Aplicación práctica del procedimiento propuesto en la UEB objeto de estudio

Part of the appeal of using grounded theory method is its apparent flexibility, and how its methods have been refined from Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original work, so that as Charmaz (2006: 9) points out, many grounded theory method researchers now focus on its ‘guidelines such as coding, memo writing and sampling for theory development.’ This approach to usage is supported by Reid (2007) when she noted how she adopted a grounded theory basedapproach when exploring the supervisory structures for new Connexions advisers in Kent.

In operationalising a grounded theory method for my research, the initial questions to address were: what data am I gathering; from whom; and how. Based on the answer to these questions, I gathered rich and complex data (Charmaz, 2006) from careers guidance

practitioners’ experience not just in relation to their roles but also from their wider contexts (personal and professional). In this way, the narrative is the data (Ibid.): the participants’ stories of why and how they entered the careers guidance profession; what they sought to achieve; in what ways was the careers guidance role different from others they have occupied; their sense of their professional identity and its features; and the impact of their

99 service provider context on their sense of identity. This approach is also consistent with structuration’s (e.g. Giddens, 1984, Bourdieu 1989) concern with the ways in which language is the key resource by which individuals interact within, and also shape, structures.

4.2.1 My method for capturing the data

The most obvious method for capturing such narratives is through interviews, as Stern (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007: 116) notes: ‘social scientists...tend to rely on interviewing and observational data.’ I chose to use semi-structured interviews as my research method as they offer a number of advantages. Firstly, they offer the researcher a way of encouraging participants to talk about their experiences, attitudes, beliefs and even more deeply-held values and emotions (Byrne, 2012). They can also offer a balance of a consistent structure, in terms of questions themes or areas, as well as flexibility. The former enables the researcher to compare and contrast responses under common question areas. The latter allows the researcher to respond to the narratives, probe them further and also assess the non-verbal cues offered by the participants which can then be noted as part of the data (Robson, 2011). An example from my own research here is to note the participants’ reactions when asked if they feel they have a professional identity. The answer of ‘yes’ typed on the page does not capture the speed, force, doubt, reluctance or sheer enthusiasm that the participants expressed when answering in the affirmative. If all the responses were positive, and yet spoken hesitatingly, then these data may be treated differently than if all the expressions were far more immediate and enthusiastic. In addition, interviews offer the researcher insights into the ways in which the interviewees express and construct meanings (Silverman, 2011). This was considered a key advantage that links with my research aim of exploring the ways in which professional identity is both felt internallyand expressed externally. One of the interview questions centred on participants’ perceptions of the effect that the organisation in which they work has on their sense of identity – again, a point linked to my chosen theoretical perspective.

100 A further advantage of my research method is the way in which research participants may in some ways benefit from the interview experience. As Rubin and Rubin (2005) and Charmaz (2006) note, interviewers can give interviewees a chance to reflect on, express and even uncover meanings of their professional (and personal) lives in ways that may not have done before. Most of my interviewees noted just after the interview had finished that they found the interview useful, helpful and even supportive. The main aspect being that they found it liberating to have the researcher listen and show such interest and have positive regard for their experiences. This is in contrast to their experiences during a period of rapid sectoral change, critically explored in chapter two, when their discussions with managers were often concerned only with meeting performance targets and other operational matters. They identified a lack of opportunity to sit with a supportive mentor and simply be able to talk through experiences as a way of learning from them.

My choice of semi-structured interview as a method of gathering data was also for a strong practical reason. As a trained careers adviser, and as someone who now teaches and trains careers guidance practitioners, I have a high level of competence in interview skills which are grounded in the Egan approach (2014). These skills include: rapport making; asking initial open questions to encourage clients to tell their story; active listening and attending so that verbal and non-verbal communication is intensely listened to. Additional skills also cover: structuring the interview so that a fine balance is struck between allowing clients to pursue their narratives and maintaining an overall purpose and format (see Ali and Graham, 1996); reflecting back and summarising; and applying Schon’s approach of

reflection in action (1995) where the interviewer is simultaneously present in the interview, but is also monitoring, reflecting on and then making sense of the interview. The latter enables follow up questions and a stronger sense of the interviewee’s story. In addition, the interview models which I have followed – and indeed teach – seek to embody the kind of

101 Rogerian unconditional positive regard for the interviewee which is underpinned by an

ethical stance – particularly Kant’s respect for persons (Norman, 1998) – and which leads to practical benefits, e.g. encouraging the interviewee to talk.

A further advantage of the semi-structured interview as a method is that it is also consistent with the constant comparative method of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), where new data as it is captured and then analysed may then be more easily compared with previous datasets where the responses fall under those headings. This also enabled me to gauge the point at which I have received theoretical saturation (Glaser, 1978), where no new categories are emerging, and that the responses to the interview questions are common. Charmaz (2006) also notes that interviews more generally as a research method not only capture participants’ narratives but they are also part of the theory generation process; in this way, the focus is not simply on exploring interesting stories as the end in itself. The need to be aware of the dual purpose of the interviews – gathering data fortheory building – further strengthened my case for using semi-structured interviews, since they can maintain the balance between encouraging narratives and gathering data under common headings to enable the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

When evaluating the appropriateness of the semi-structured interview as a method, I also considered the potential advantages and relevance of other data gathering tools. One such method was focus groups. As Robson (2011) notes, they offer possible advantages, e.g. in terms of efficiency by gathering together a number of participants at once; and the group may have fitted with my aim of exploring the extent to which the members expressed a shared sense of identity (or at least debated the question). However, I rejected this method for a number of practical and methodological reasons. A major challenge of arranging focus groups is logistical (Ibid) – trying to get busy practitioners to the same venue for the same time. Given the demands on careers guidance practitioners, then arranging a focus may have

102 proved too challenging. Perhaps as importantly, focus groups often have the purpose of encouraging participants to discuss issues that may be of common concern to them (Tonkiss, 2011); and I could not assume that professional identity would beof interest to them. Still further, groups may generate their own dynamics which may prevent some participants from contributing freely, or in ways that are overly influenced by the need to maintain a consensus in the group (or, the reverse, to disagree with any emerging view!) (Hennick et al., 2011). Finally, I was also mindful that I wanted to explore narratives and stories, and the extent to which each participant felt she or he had a professional identity within the personal and professional context (Bryman, 2012). Interviewing individuals face-to-face offers richness of data that is not readily gained from a focus group. For these reasons, I decided to remain with the semi-structured interview as my sole method.

4.2.2 Sampling: theoretical underpinnings

For this part of my research process, there were a number of considerations that relate more generally to qualitative research and more particularly to a grounded theory method. To begin with, it is worth noting the crucial differences between quantitative and qualitative sampling strategies. Quantitative research methods use probability sampling based on the concept of the null hypothesis (Robson, 2011), i.e., where potential research participants have an equal chance of being included (or not) in the data collection, such as in the use of survey questionnaires that are mailed to the researcher’s intended target population. By contrast, qualitative research tends to use non-probability sampling (Seale, 2012), where the sample is constructed purposively in line with the aim of the research project. This approach may apply particularly to exploratory research (Sarantakos, 2005) where the aim is not to prove an hypothesis, but to explore experiences and perceptions. The general technique, therefore, is to select purposely those who may be considered suitable for the research aims (Bryman, 2012). In this case, I was seeking to recruit careers guidance practitioners from a number of

103 different contexts that were representative of the sector. In seeking to construct a

representative sample, it is worth noting here that the composition of the final sample, as listed below, comprised seventeen women and two men. This gender imbalance may reflect perceptions of the profession – that women tend to be in the majority of the workforce – (Peck, 2004) though there is a lack of extensive empirical evidence to document the labour configuration of the sector overall. I will explore my particular sampling criteria later in this section.

More particularly for a grounded theory method, the approach is driven by theoretical sampling (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Charmaz, 2006). The aim of this sampling approach is expressed by Glaser and Strauss (1967: 45) as follows:

‘a process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes and analyses his data, and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges. This process of data collection is controlled by emerging theory.’

The above stipulates a number of critical points that distinguish a grounded theory method from more generic qualitative sampling techniques (Hood, 2007). As Glaser and Strauss proposed (1967), the researcher begins with an initial sample selected for the

purposes of research, collect data using an appropriate method, and then begin initial coding with a view to identifying some emerging categories. The subsequentsampling is in

response to, or sensitiveto, the emerging theory suggested by the categories; and the data are subject to the constant comparative analysis (Ibid.) with the initially emerging categories. The grounded theory method researcher is also searching for data or ‘negative cases’ (Charmaz, 2006: 157) that may contradict, or add more complexity to, the developing

104 categories and formulation (Glaser, 1978; Strauss and Corbin, 1990) in order to strengthen the eventual theory.

In addition, Hood (2007) notes some key differences between the above and more general qualitative sampling. Firstly, that more general approaches develop sampling criteria that may be a priori in relation to the research aim. The sampling approach of a grounded

theory method develops this further by being theoretically sensitive and contingent upon the emerging categories – that is, the latter is much more focusedon the developing theory. The other key aspect is that more generic approaches to data gathering and analysis may be evolving and tend to concentrate on emerging themes, with some comparison between the data sets. This is in contrast to a grounded theory method, where the approach is to ‘focus on the development of theoretical categories via the constant comparative method, comparing data both to each other and to theoretical categories’ (Ibid.,:156). In essence, grounded theory sampling is driven by the emerging theory, rather than in response to more general issues raised by the research area.

These sampling procedures of a grounded theory method confirm my choice of this research approach in relation to my initial focus. My concern was to generate a model of professional identity as it relates to careers guidance, rather than a more exploratory study which, for example, may look at the effects of policies, or continuing professional

development (CPD), on an assumedsense of identity (see Colley et al., 2011; Neary, 2014). These latter studies were exploratory, even polemical, in their conclusions concerning the negative effects of government policies on careers guidance in England (most notably, the introduction of the Connexions Service), and the potential role of CPD in bolstering and supporting practitioners’ esteem and identity. By contrast, my study is generative and not just exploratory in the way it seeks to build a model of professional identity across the profession.

105 4.2.3 My a priori sampling criteria

That said, the study did have initial a priori criteria (Bryman, 2012) in order that I

collected data from a small case set in order to begin generating my categories. The criteria may be said to link to the approach taken by Karp (1985) in the way in which he selected particular aspects of his study, e.g. characteristics of his sample by age, role, number of years in service. The characteristics I selected are discussed as follows.

Firstly, practitioners who deliver careers information, advice and guidance using career related and labour market information, interviews, group work, and curriculum-based interventions. A generic role term for such staff would be careers advisers, but other

variations would be acceptable, e.g. careers and employability consultants. Secondly, and initially, I sought to exclude those who work as Connexions Personal Advisers or similar and provided targeted services to disengaged young people as part of the statutory duty placed on local authorities by the Education Act (2011). The reason for this exclusion was that the focus of their work was less on careers guidance and more on holistic, more general welfare type support. These initial consideration also applied to those who worked in higher

education (HE) as employability development consultants, since these roles are focussed on transition, almost placement-type of support without careers guidanceand are new roles constructed as part of higher education institutions’ strategic response to introduction of full fees (Browne, 2010). However, my subsequent theoretical sampling meant that I did collect data from two practitioners who held roles in these two areas (participants D and G

respectively), with a view to finding negative cases (Charmaz, 2006), particularly as the participants concerned had successfully completed the Qualification in Career Guidance (QCG). In addition, I chose to include senior careers advisers, team leaders and similar who still provide information, advice and guidance services, since I was interested in the ways in which professional identity may be affected by supervisory responsibilities. Further, I

106 incorporated those who are qualified with NVQ 4 in Advice and Guidance; or QCG; or DipCG; or the AGCAS Post-Graduate Diploma. I did not stipulate a required number of years’ experience, since I wanted to explore the sense of professional identity engendered in newly-qualified or newly-recruited practitioners. It proved fruitful to consider the

perspectives of newly-qualified staff as well as those with more experience (and particularly those who qualified with the DipCG and have experienced a number of major re-

organisations), as my data analysis shows in chapter seven.

I intended to recruit practitioners from a range of contexts in which careers guidance is delivered: schools; FE; HE; and adult guidance. In addition, I recruited those who now work as independent practitioners and provide services to schools or adults, since their notions of professional identity may deepen conceptions of what is beginning to constitute the new careers guidance professional. These contexts are representative of the sector in the UK. Finally, it was my aim to select candidates from the West Midlands region in England, since this area has a mix of urban and rural features, and has a varied educational and careers guidance provision, e.g. it has a mix of Russell Group and post – 1992 universities, as well as schools and FE colleges that serve the diverse populations of the urban and rural areas. In addition, and during the main period of the research, the area had a major careers guidance provider which was running a National Careers Services contract for adults in a variety of settings, including prisons.

As discussed above, my final sample showed a strong gender imbalance. I had aimed to recruit a more balanced sample, but at the same time I was reliant on those who

volunteered in response to my call for participants. In the next section that immediately follows below, I set out in more detail the practicalities of my sampling approach.

107 4.2.4 Operating my sampling strategy – initial sampling and data gathering

Having set out my a priori sampling strategy (Bryman, 2012) above: that is, the basis

on which I would make my initial selection of participations before then theoretically sampling (Glaser, 1978) further, I will now explain how I operationalised the particular sampling procedures of a grounded theory method. More particularly, I followed the approach for initial data collection by selecting cases (individuals from specific

organisational contexts) that were consistent with my overall research focus (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The construction of this early purposive sample also reflected pragmatic considerations (Charmaz, 2014), e.g., ease of access to the participants, and the need to sample from contrasting provider contexts. Of the first five I interviewed, one was working as a careers adviser with the National Careers Services (NCS) in England; three were careers advisers from Higher Education (HE); and one was from FE. All were based in the West Midlands. The table below also illustrates the characteristics of the sample in terms of gender and experience, with some being relatively newly qualified, while others almost being

historian-like in the extent of their employment.

In recruiting this initial sample, I approached managers from a variety of careers guidance providers in the region, and asked if they were willing to disseminate details of my research project, and the participant information sheet, to their staff. This was done by a general e-mail to all service staff. Volunteers were encouraged to contact me directly by e- mail without any need to notify their line managers or employers. The reasons for this