CARACTERÍSTICAS

These three aspects of research design present a problematic triad for qualitative research, originating as they do from a positivist paradigm. Some researchers have used an alternative vocabulary, but with Robson (2002: 170) I prefer to look for alternative ways in which qualitative research meets the requirements of rigour. Ultimately it is a question of reader interpretation and the clarity with which I set out my research process and the reader must ultimately judge the degree of validity, reliability and the claims I make. However, I believe the methods I have used are rigorous and this is discussed below.

Reliability, as a concept can be problematic but useful in qualitative research (Mason 2002: 39). Traditionally it rests on the notion of methods and techniques ‘measuring’ or producing accurate and reproducible data, the tools of research being neutral, non- biased and standardised (Mason 2002: 187), rather than a concept of data being provisional, situated and the product of the process of research as most qualitative researchers would believe. Mason argues that qualitative research should also be

thorough, careful, honest and accurate (as distinct from true or correct – terms which many qualitative researchers would wish to reject). (p188)

This sense of honesty and accuracy is provided through a careful account of the research process. Accuracy in this study was attempted by tape recording the interviews, transcribing them in full, and constantly returning back to the tapes to check the transcription in order to attempt a faithful record of the interview. This process in itself can be challenged as spoken and written forms of language are different, speech seldom occurs in the structurally neat form presented in a written dialogue. Silverman argues for the use of conversation analytical conventions in transcription as a means of increasing the reliability of transcripts (Silverman, 2001: 231). This method however is time consuming and inappropriate in the amount of detail required for phenomenography, which relies on the sense or meaning of experience conveyed by speech (Trigwell 2000). Within the transcription process I have punctuated to emphasise the sense of the meaning as spoken and I have included the hesitations, emphases and stumbling as they occurred, as I believe this reflects the difficulties and thoughts behind the explication of experience but also points to issues that are important to the individual. Also through my own insider knowledge of the art and design context I am able to understand terminology and references made by the tutors to their specialist areas, a problem when using audio typists. The transcripts were also supported by brief notes made during and after the interviews in a research journal.

Consistency over time, another way of establishing reliability (Silverman 2001: 225) quoting Kirk and Miller (1986), is not appropriate in relation to the methodology used, as phenomenographic approaches do not claim to provide pictures of stability, but are situated in specific situations and on another occasion, with another researcher it is quite feasible that the research would reflect a different set of experiences and result in a different outcome space as a result (Ashwin 2005). The interview is central to the phenomenographic methodology as it rests on the premise that accounts of experience are filtered through an individual’s consciousness and will reflect aspects

of the experience that are important for that individual at that time in those

circumstances (Marton & Booth 1997). In many studies using this methodological approach reliability could be argued through a collective interpretation, verification and construction of the outcome space (see Åkerlind et al. 2005). This inter-judge reliability has been argued by Sandberg (1997) to be unreliable and epistemologically inconsistent. I believe the methodology itself, requiring a constant return to the text until a stable analytical structure is reached, is reliable in terms of qualitative research. The requirement to produce a diagrammatic explanatory structure, the outcome space, shapes the actions of the researcher to constantly question the interpretation.

Validity is a claim that your research is ‘”measuring”, or explaining, what you claim to be measuring or explaining’ (Mason, 2001:188). The research design was based on understanding the practitioner tutor’s experience of practice, teaching and the relationship between them, and data was generated through interviews as the primary means to develop an insight into how this was experienced from the practitioner tutor’s point of view, with a particular focus in mind (Mason 2002: 62). The notion of the structure of awareness and intentionality in personal accounts is central to phenomenography (Marton & Booth 1997) and to the research questions. Those aspects of experience that are to the fore are recounted in the interview process. The semi-structured interview questions also ensured that the discussion focused on key aspects of the phenomenon being investigated but allowed for individual responses and unlooked for aspects of experience to emerge (Robson 2002: 278).

The interview process itself provided a means of checking that my understanding and interpretation of the tutor’s statements were in line with their thinking. I used the interview to check that my understanding was an appropriate one, through rephrasing

questions in different ways, to provide opportunities for more than one response to a question, or asking if my alternative description of their account was accurate in terms of the tutor’s intended meaning. Kvale refers to this as ‘validation in situ’ (1996: 237). Communicative validity (Kvale 1996: 244-248) is also demonstrated through the argument and the claims set out in the thesis.

Using activity theory to view individual’s experience of the context and not relying on one methodological viewpoint to understand the experiences of practitioner tutors added to the interpretation and flexibility (Robson 2002) of the research. This was perhaps a more appropriate form of validity than the notion of triangulation, which rests on the assumption that there is one truth and different methods of data

generation will provide a way to pinpoint the truth (Mason, 2002:190). Denzin (1988) refers to the use of multiple methods as theory triangulation, but I prefer to see this as an alternative way of extending the explanation and interpretation of the data. Thus using phenomenography to illuminate the possible ways to experience practice/ teaching relations is a reliable and valid approach to adopt, and extending the interpretation into the context through the heuristic of activity theory enables the context to be brought into focus, both being appropriate ways to explore my research questions.

The extent to which the research in this study is generalisable is limited due to the small scale and discipline focus. There are similarities between art and design and other practice based disciplines such as nursing, where the practitioner tutor is employed (Fairbrother & Ford 1998, Murphy 2000, Williamson 2004, Gillespie & McFetridge 2006). However, the claims I make are that there are most probably more complex ways of experiencing practice/ teaching relations than have been reported in the literature to date (e.g. Elcock 1998, Fairbrother & Mathers 2004). The study also provides an illumination of the potential ways that practitioner tutors in art and design

experience their teaching in an education organisation and this should resonate within the subject sector as a whole, where there is a high dependency on part time and visiting tutors who work directly with students.