to set aside their experiences about the

collaborative educational programme and to share their reflection on its value. Data were

obtained about how the participants ―think and feel in the most direct ways‖ (Bentz & Shapiro,

1998, p. 96). I focused on ―what goes on within‖ the participants and got the participants to

―describe the lived experience in a language as free from the constructs of the intellect and

society as possible‖. This is one form of bracketing. There is also a second form of bracketing,

which, according to Miller and Crabtree (1992, p. 24) is about the researcher that ―must

‘bracket‘ her/his own preconceptions and enter into the individual‘s lifeworld and use the self

as an experiencing interpreter‖. Moustakas (1994, p. 85) points out that ―Husserl called the

freedom from suppositions the epoche, a Greek word meaning to stay away from or abstain‖.

According to Bailey (1996, p. 72) the ―informal interview is a conscious attempt by the

researcher to find out more information about the setting of the person‖. The interview is

reciprocal: both researcher and research subject are engaged in the dialogue. I experienced

that the duration of interviews and the number of questions varied from one participant to the

other. Kvale (1996) remarks with regard to data capturing during the qualitative interview that it

―is literally an inter view, an interchange of views between two persons conversing about a

theme of mutual interest,‖ where researcher attempts to ―understand the world from the

subjects' point of view, to unfold meaning of peoples' experiences‖ (pp. 1-2). At the root of

phenomenology, ―the intent is to understand the phenomena in their own terms — to provide a

description of human experience as it is experienced by the person herself‖ (Bentz & Shapiro,

1998, p. 96) and allowing the essence to emerge (Cameron, Schaffer & Hyeon-Ae, 2001). The

maxim of Edmund Husserl was ―back to things themselves!‖ (Kruger, 1988, p. 28).

‗Memoing‘ (Miles & Huberman, 1984, p. 69) is another important data source in qualitative

research that I used in this study. It is the researcher‘s field notes recording what the



researcher hears, sees, experiences and thinks in the course of collecting and reflecting on the

process. Researchers are easily absorbed in the data-collection process and may fail to reflect

on what is happening. However, it is important that the researcher maintain a balance between

descriptive notes and reflective notes, such as hunches, impressions, feelings, and so on.

Miles and Huberman (1984) emphasize that memos (or field notes) must be dated so that the

researcher can later correlate them with the data.

In addition to the ten interviews conducted in this study, the educational institution-based

programme managers in two instances arranged access to programme participants.

Depending on the circumstances, I either talked directly to the programme participants to ask

them to write essays, or worked through the programme manager and presented the following

request:

Write down your viewpoint, perspectives or feelings of the programme you are

undergoing, or have completed. You need not give your name. You need not concern

yourself with grammar or spelling. If possible, compare this programme with others

you may have done, which are not offered through collaboration between an

employer and an educational institution (or compare this programme with pure

academic programmes, known to you from talking to other students).

Having explained the three data-gathering methods – unstructured in-depth phenomenological

interviews, memoing and essays – the data storage will be explained next.

Data-storing methods

I audio-recorded, with the permission of interviewees, all interviews (Arkley & Knight, 1999;

Bailey, 1996). Each interview was assigned a code, for example ―Participant, 21 May 2002.‖

Where more than one interview took place on a specific date, the different interviews were

identified by an alphabet character, (Participant-B, 18 June 2002). I recorded each interview on

a separate cassette. I labeled each cassette with the assigned interview code. As soon as

possible after each interview I listened to the recording and made notes. I transcribed key

words, phrases and statements in order to allow the voices of research participants/informants

to speak.



The words of caution by Easton, McComish and Greenberg (2000) that equipment failure and

environmental conditions might seriously threaten the research undertaken, was borne in

mind. They advise that the researcher must at all times ensure that recording equipment

functions well and that spare batteries, tapes, and so on, are available. The interview setting

must further be as free as possible from background noise and interruptions.

Field notes are a secondary data storage method in qualitative research. Because the human

mind tends to forget quickly, field notes by the researcher are crucial in qualitative research to

retain data gathered (Lofland & Lofland, 1999). This implies that the researcher must be

disciplined to record, subsequent to each interview, as comprehensively as possible, but

without judgmental evaluation, for example: ―What happened and what was involved? Who

was involved? Where did the activities occur? Why did an incident take place and how did it

actually happen?‖

Furthermore, Lofland and Lofland (1999, p. 5) emphasise that field notes ―should be written no

later than the morning after‖. Besides discipline, field notes also involve ―luck, feelings, timing,

whimsy and art‖ (Bailey, 1996, p. xiii). The method followed in this study is based on a model

or scheme developed by Leonard Schatzman and Anselm Strauss supplemented by Robert

Burgess.

Four types of field notes were made:

• Observational notes (ON) — 'what happened notes' deemed important enough to the

researcher to make. Bailey (1996) emphasises the use of all the senses in making

observations.

• Theoretical notes (TN) — 'attempts to derive meaning' as the researcher thinks or

reflects on experiences.

• Methodological notes (MN) — 'reminders, instructions or critique' to oneself on the

process.

• Analytical memos (AM) — end-of-a-field-day summary or progress reviews.

At this juncture, it is important to note that field notes are already ―a step toward data analysis.‖



Morgan (1997, pp. 57-58) remarks that because field notes involve interpretation, they are,

properly speaking, ―part of the analysis rather than the data collection‖. Bearing in mind that

the ―basic datum of phenomenology is the conscious human being‖, or the lived experiences of

the participants in the research (Bentz & Shapiro, 1998, p. 98; Heron, 1996), it is very

important that the researcher must, to the greatest degree possible, prevent the data from

being prematurely categorised or ‗pushed‘ into the researcher‘s bias about the potential

contribution of co-operative education in growing talent. The writing of field notes during the

research process compels the researcher to further clarify each interview setting (Caelli, 2001;

Miles & Huberman, 1984).

I opened a file with divisions for the various interviews and filed the following hard copy

documentation:

• The informed consent agreement.

• My notes made during the interview.

• The field notes that I made subsequent to each interview.

• Any notes or sketches that the participant made during the interview, which the

participant gave to me.

• Any additional information that the participant offered during the interview, for

example brochures.

• Any notes made during the ‗data analysis‘ process, e.g. grouping of units of meaning

into themes.

• The draft ‗transcription‘ and ‗analysis‘ of the interview that I presented to the

participants for validation.

• The confirmation of correctness and/or commentary by the participant about

the‗transcript‘ and ‗analyses‘ of the interview.

• Any additional/subsequent communication between the participant and myself.

Data storage includes audio recordings, field notes and filing of hard copy documentation. The

interview transcriptions and field notes were also stored electronically on multiple hard drives.

The data analysis, or rather explicitation of the data is explained next.



Explicitation of the data

The heading ‗data analysis‘ is deliberately avoided here because Hycner cautions that

‗analysis‘ has dangerous connotations for phenomenology. The ―term [analysis] usually means

a ‗breaking into parts‘ and therefore often means a loss of the whole phenomenon…[whereas

‗explicitation‘ implies an]…investigation of the constituents of a phenomenon while keeping the

context of the whole‖ (1999, p. 161). Coffey and Atkinson (1996, p. 9) regard analysis as the

―systematic procedures to identify essential features and relationships‖. It is a way of

transforming the data through interpretation. Now that the term explicitation has been clarified,

we can turn to a simplified version of Hycner‘s (1999) explicitation process, which I used. This

explicitation process has five ‗steps‘ or phases, which are:

1) Bracketing and phenomenological reduction.

2) Delineating units of meaning.

3) Clustering of units of meaning to form themes.

4) Summarising each interview, validating it and where necessary modifying it.

5) Extracting general and unique themes from all the interviews and making a

composite summary.

1. Bracketing and phenomenological reduction. The term reduction, coined by Husserl, is

regarded by Hycner (1999) as unfortunate, because it has nothing to do with the reductionist

natural science methodology. It would do a great injustice to human phenomena through over-

analysis, removal from the lived contexts of the phenomena and worse possibly reducing

phenomena to cause and effect. Phenomenological reduction ―to pure subjectivity‖ (Lauer,

1958, p. 50), instead, is a deliberate and purposeful opening by the researcher to the

phenomenon ―in its own right with its own meaning‖ (Fouche, 1993; Hycner, 1999). It further

points to a suspension or ‗bracketing out‘ (or epoche), ―in a sense that in its regard no position

is taken either for or against‖ (Lauer, 1958, p. 49), the researcher‘s own presuppositions and

not allowing the researcher‘s meanings and interpretations or theoretical concepts to enter the

unique world of the informant/participant (Creswell, 1998, pp. 54 & 113; Moustakas, 1994, p.

90; Sadala & Adorno, 2001). This is a different conception of the term bracketing used when

interviewing to bracket the phenomenon researched for the interviewee. Here it refers to the

bracketing of the researcher‘s personal views or preconceptions (Miller & Crabtree, 1992).

Holloway (1997) and Hycner (1999) recommend that the researcher listens repeatedly to the



audio recording of each interview to become familiar with the words of the interviewee/

informant in order to develop a holistic sense, the ‗gestalt‘. Zinker (1978) explains that the term

phenomenological implies a process, which emphasises the unique own experiences of

research participants. The here and now dimensions of those personal experiences gives

phenomena existential immediacy.

2. Delineating units of meaning. This is a critical phase of explicating the data, in that those

statements that are seen to illuminate the researched phenomenon are extracted or ‗isolated‘

(Creswell, 1998; Holloway, 1997; Hycner, 1999). The researcher is required to make a

substantial amount of judgement calls while consciously bracketing her/his own

presuppositions in order to avoid inappropriate subjective judgements. The list of units of

relevant meaning extracted from each interview is carefully scrutinised and the clearly

redundant units eliminated (Moustakas, 1994). To do this the researcher considers the literal

content, the number (the significance) of times a meaning was mentioned and also how (non-

verbal or para-linguistic cues) it was stated. The actual meaning of two seemingly similar units

of meaning might be different in terms of weight or chronology of events (Hycner, 1999).

3. Clustering of units of meaning to form themes. With the list of non-redundant units of

meaning in hand the researcher must again bracket her or his presuppositions in order to

remain true to the phenomenon. By rigorously examining the list of units of meaning the

researcher tries to elicit the essence of meaning of units within the holistic context. Hycner

(1999) remarks that this calls for even more judgement and skill on the part of the researcher.

Colaizzi, makes the following remark about the researcher‘s ‗artistic‘ judgement here:

―Particularly in this step is the phenomenological researcher engaged in something which

cannot be precisely delineated, for here he is involved in that ineffable thing known as creative

insight‖ (as cited in Hycner, 1999, pp. 150-151).

Clusters of themes are typically formed by grouping units of meaning together (Creswell, 1998;

King, 1994; Moustakas, 1994) and the researcher identifies significant topics, also called units

of significance (Sadala & Adorno, 2001). Both Holloway (1997) and Hycner (1999) emphasize

the importance of the researcher going back to the recorded interview (the gestalt) and forth to



the list of non-redundant units of meaning to derive clusters of appropriate meaning. Often

there is overlap in the clusters, which can be expected, considering the nature of human

phenomena. By interrogating the meaning of the various clusters, central themes are

determined, ―which expresses the essence of these clusters‖ (Hycner, 1999, p. 153).

Coffey and Atkinson (1996) and King (1994) remark that many qualitative analyses can be

supported by a number of personal computer software packages that have been developed

since the 1980s. However, ―there is no one software package that will do the analysis in itself‖

(Coffey & Atkinson, 1996, p. 169) and the understanding of the meaning of phenomena

―cannot be computerized because it is not an algorithmic process‖ (Kelle, 1995, p. 3). In other

forms of qualitative research, software packages (such as ATLAS.ti, NUD*IST, The

Ethnograph) can be used to ease the laborious task of analysing text-based data (Kelle, 1995)

through rapid and sophisticated searches, line-by-line coding, and so on. However, these

programs do not help with doing phenomenology.

4. Summarise each interview, validate and modify. A summary that incorporates all the themes

elicited from the data gives a holistic context. Ellenberger captures it as follows:

Whatever the method used for a phenomenological analysis the aim of the investigator is the

reconstruction of the inner world of experience of the subject. Each individual has his own way

of experiencing temporality, spatiality, materiality, but each of these coordinates must be

understood in relation to the others and to the total inner ‗world‘ (as cited in Hycner, 1999, pp.

153-154).

At this point the researcher conducts a ‗validity check‘ by returning to the informant to

determine if the essence of the interview has been correctly ‗captured‘ (Hycner, 1999, p. 154).

Any modification necessary is done as result of this ‗validity check‘.

5. General and unique themes for all the interviews and composite summary. Once the

process outlined in points 1 through 4 has been done for all the interviews, the researcher

looks ―for the themes common to most or all of the interviews as well as the individual

variations‖ (Hycner, 1999, p. 154). Care must be taken not to cluster common themes if

significant differences exist. The unique or minority voices are important counterpoints to bring

out regarding the phenomenon researched.



The researcher concludes the explicitation by writing a composite summary, which must reflect

the context or ‗horizon‘ from which the themes emerged (Hycner, 1999; Moustakas, 1994).

According to Sadala and Adorno (2001, p. 289) the researcher, at this point ―transforms

participants‘ everyday expressions into expressions appropriate to the scientific discourse

supporting the research‖. However, Coffey & Atkinson (1996, p. 139) emphasise that ―good

research is not generated by rigorous data alone … [but] ‗going beyond‘ the data to develop

ideas‖. Initial theorising, however small, is derived from the qualitative data. The next

paragraph contains a few pointers regarding the validity and truthfulness of the study.

Validity and truthfulness

Schurink, Schurink and Poggenpoel (1998) emphasise the truth-value of qualitative research

and list a number of means to achieve truth. In this study, the phenomenological research

design contributed toward truth. I bracketed myself consciously in order to understand, in

terms of the perspectives of the participants interviewed the phenomenon that I was studying,

that is ―the focus [was] on an insider perspective‖ (Mouton & Marais, 1990, p. 70). The audio

recordings made of each interview and again bracketing myself during the transcription of the

interview further contributed to truth. Thereafter subjects received a copy of the text to validate

that it reflected their perspectives regarding the phenomenon that was studied. A synopsis of

the findings of the completed study is presented next.

Synopsis of the research findings

A wide spectrum of perspectives was found regarding the phenomenon of joint educational

ventures and the perceived value derived from such collaborative efforts. Among others, the

significant role of mentors and the importance of a suitable mentor supervising work-based

learning stood out. Associated with this was the importance of commitment by employers and

the capacity to devote managerial energy. However, difficulty was experienced in finding

suitable experiential learning opportunities. The perception existed that experiential learning

does not add value because of deficiencies of experiential learning and the constraints

experienced regarding its proper management. However, based on the good results derived

from in-service training and satisfaction with the integration of theory and practice, an opposing

perspective was encountered. Learnerships as an element of the National Skills Development



Strategy were further perceived important and contributing to society at large. Another

important perspective was the required responsiveness by educational institutions to the needs

of enterprises. Although some educational partnerships tailored to organisational needs

existed, the failure of educational institutions and inflexibility of partnerships were also

prevalent.

The composite summary above only reflects the themes that are common to most or all of the

interviews. However, individual variations or unique themes (Hycner, 1999) are as important as

commonalties with regard to the phenomenon researched. From the study undertaken it is

evident that the logistical organisation and co-ordination of joint ventures, between educational

institutions and enterprises, are very important factors in growing talent.

References

Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists. London: Sage.

Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bailey, C.A. (1996). A guide to field research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

Bentz, V. M., & Shapiro, J. J. (1998). Mindful enquiry in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Bless, C., & Higson-Smith, C. (2000). Fundamentals of social research methods, an African

perspective (3rd ed.). Lansdowne, South Africa: Juta.

Bloor, M. (1997). Techniques of validation in qualitative research: a critical commentary. In G.

Millar & R. Dingwall (Eds.). Context and method in qualitative research (pp. 37-50). London:

Sage.

Boyd, C.O. 2001. Phenomenology the method. In P.L. Munhall (Ed.), Nursing research: A

qualitative perspective (3rd. ed., pp. 93-122). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Caelli, K. (2001). Engaging with phenomenology: Is it more of a challenge than it needs to be?

Quantitative Health Research, 11, 273-282.

Cameron, M. E., Schaffer, M., & Hyeoun, P. (2001). Nursing students' experience of ethical

problems and use of ethical decision-making models. Nursing Ethics, 8, 432-448.

Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. 1996. Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research

strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.



Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (Eds.). (1992). Doing qualitative research: Research methods

for primary care (Vol. 3). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davidson, J. (2000). A phenomenology of fear: Merleau-Ponty and agoraphobic life-worlds.

Sociology of Health & Illness, 22, 640-681.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eagleton, T. (1983). Literary theory: An introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Easton, K. L., McComish, J. F., & Greenberg, R. (2000). Avoid common pitfalls in qualitative

data collection and transcription. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 703-708.

Fouche, F. (1993). Phenomenological theory of human science. In J. Snyman (Ed.),

Conceptions of social inquiry (pp. 87-112). Pretoria, South Africa: Human Science

Research Council.

Greene, M. (1997). The lived world, literature and education. In D. Vandenberg (ed.),

Phenomenology & education discourse (pp. 169-190). Johannesburg: Heinemann.

Greig, A., & Taylor, J. (1999). Doing research with children. London: Sage.

Groenewald, T. (2003). The contribution of co-operative education in the growing of talent.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg, South

Africa.

Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.

Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 487-508). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hammersley, M. (2000). Taking sides in social research. London: Routledge.

Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage.

Holloway, I. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Hycner, R. H. (1999). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data. In

A. Bryman & R. .G. Burgess (Eds.), Qualitative research (Vol. 3, pp. 143-164). London: Sage.



Jarvis, P., & Wilson, A. L. (1999). International dictionary of adult and continuing education

(2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.

Jones, A. (2001). Some experiences of professional practice and beneficial changes from

clinical supervision by community Macmillan nurses. European Journal of Cancer

Care, 10(1), 21-31.

Kelle, U. (1995). Introduction: An overview of computer-aided methods in qualitative research.

In U. Kelle (Ed.). Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods and

practices. London: Sage.

Kensit, D. A. (2000). Rogerian theory: A critique of the effectiveness of pure client-centred

therapy. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 13(4), 345-342.

King, N. (1994). The qualitative research interview. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.),

Qualitative methods in organisational research: A practical guide. London: Sage.

Kruger, D. (1988). An introduction to phenomenological psychology (2nd ed.). Cape Town,

South Africa: Juta.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lauer, Q. (1958). Phenomenology: Its genesis and prospects. New York: Harper.

Lippitz, W. (1997). Between ‗unitary reason‘ and its pluralistic developments. In D. Vandenberg

(Ed.), Phenomenology & education discourse (pp. 69-100). Johannesburg, South

Africa: Heinemann.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1999). Data logging in observation: Fieldnotes. In A. Bryman & R.

G. Burgess (Eds.), Qualitative research (Vol. 3). London: Sage.

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.

Maypole, J., & Davies, T. G. (2001). Students‘ perceptions of constructivist learning in a

community college American History II. Community College Review, 29(2), 54-80.

Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis, a sourcebook of new

methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.



Miller, W. L., & Crabtree, B. F. (1992). Primary care research: A multimethod typology and

qualitative road map. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative

research.Research methods for primary care (Vol. 3). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mouton, J. & Marais, H.C. (1990). Basic concepts in the methodology of the social sciences

(Revised ed.). Pretoria, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council.

Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Robinson, D., & Reed, V. (Eds.). (1998). The A – Z of social research jargon. Aldershot, UK:

Ashgate.

Sadala, M. L. A., & Adorno, R .deC. F. (2001). Phenomenology as a method to investigate the

experiences lived: A perspective from Husserl and Merleau-Ponty‘s thought. Journal

of Advanced Nursing, 37(3), 282-293.

Schurink, W. J., Schurink, E. M. & Poggenpoel, M. (1998). Focus group interviewing and

audio-visual methodology in qualitative research. In A. S. De Vos (Ed.), Research at

grass roots, a primer in care professions. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.

Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stanage, S. M. (1987). Adult education and phenomenological research: New directions for

theory, practice and research. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger.

Stones, C. R. (1988). Research: Toward a phenomenological praxis. In D. Kruger (Ed.), An

introduction to phenomenological psychology (2nd ed., pp. 141-156). Cape Town,

South Africa: Juta.

Street, A. (1998). In/forming inside nursing: Ethical dilemmas in critical research. In G.

Shacklock & J. Smyth (Eds.), Being reflective in critical educational and social

research. London: Falmer.

Vandenberg, D. (1997). Phenomenological research in the study of education. In D.

Vandenberg (Ed.), Phenomenology & education discourse (pp. 3-37). Johannesburg,

South Africa: Heinemann.



Van Manen, M. (1997). Phenomenological pedagogy and the question of meaning. In D.

Vandenberg (Ed.), Phenomenology & education discourse (pp. 41-68).

Johannesburg, South Africa: Heinemann.

Welman, J. C., & Kruger, S. J. (1999). Research methodology for the business and

administrative sciences. Johannesburg, South Africa: International Thompson.

Zinker, J. (1978). Creative process in gestalt therapy. New York: Vintage.

U1: Narvaez on Voiced Research: Activity L2R111


Voiced Research: A Framework for TEFL Teachers

Abstract

How can TESOL teacher-researchers attain information about the lived experience of

their students? Why is it important to ‘listen’ to what language learners have to say?

How can we as TESOL teachers use this information productively? Following the

recent acceptance of and interest in the issue of ‘voice’ among qualitative

researchers, in this paper I argue that 'voiced research' has the potential to provide

access to a level of students' meaning seldom reached. The objective of this article is

to set guidelines as to how to approach research aimed at listening to and 'voicing'

students’ insights on school practice. The implications of using such an approach to

informing our teaching, in particular, and to course design, in general are also

outlined in this paper.

Voice in Qualitative Research

Voice in qualitative studies frequently functions to capture the lived experience of

people that cannot be achieved and communicated through conventional means of

research (Shacklock & Smyth 1997). Voice is a term used increasingly in qualitative

research and critical theorising as a way of reminding us that research deals with the

lives of actual people. In current research, voice has taken the form of oral (hi)stories,

anecdotes, (auto)biography, narrative studies and the like. Such is the increasing

interest in this issue that some books have made their way among the vast literature

on qualitative research (Chamberlayne et al 2000, Wegraf 2001, Roberts 2002).

Perhaps one of the most interesting questions that has emerged from this approach is

the issue concerning the question of the identity of the voice: whose voice can be

heard in the study, the researcher‟s or does it belong to the people who participated or

even both?

In the literature, the most interesting voices seem to belong to individuals and groups

that are in some way located in the margins of society, i.e. the marginalised. It is

claimed, therefore, that access to voices is significant because voices provide



evocative and highly resonant information about people's lives in an ethnographically

rich form (Shacklock and Smyth 1997).

‘Voiced research’ as a sociological method

Some authors have commented on the need to develop a different kind of research

imagination in order to obtain more grounded results (Holliday 1996, 2002; Smyth

and Hattam 2001, Hart 1998, Klaus 2001). Educational researchers now assert that

research aimed at understanding schooling and educational environments should pay

more attention to the life of those involved in the teaching-learning process.

Furthermore, educational research should be guided by a more flexible research

agenda, avoiding the rigid procedures of conventional research. In this regard,

Kincheloe writes:

“Central to this kind of research is an appreciation and a utilization of the

students‟ perceptions of schooling … teachers must understand what is happening

in the mind of their students … Operating within this critical context, the teacher

researcher studies students as if they were texts to be deciphered. The teacher

researcher approaches them with an active imagination and a willingness to view

students as socially constructed beings” (Kincheloe 2003:136, citing Grady and

Wells, 1985-86, my emphasis).

Voiced research aims at filling this gap. It is a relatively new way of characterising

the bringing to life of perspectives that would otherwise be excluded, muted, or

silenced by dominant discourses. Numerous commentators have devoted time and

effort to the discussion and dissemination of this particular approach to research

(Stevenson and Ellseworth 1991, Herr and Anderson 1993, Lincoln 1995, Johnston

and Nichols 1995, O'Loughlin 1995, Shacklock and Smyth 1997, Herr and Anderson

1997, Smyth 1998, Martinez and Munday 1998, Smyth 1999, Smyth 2000, Smyth

and Hattam 2001, Hodkinson and Bloomer 2001, Krishnan and Hwee 2002).

Voice research starts from the position that interesting things can be said by groups

who may actually be situated at some distance from the centres of power. Shaclock

and Smyth (1997) claim that "in the telling of stories of life, previously unheard, or

silenced, voices open up the possibility for new, even radically different narrations of

life experience". In that category we can place students, who seldom have a voice in



school reforms and on syllabus negotiation. Students in general can be located within

this group of 'silenced' voices with hardly any chance of posing opinions on relevant

issues to their school life such as curriculum, timetables, room conditions and even

examination systems.

Voiced research is consistent with the principles of critical theory, which discuss

concepts of empowerment, emancipation and transformation from dominant forces of

oppression (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2003, Hopkins 2002). Voiced research, as a form

of critical theory, is expected to „reveal hidden realities, to initiate discussion‟

(Holliday 2002:XX). If the epistemology of voiced research is followed,

then interesting things can be garnered from groups who do not usually occupy

the high moral, theoretical or epistemological ground … the promise of voiced

research is anchored, local knowledge, in the face of objective, normative,

hegemonic forms of knowledge." (Smyth and Hattam 2001:406, my italics).

Smyth argues that the concept of 'voiced research' has been identified as being

epistemologically committed to a democratic research agenda and so needs to be

constructed in such a way that a 'genuine space within which people are able to

reveal what is real for them' (Smyth & Hattam, 2001:407) is created. In voiced

research what is decided to be important enough to research can only really come

from the person being researched. Research questions can only emerge out of

'conversations with a purpose' (Burgess, 1988) since trust and rapport between the

researchers and the researched must be established.

Similarly, Kincheloe recognizes the need for a more 'democratic' research agenda

"where the experience of the marginalized is viewed as an important way of seeing

the socio-educational whole … [where] the voice of the subjugated [is used] to

formulate a reconstruction of the dominant educational structure" (2003:62, my

emphasis). He goes further to claim that

“Our emancipation system of meaning will alert teachers to the need to cultivate

and listen to the voices of students, … Teachers … will find the need to

incorporate a variety of qualitative research strategies into their teaching

repertoire … [so that they] can uncover those concealed social constructions that

shape … the consciousness of students, teachers, administrators, and community

members”

(Kincheloe, ibid. 56, my emphasis).



One of the aspirations of voiced research is to provide a platform by which dominant

discourses might be unmasked and shown as representing management regimes

which silence the voices of the primary actors (i.e. the students). “Voiced research

seeks to reverse those dynamics of power” by giving those who never get heard a

chance to speak (Smyth, 1999:5). The methodological challenge of educational

research is to bring these voices to a centrefold position, "to find ways to allow the

smaller voices … to be heard" (Shacklock and Smyth 1998). If this is the challenge,

how can voiced research help us accomplish it? In what follows I will describe the

features that make voiced research a different approach to researching views on

schooling.

Features of voiced research

Voice research is based on a number of assumptions:

Researchers must provide a genuine space within which educational

practitioners can reveal what is real for them.

Research questions can only really emerge out of the informants‟ frame of

reference, i.e. what is worthwhile investigating resides within the research

informant.

This may only be revealed when a situation of mutual trust and rapport is

established.

Further research questions emerge out of the research encounter.

Embeddedness in the lives, experiences and aspirations of those whose lives

are portrayed.

Context-bound theorising, originated on a degree of sense making in situ by

virtue of the willing participation of the research informant.

A dialogic experience between researcher and informants, resulting in a

certain degree of identity formation previously out of reach.

Data "generation" then and there on the spot, originated from the joint work

of researcher and students through different conversations.

(After Smyth 1998a, 1998b, 1999)



The following table compares VR with other more traditional research:

Voiced research Other research

Researchers must provide a genuine space within which educational practitioners can reveal what is real for them.

Informants are ‗milked‘ according to researcher‘s interests

Research questions can only really emerge out of the informants‘ frame of reference, i.e. what is worthwhile investigating resides within the research informant.

Researchers make a priori formulation of research questions according to his/her interests, and stick to them!

This may only be revealed when a situation of mutual trust and rapport is established.

Researchers usually accomplish this but only to their benefit.

Further research questions emerge out of the research encounter.

Research is limited by initial research questions.

Embeddedness in the lives, experiences and aspirations of those whose lives are portrayed.

Researchers spend some time in the field but remain ‗strangers‘, they are afraid of ‗going native‘. They portrait their interpretation in their own voice.

Context-bound theorising, originated on a degree of sense making in situ by virtue of the willing participation of the research informant.

Detached theory generation, usually at researchers‘ office, away from the research setting.

A dialogic experience between researcher and informants, resulting in a certain degree of identity formation previously out of reach.

Only researcher benefits from the situation, there is no give and take relationship.

Data "generation" then and there on the spot, originated from the joint work of researcher and students through different conversations.

Data collection from objects of study. Informants are used until researcher is satisfied, no collaboration of informants in the research.

Table 1 Contrast between mainstream research and Voiced Research

Voiced research is meant to inform and be useful to people who are able to identify

with the images, issues, messages, and the language that gets lively and recognisably

depicted in the account, in the form of verbatim quotations. This is why, perhaps, a

growing interest in the lives of teachers and students and their personal narratives

have made their own space in research; the actual voices of those who have been

previously represented have started to be heard directly.

Underlying principles

In order for participants to be able to reveal what is real for them, the study should be

constructed in such a way that it allows informants to express themselves; it "thus

requires methods that allow the researcher to capture language and behaviour"

(Maykut and Morehouse 1994:46). Two of the most suitable ways of generating data

for this kind of study are therefore observations and conversations. The use of



qualitative interviewing1 --in the form of purposeful conversations-- instead of a more

structured form of interview is advisable because "it is important to build into the

normal patterns of interaction within the [researched] group, and probably getting

better evidence as a result" (Drever, 2003:16). It is important to talk to informants in

order to generate data because in our field of expertise, (TEFL), this is very natural.

The justification for using this method of data collection is clearly put forward by

Drever (2003:1), who writes: "in the teaching profession, when you want to get

information, canvass opinion or exchange ideas, the natural thing to do is to talk to

people". Furthermore, qualitative interviewing allows the researcher to capture

students' language and behaviour, a way of articulating their worlds.

This comes from an ontological position in which people's knowledge, views,

understandings, interpretations, experiences, and interactions are meaningful

properties of the social reality that qualitative research questions are designed to

explore. We should begin with the assumption that students, ex students and teachers

have important stories to tell about their experiences at school, the school itself and

the structures that foster or restrain learning. In addition, it should be kept in mind

that "Natural language is studied … often because it reveals something about the

social situation in which talk takes place" (Brewer, 2000:74).

Hitchcock and Hughes (1995:12) describe qualitative studies as: "… approaches that

enable the researchers to learn at first hand, about the social world they are

investigating by means of involvement and participation in that world through a focus

on what individuals actors say and do" (my italics). I believe that in order to improve

our teaching, we should pursue understanding from the learners‟ perspective, to make

sense of what learning a foreign or second language means to them, by capturing

their voices. Our role as teacher-researchers is primordial since we become the main

instrument of data generation and analysis (Merriam, 2002:5). Mason also highlights

the qualitative researcher's role by saying that "the researcher is seen as actively

constructing knowledge about that world according to certain principles and using

1 Unless otherwise stated, I will use the term „interview‟ in the sense of „conversations with a purpose‟.



certain methods derived from, or which express, their epistemological position"

(Mason, 2002:52). Denzin and Lincoln (1998b: 64) state: “If the [research] question

concerns the nature of the phenomenon, then the answer is best obtained using

ethnography”. I am not suggesting that we should all carry out ethnographies but

rather that we should use ethnographic methods of data collection for our research

purposes.

Data generation for this type of study is usually multi-method in focus. This approach

to qualitative research “reflects and attempts to secure an in-depth understanding of

the phenomenon in question" (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003:8). A researcher may secure

obtaining a rich, in-depth description of the phenomenon by using a “combination of

multiple methodological practices, empirical materials, perspectives, and observers in

a single study is … a strategy that adds rigor, breadth, complexity, richness, and

depth to any inquiry” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003:8). As you may perceive, this is not

a simple mission. Neither is it impossible, as I will argue below.

TESOL teacher-researcher: developing an 'ethnographic imagination'

I will start this section by presenting a definition of ethnography. Taking the elements

of ethnography in this definition, a table with the similarities between ethnographic

research and teaching will be presented to illustrate the how the work of teachers is

not too distant from that of ethnographic researchers.

Ethnography.- ethnography is the study of people in naturally occurring settings or

„fields‟ by methods of data collection which capture their social meanings and

ordinary activities, involving the researcher participating directly in the setting, if not

also the activities, in order to collect data in a systematic manner but without meaning

being imposed on them externally (Brewer, 2000: 6)

Ethnographic research entails Teaching involves

1. study of people in working with people and in a way the study of

people

2. naturally occurring settings in schools, classrooms, school offices, spending

lots of time in the setting



3. capture of social meanings (views,

perceptions, interpretations)

exchanging information, asking for opinions,

4. capture of ordinary activities observation of pupils‟ behaviour, activities

5. participation of researcher in setting teaching in the setting

6. systematic collection of data through:

observation observation of students‟ behaviour, reactions,

moods, etc

interviews (asking questions) usually in terms of „form‟ but easily adaptable to

content

administration of questionnaires for language purposes but can be shifted to content

document analysis analyse exams, papers, homework

7. data interpretation we naturally „interpret‟ what wee see, read or hear

8. theorizing we make assumptions based on what we hear, see

or read, feel

Table 2. Similarities between ethnographic research and teaching

As we can see, we are in a privileged situation to carry out research of the kind

described here. While researchers have to spend a lot of time trying to get „familiar‟

with the setting, we already spend most of our time within it. It has been recognised

(Nolla 1997, Woods 1998, Holliday 2002, Verma and Mallick 1999, Hopkins 2002)

that teachers are in an excellent position to investigate what happens inside schools

and that what a teacher does in her professional daily life is very similar to what a

researcher aims to,

"In teaching practice, teachers are able to use ethnographic methods since they

interact with their students and become outstanding observers and interviewers,

their job allows them to be part of the group, but, maintaining their teacher's role;

all it needs is some time of reflection and analysis so that that experience becomes

a fruitful ethnographic work"

(Nolla, 1997:108, my translation).

So, what do we need to make this transition from teacher to teacher-researcher? As

hinted by Nolla in the quote above, we should be more reflective and analytical of

our teaching practice. We should capitalise on our everyday activities to transform

them into relevant research. We are already engaged in ethnographic research: we

observe what goes on in the classroom and assess students‟ behaviour, we administer



questionnaires and interview students as part of our classroom activities, and we

listen to (and sometimes record) what they say; in short, we normally use

ethnographic methods of data generation (observation, interviews, and

questionnaires) as part of our classroom activities. In order to transform this work we

do everyday into research we need to be systematic, we need to use a rigorous

approach to collect data consistently over a period of time and find the way to

publish the results of our investigations for the benefit of our colleagues nationwide.

The results of this work can be very fruitful and relevant to improve our teaching

practice.

Holliday (2002) expands on the advantages of researching our place of work. To

begin with, whereas external researchers have to adopt a new role for the purposes of

his/her research, we capitalize on an existing one by expanding it as a research role.

Secondly, and because of the previous point, we have the huge advantage of being

familiar with the research setting, which allows us to move at ease since we are

already familiar with both the social and job conventions that govern interaction. A

word of caution must be stated: we shouldn‟t take anything for granted. For in order

to be able to investigate our environment, we must place all our assumptions to the

test; everything must be seen with „new‟ eyes, acting like a stranger (pp. 26-27).

Bassey, (1992:1) highlighting the advantages of being a 'reflective professional'

(teacher-researcher) over the 'expert professional' (external researcher), mentions

another plus of researching our workplace, that of working closely with the students.

Our daily contact with our students let us be aware of their needs, struggles,

aspirations, confrontations, etc. It is precisely this purposeful interaction with our

students which demonstrates our concern to improve our teaching practice and

students‟ learning.

As you can see, we teachers are in an advantageous position over academics since the

information (knowledge) we generate is regarded as more meaningful and relevant to

our teaching practice than that created by outsider researchers. In what follows, I will



try to describe some guidelines for the generation of data. To conclude this section

read the following quote from Verma and Mallick (1999:184):

"Anyone who has qualified as a teacher … is perfectly capable of being a member

of an action research team and making real contributions to the teaching-leaning

process"

Implementing voiced research: step-by-step

Locating voices

I have mentioned the need to adapt our existing role —EFL teacher— to research a

familiar setting —the place where we work, our classrooms, our students. In research

terms, we will become a „pure observant participant‟ (Brewer 2000:61). Observations

should account for both formal and informal events within school every day life. At

the beginning, this exploration could be very broad, guided by grand tour questions

such as the following:

How do students behave during their first days/weeks of class?

How do students react to our speaking in English?

Initially, observation notes can be „descriptive‟, focusing on what is on the surface,

on the visible things: the classroom, seating arrangement, the students, activities,

events and visible feelings. These notes should be taken and kept in notebooks

throughout the time of the observation. It is advisable to immediately type and save

them in computer files to facilitate storage and later retrieval.

We need to find interesting voices by taking advantage of the so-called

„communicative activities‟ and/or „learner-centred‟ activities. These provide excellent

space for interacting with students, for getting to know them. If properly used, they

can yield useful information for our selection and implementation of classroom

activities. Locate your informants, those students who seem to have something to

say, who always question, those who are interesting cases.



Contacting voices

Once initial observations have thrown some light onto topics emanating from the

students, it is time to contact the students you consider being knowledgeable and

articulate: your research informants. The main aim of this initial interaction is to

build mutual respect and establish rapport. Denzin and Lincoln (2003b: 39-40) state

that the researcher “must establish trust, rapport, and authentic communication

patterns with participants.” This is crucial in order to “capture the nuance and

meaning of each participant‟s life from the participant‟s point of view” (ibid: 40). It

may be necessary, in order to accomplish this goal, not only to make your concern to

improve their learning environment evident to your students but also to mention your

interest in capturing their voices.

By implementing the right type of activities, and by showing a genuine interest in

their lives, they may soon perceive you as a reasonable, straightforward and caring

teacher; somebody who is sympathetic to their activities. Telling them the purposes

of the study might be necessary in order to gain their confidence and respect. You

have to be ready to open up a bit to them if you expect them to do the same for you.

Fear nothing, it is a win-win situation; as Lincoln mentions, “… listening to student

voices can help us find our own” (1995:88). In the same tenor, Kincheloe writes: "…

not only do we learn about the educational world surrounding us, but we gain new

insights into the private world within us --the world of our constructed

consciousness" (2003:54, emphasis added).

In order to establish 'authentic communication patterns' with informants, you may

want to adopt a 'casual conversation' style, to carry out 'purposeful conversations'.

Most conversations should ideally take place in informal settings: corridors, school

refractory, school cafeteria, cafes, etc. Following the premises laid by 'voiced

research' discussed above, you have to be careful to design your methods of data

generation in such a way that they might provide a genuine space within which

students could reveal what is relevant for them. It must be borne in mind that in



voiced research what is decided to be important enough to research can only really

come from the person being researched. In order to accomplish this, initial

conversations with informants may consist in their answering 'orienting' (Smyth and

Hattam 2001: 409) questions such as the following:

Exstudents: Tell me what was going on in your life when you decided to

stop studying English.

Students: Tell me what is like to be a learner of English.

Teachers: Tell me about your relationship with your students.

One of the advantages of starting with this sort of questions is that you do not

constrain your informants with pre-fabricated questions that may bias their answers.

They pave the way to theorising in situ (Smyth 2000), to forming 'grounded theory'

(Strauss and Corbin, 1990). By carefully listening to their answers issues may start

emerging. However, using such a research interview strategy makes the task of

categorizing data more demanding, making it more difficult than when using a

detailed interview structure.

At this stage, your observation notes should come from more „focused observation‟,

you should be able to disregard irrelevant things as observations gradually become

more guided by the issues coming out of the conversations and/or the observations.

Once you have identified these issues, you need to pursue them in following

„focused‟ conversations.

Capturing voices

Although the conversations become more focused, it is vital to continue using an

informal style, in order to explore the problem in depth. It may be tempting (and

perhaps easier) to invite informants to your office but you should bear in mind that

changing the setting may influence their behaviour. It might be wiser to follow the

initial forms of interaction.



This is the stage of the study that should provide maximise interaction between you

and your informants. The number of interviews (and interviewees) will depend

largely on how much you obtain from each and/or how deep you want to go into the

issues. At this stage you should be in a position to ask more specific questions,

depending on the issues mentioned by particular informants but without imposing

your research agenda on them. You may want to practice „selective observation‟ at

this stage, concentrating on the qualities of the activities mentioned by your students;

for example „How are teacher-student relationships carried out in the classroom?‟

Clarifying Voices

This last phase of the research should be used to clarify doubts or sound out hunches

emerging during the previous phase(s). In order to tie loose ends, you may have to

ask selected informants to have another chat. This time ask specific questions on

issues informants have brought up during the previous conversations and which still

need clarification.

The steps described above can be represented diagrammatically in the following way:

Clarifying voices

Capturing voices

Contacting voices

Locating voices



Conclusion

What I have presented here are the ideas of an amateur researcher and should be

taken as guidelines that you may find helpful in carrying out your own investigation.

It is up to you to make the most out of them and use what you think suit you best.

As a way of concluding this article, I will highlight the implications that approaching

research from this perspective may entail. First of all, I am appealing to the

professionalism of my TESOL colleagues, those who are committed to finding ways

of improving their practice. Who could be better informed about our teaching practice

than our own students? Why not ask them, then? By giving ourselves the chance to

hear our students' voices we may be establishing the grounds that could help us refine

the parameters of professional judgement usually applied, "for only teachers are in

the position to create good teaching" (Stenhouse 1984:69). This could also be our

initial reaction to the inappropriateness of traditional research that still permeates our

field; and to foreign teaching methodologies, leading towards a more context-bound

teaching. I am aware that in order to be able to do this, the institutions that host our

intellectual efforts should be open to changes and devoted to excellence.

This paper has presented a research approach to language learning/teaching and has

set some guidelines to do it. Using this kind of research can help in building a better

understanding of learners' insights on language learning, informing both teaching

practice and decision-making at institutional level. Moreover, voiced research can be

a useful tool to inform material preparation and teaching methods. Thus, if we spent

time in listening to and voicing what students' want to express, we could be in a better

position to improve the learning environment in which we work.



References

Bassey, M. 1992. 'BERA Presidential address in 1991', British Educational Research

Journal, 18, 1.

Bax, S. 2003. Bringing context and methodology together, in ELT Journal, 57/ 3, pp.

295-296. OUP.

Bax, S. 2003. The end of CLT: a context approach to language teaching, in ELT

Journal, 57/ 3, pp. 278-287. OUP.

Brewer, J.D. 2000 Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University

Burgess, R. 1998. Conversations with a Purpose: the Ethnographic Interview in

Educational Research, Studies in Qualitative Methodology, 1, pp 137-155.

Denzin, N. and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.) 2003. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative

Materials. SAGE.

Denzin, N. and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) 2003b. Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. SAGE.

Drever, E. 2003. Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research: a teacher‟s

guide. University of Birmingham Press.

Hart, C. 1998. Doing a Literature Review. London:SAGE.

Herr, K and G.L. Anderson, 1993. Oral history for student empowerment:capturing

students' inner voices, in Qualitative Studies in Education, 6/3, pp. 185-196.

Herr, K. and G.L. Anderson. 1997. The cultural politics of identity: student narratives

from two Mexican secondary schools. Qualitative Studies in Education, 10 (1),

pp. 45-61.

Hitchcock, G. and D. Hughes. 1995. Research and the Teacher. A Qualitative

Introduction to School-based Research. RoutledgeFalmer: London.

Hodkinson, P. and M. Bloomer. 2001. Dropping out of further education: complex

causes and simplistic policy assumptions. Research Papers in Education, 16(2),

pp. 117-140.

Holliday, A. R. 1996. Developing a Sociological Imagination: Expanding

Ethnography in International English Language Education. Applied Linguistics

17/2:234-255.

Holliday, A.R. 2002. Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. SAGE.

Hopkins, D. 2002. A Teacher's Guide to Classroom Research. London: Open

University Press.

Johnston, P. and Nichols, J. 1995. Voices we want to hear and voices we don't.

Theory into Practice, 34 (2), 94-100.

Kincheloe, J.L. & P.McLaren. 2003. Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative

Research in N.K Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds) The Landscape of Qualitative

Research, Theory and Issues. (second Edition) Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kincheloe, J.L. 2003. Teachers as Researchers. Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to

Empowerment. RoutledgeFalmer.

Klaus, A. 2001. Saber Pedagógico y Antropología Histórico-pedagogica. www.mail-

archive.com/r-caldas

Krishnan, L. A. and L. Hwee Hoon. 2002. Diaries: listening to 'voices' from the

multicultural classroom, in ELT Journal, 56, 3. Oxford University Press.

Lincoln, Y. 1995. In search of students' voices. Theory into Practice, 34 (2), 88-93.

Martinez, P. and F. Munday. 1998. 9000 Voices: student persistence and drop-out in

further education. FEDA Report.

http://www.mail-archive.com/r-caldas

http://www.mail-archive.com/r-caldas



Mason, J. 2002 (2nd

Ed.). Qualitative Researching. London: SAGE.

Maykut, P and R. Morehouse. 1994. Beginning Qualitative Research, a Philosophical

and Practical Guide. London: The Falmer Press

Merriam, S.B. 2002. Introduction to Qualitative Research, in Merriam, S.B. &

Associates. 2002. Qualitative Research in Practice, Examples for Discussion and

Analysis. Jossey Bass: San Francisco.

Nolla, N. 1997. Etnografía: una alternativa más en la investigación pedagógica.

Revista Cubana Educación Media Superior Vol.11.

http://bvs.sld.cu/revistas/ems/vol11

O'Loughlin, M. 1995. Daring the imagination: unlocking voices of dissent and

possibility in teaching. Theory into Practice, 34 (2), 107-116.

Senior, R. M. 2002. A class-centred approach to language teaching, in ELT Journal,

56/4. pp. XXX. OUP.

Shacklock, G. & J. Smyth. 1997. Conceptualising and Capturing voices in dropout

research. Working Paper: Students Completing Schooling Project, Adelaide:

Flinders Institute for the Study of Teaching.

Smyth, J. 1998a. Dialectical Theory Building: Juxtaposing Theory with Students'

Voices in the Non-Completion of Schooling. Paper presented to the annual

meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Adelaide.

Smyth, J. 1998b. Researching the Cultural Politics of Teachers' Learning. In J.

Lopughran (Ed), Researching Teaching: Methodologies and Practices for

Understanding Pedagogy. (pp. 67-82). London: Falmer Press

Smyth, J. 1999. Voiced Research: Bringing in the Epistemologically marginalised?

Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research

in Education, Melbourne.

Smyth, J. and R. Hattam. 2001. „Voiced‟ Research as a Sociology for Understanding

„Dropping Out of School. British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 22 No.

3.Carfax Publishing.

Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory

Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage.

Stenhouse, L. 1984. Artistry and teaching: The teacher as focus of research and

development, in D Hopkins and M. Wideen (eds) Alternative Perspectives on

School Improvement. Lewes:Falmer Press.

Stevenson R. and Ellseworth, J. 1991. Dropping out in a Working Class High School:

adolescent voices on the decision to leave, in British Journal of Sociology of

Education, 12/3.

Tudor, I. 2003. Learning to live with complexity: towards an ecological perspective

on language teaching, in System, 31/1, pp. 1-12.

Verma, G.K. and K. Mallick. 1999. Researching Education. Perspectives and

techniques. Falmer Press: London

Woods, P. 1998. Investigar el arte de la enseñanza. El uso de la etnografía en la

educación. Paidos.

http://bvs.sld.cu/revistas/ems/vol11



WHAT CAN WE INVESTIGATE??

If we truly want to provide our students with the most appropriate learning

experience the very first thing to do is to develop a more context-bound methodology

of teaching (Bax 2003, Tudor 2003, Senior 2002). This comprises several points:

1. knowing the students' needs and fears. This could help us in anticipating

methodological problems.

2. knowing their expectations of a language class; what do they expect to gain

from it? What do they expect their role to be? Our role? We seem to take this

issue for granted and behave as if everybody behaved and learnt in the same

way.

3. involving learners in decision-making about existing course materials (what

sort of material do they prefer?) and learning activities.

4. incorporating student-generated activities/materials. They may express their

likes and preferred topics if we give them a fair chance.

qualitative research in the l2 classroom research in the l2 classroom a reader ... it's not...

Documents