In this chapter, I relate how I selected a suitable method to research the experience of students who had a history of dropping out or intermittent attendance in ABE. It was important for me to gain ‘real’ information from people who had been students in the ABE but who did not persist. To gain this information, I felt that I had to understand the benefits and disadvantages of various research approaches and to look at some of the theoretical pillars of investigating adult education.
In the last chapter, I described my approach to reading literature relevant to the topic, and some of the existing International and Irish work on retention in adult education, as well as ABE. As a result of this reading, I had a clearer idea of the kinds of questions I wanted to address with my interviewees to discover their subjective experience of ABE, to understand what kinds of reasons caused them to drop out. I discovered that personal and practical barriers needed to be covered, as did their experience of teaching methodologies but I was clear that there were going to be myriad reasons that they attributed to their poor literacy and poor success in remedying their situation.
My previous experience of research
While working towards my MA, I conducted a small research project which involved interviewing VTOS students to discover if they felt their self-esteem had also improved during their time in the programme. The methodology used for that investigation was based on questionnaire, and subsequent short interviews, having previously conducted a literature review and with an understanding of the theories linking persistence in education with self -esteem.
However, the interviews were conducted with students who persevered to the end of their year of study - no effort was made to speak to students who had not and it seemed to me even at the time that this was a lack in the investigation, since it begged the questions about their reasons for not persevering.
In my analysis, a positive statistical correlation was found between return to education and growth in self-esteem. While the combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies is not unusual in investigations (Strauss, 1964), I felt that greater
54
richness of data would be obtained through longer time spent, in deeper conversation, with participants. In this manner I could hear the stories of participants in the most realistic way possible and in the most natural setting. Instead of putting specific questions to participants, noting and categorising their answers, it seemed that a more interactive approach would be better. So, from this point on, I had decided what I was going to investigate and then had to decide how the investigation should best take place.
Since my purpose in this investigation was to search in depth into the life stories and feelings of the participants, to discover why they had left ABE, it was clear that I needed rich, qualitative data and had to look for a method which would capture the changing behaviours of the actors in the research. In Strauss & Corbin’s (1990:11) words, qualitative research ‘refers to research about persons’ lives, lived experiences, behaviours, emotions or feelings’ which seems to fit the present investigative requirement and Bryman (1999) agrees that qualitative research has the capacity to
‘throw up actors’ meanings and interpretations’. As Charmaz says (2006:10) ‘my approach explicitly assumes that any theoretical rendering offers an interpretive portrayal of the studied world, not an exact picture of it.’
Which Qualitative Research
The process of doing qualitative research presents a challenge because procedures for organising images are ill-defined and rely on processes of inference, insight, logic and luck and eventually, with creativity and hard work, the results emerge as a coherent whole.” (Morse, 1994:1)
Researching qualitative methods, (Creswell, 2007, Denscombe, 2010, Morse, 1994), it seemed that there was a choice between several methods which might be suitable:
Case study was dismissed, since its focus is a specific issue ‘explored through one or more cases within a bounded system’ and would not be suitable for my purpose to explore with a number of different people, the reasons why they left ABE.
Neither would Ethnography be suitable, since it requires observing the person in the society to which they belong, in this case the learning environment to which they no longer belonged.
Two approaches were considered in more detail, phenomenology and grounded theory.
55 Phenomenology
As a research approach, phenomenology seemed to have many of the requirements to discover the information I required from my interviewees. Since I believe that data is a construction between the researcher and the researched it requires that the research experience is described as clearly as possible through the eyes of the researcher. As Denscombe (2010:95) says ’phenomenology stresses the need to present matters as closely as possible to the way that those concerned understand them’, which is what I planned to do in my investigation.
Furthermore, phenomenology lends itself to the long, relatively unstructured interview where time can be spent discussing matters that arise, in some depth. My plan was to take this investigative approach. However, Denscombe (2010) also says that phenomenology, rather than trying to discover why something happens, the focus instead is on describing as really as possible, what happened. My purpose in this investigation was to discover some at least of the whys.
Denscombe (2010) says that phenomenology is suited to small scale research, can tell an interesting story because of describing lived, authentic experience, and it is a humanistic approach in that it is respectful of the people involved. However, he says there are disadvantages to this approach – it can be seen to lack scientific rigour, is descriptive not analytical, may refer largely to what he calls ‘mundane features of life’
and it is very difficult to generalise from its findings, since it may involve relatively few participants. He further says that there is difficulty in seeing things exclusively from the interviewee’s point of view and suspending your prior knowledge.
The fourth methodology, and the approach which I ultimately took, was grounded theory
Grounded theory
At the very preliminary point in my research journey when I was first in discussion with Maynooth about the possibility of pursuing a Ph.D., I had a short meeting with Leo Casey who had just completed his Ph.D., also in the area of Basic Education. As part of our discussion, he mentioned that he had used Grounded Theory as his research method and he very kindly allowed me to access his thesis. It seemed to me that it provided a good research method for a small project in the area of education and I therefore discovered more about it, in order to decide whether or not to use it myself.
56
Grounded theory was developed by the sociologists Barney G Glazer and Anselm L Strauss (Glazer, 1965, 1967). They were critical of what they called the ‘overemphasis in current sociology on the verification of theory, and a resultant de-emphasis on the prior step of discovering what concepts and hypotheses are relevant for the area that one wishes to research’ (1967:1)
In order to make sense of patients’ and medical professionals’ understanding of dying, Glaser and Strauss (1967) argued that such research would be better conducted in a qualitative way, and that it would also be possible that researchers could rigorously analyse this qualitative data in order to generate theory. This work was diametrically different, of course, from the positivist approach which calls for research to be used in order to ‘prove’ a theoretical position. ‘We suggest as the best approach an initial, systematic discovery of the theory from the data of social research. Then one can be relatively sure that the theory will fit and work’ (1967:3). Gherardi & Turner (1987) describe this methodology as being about ‘discovery’ rather than ‘verification’. (p.12) Glazer and Strauss were approaching their studies from a symbolic interactionist perspective (Blumer, 1937) which considered people to be self aware, adaptable to situations as they presented (Mead, 1934) and capable of ‘shaping society via shared meanings’ (Heath, 2004). Developing the concept of symbolic interactionism, Blumer (1956 in Heath, 2004) stressed ‘the role of concepts that are sensitising rather than definitive, that gain their unity and significance from patterned relationships rather than quantifiable correlations’(p.142). We can see, therefore, how grounded theory is reflective of this approach, since Blumer also compared cases in order to develop general features and emergent theory through these comparisons.
Selecting Grounded Theory
Because the purpose of my study was to talk to participants of Adult Basic Education and to learn from them why they had had difficulties in accessing and continuing in the programme, it seemed to be logical to use an approach to examining the data which would allow them to frame their reasons. As Creswell (2007) says, grounded theory is valuable in this case, where those participating in the study would have all been part of the question and help to provide the answer. No theory would be imposed on the data;
insofar as possible the researcher would come to the data with a clear mind; the theory would therefore arise from careful study of the data given to the researcher by each
57
individual and that information also carefully examined against data delivered by the other individuals involved in the study. In Charmaz’ (2006:5) words ‘They proposed that systematic qualitative analysis had its own logic and could generate theory.’ In particular, Glaser and Strauss intended to construct abstract theoretical explanations of social processes.
In researching about grounded theory, I first read Charmaz (2006), who was recommended to me as a good source of information about grounded theory and also
‘how to do’ grounded theory. I found that I had to read and re-read the book before I really got to grips with the theory. Looking back, I wish that I had first read a number of research papers using grounded theory, e.g. Bhandari et al (2003) , Larsson (1998), or indeed taken the advice to read theses using this methodology. These practical examples of using grounded theory would have made the subsequent reading of Charmaz more easily accessible.
There is a tension all the time in utilising grounded theory, between the prior knowledge of the investigator and the necessity of coming to the information without preconceptions, to truly reflect the place of the interviewee and allow theory to ‘emerge’
from the data. In the 1970s, Glaser and Strauss diverged in their approach to grounded theory, with Glaser insisting that meaning exists in the data and that the researcher’s task is to extract meaning and develop it into a theory. He criticised as ‘forcing’ the Strauss and Corbin (1990) belief that researchers cannot be entirely neutral and that deriving meaning requires interpretation by the researcher.
Among further developments, Charmaz (2006:xii) describes grounded theory methods as a way of ‘Creating an analytic edge to your work’, as a ‘set of principles and practices, not as prescriptions’ and her book gives ‘a way of doing grounded theory that takes into account the theoretical and methodological developments of the past four decades.’ And it is through this, constructed approach to grounded theory that I conducted this study.
Simply put, Charmaz (2006:6) sees the ‘defining components’ for grounded theory as:
Simultaneous involvement in data collection and analysis
Constructing analytic codes and categories from data, not from preconceived logically deduced hypotheses
58
Using the constant comparative method, which involves making comparisons during each stage of the analysis
Advancing theory development during each step of data collection and analysis
Memo-writing to elaborate categories, specify their properties, define relationships between categories and identify gaps
Sampling aimed toward theory construction, not for population representativeness
Conducting a literature review after developing an independent analysis.
At this point, having examined the various qualitative approaches to research, and taken advice from sources, (Creswell, 2007, Denscombe, 2010, Morse, 1994) I came to agree with Charmaz (2006:507), that Grounded Theory methods would be suitable for my needs, since they are:
a set of flexible analytic guidelines that enable researchers to focus their data collection and to build inductive middle range theories through successive levels of data analysis and conceptual development .
Constructed Grounded Theory
Andrews (2012) describes constructionism as a means of making sense of our worlds and understanding all knowledge to be constructed between ourselves and what we understand of the world we inhabit. He refers this back to the Mead (1934) idea of
‘symbolic interactionism’. Blumer (1937) sees constructionism as the way within which an individual ‘learns to cope with his world’, trying to solve problems through changing behaviour. Thus this approach sees both the person and knowledge as relational and changeable in changing environment.
The constructed nature of knowledge is thus described, information given to me in the interviews, re-evaluated in the light of their life experience, my applied understanding to their stories reported here ‘trying to make sense of a complex world and then constructing their own knowledge and understanding of it’ (Stock, 1996:21).
Charmaz (2006) applies this understanding in her approach to grounded theory. ‘We interpret our participants’ meanings and actions and they interpret ours’ (2006:127) She maintains that grounded theory methods will create knowledge between
59
participants in a study and the investigator, since each is making sense of the interaction from her own perspective. The investigator is thus part of the outcome, since she is interpreting and labelling data and working towards a theory. Charmaz states that, although an investigator strives to get as ‘close to the inside of the experience as we can, we cannot replicate the experiences of our research participants’ (p.130) (my italics).
To quote Etherington (2004:20) ,’I value local stories and know the world as socially constructed’, and it was to the local stories of people who had unsuccessfully participated in ABE that I went to discover reasons they suggested for their drop out and that might have a wider resonance.
Reflexivity
I was very clear that what I discovered from the information given to me by my interviewees would be my interpretation. I needed, therefore, to be as sure as I could that my interpretation was as close as possible to what they wanted to say. This has to be a serious concern for the researcher, that his/her prior experience or long-held beliefs do not affect the results. Etherington (2004:19) says ‘we need to be aware of our personal responses and to be able to make choices about how to use them’. Bryant and Charmaz (2007:609) define reflexivity as a ‘stance which informs how the researcher conducts his or her research, relates to the research participants and represents them in written reports.’
Etherington (2004, citing Winter, Buck and Sobiechowska 1966) suggests that it is important within our interpretation to discuss with others so that ‘we can co-construct new meanings in response to their critical reflections and our own’. Since I came to Grounded Theory with a limited Literature Review, as outlined in Chapter 2, I used post-interview notes and the memos I was creating as I analysed the data, together with information from theorists and other researchers to validate my construction and to present opposing arguments, during the time that I was writing up my findings.
Generating data
Within grounded theory it is possible to generate data by use of a number of methods, some of which I have discussed earlier, and which I discarded. The advice from Charmaz (2006:15) to ‘let your research problem shape the methods you choose’, and my belief that I needed to get as close as possible to the experience of my interviewees,
60
led me to believe that interviewing would be the best method. The discussion below provides the rationale for my decision.
Interviews
Judith Bell (1999) says that adaptability is the major advantage of an interview, in that the interviewer is able in a relatively unstructured way to seek clarification of points that are particularly interesting to him. She further says that the interviewees are more likely in an interview situation to declare their feelings, which could be a very valuable resource.
Nunkoosing (2005) warns not to take the interview ‘for granted’ but when we use it as a tool, that we should carefully consider each individual interview, with each individual participant. Denscombe (2010) notes three differences between a conversation and an interview, because in the latter:
There is consent to take part
Interviewees’ words can be taken as ‘on the record’
The agenda for the discussion is set by the researcher.
Denscombe (2010) suggests that an interview is appropriate where a researcher wants to
‘gain insights into things such as people’s opinions, feelings, emotions and experiences’(p.173), which makes this approach particularly suitable for the current investigation. He provides a checklist, which appears pretty obvious, but which is good for potential interviewers to be aware of: the interplay between the personal identity of the interviewer and the interviewee and the effect that this might have on the interview situation, and, second, that the interviewer is careful to present in a way not to antagonise and to remain ‘neutral and non-committal’ on statements made during the interview.
Using an interview in a research situation means, to quote Dunne et al (2005) recognising ‘that the views and actions of certain social actors are important’ – that they have specific knowledge about some data which you, as a researcher think are important. They stress the importance of understanding from the start why and how interview features in your research design. They observe that the interviewer ‘mediates the link between the methodology and the substantive concerns’ (2005:29) and clearly,
61
agree with Seale (1998) that the relationship between researcher and interviewee is not at all passive and should be part of a ‘reflexive engagement’ between their worlds.
In approaching this current piece of research, I wanted to take the opportunity to speak in more depth to a cross-section of learners who had histories of coming in and out of the second chance education system and to discover from them their understanding of why they behaved in these ways. Mezirow (1996) states the importance of striving to learn what someone means in the discourse created between interviewer and interviewee. In this way, by careful consideration of positions taken and ‘informed, objective and rational critique’ a ‘best judgement’ may be made of the constructed truth.
However, Cohen (1994), cited in Bell (1999), warns that ‘like fishing, interviewing is an activity requiring careful preparation, much patience and considerable practice if the eventual reward is to be a worthwhile catch’!
In fact, deciding to use interview as the data-gathering technique and considering the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee appears to be so fraught with difficulties – like power relations, influence, interpretation, that my initial, uninformed, feeling that it was the best possible method needed some detailed consideration.
Kvale (2006) does not dispute the ‘value of research interviewing for producing knowledge of the human situation, but raises conceptual, methodological and ethical concerns’ (p.496) in describing the power of the interviewer over the interviewee and stresses that an interview is not a dialogue but a situation in which one person gives information and the other reports it. He says that there has been a growing, but
Kvale (2006) does not dispute the ‘value of research interviewing for producing knowledge of the human situation, but raises conceptual, methodological and ethical concerns’ (p.496) in describing the power of the interviewer over the interviewee and stresses that an interview is not a dialogue but a situation in which one person gives information and the other reports it. He says that there has been a growing, but