Detalle de Dividendos
26. Contratos de Derivados Contratos de Derivados
The primary concern of any qualitative research is its trustworthiness (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). In the constructivist paradigm, the meaningful and multiple realities are socially constructed from humans’ experience and ideas, “in and out of interactive human community” (Crotty, 2005, p. 55). Thus, Shenton (2004) asserts that the concepts of validity and reliability need to be approached differently from those of positivist paradigm that sees reality as single and stable. Hammersley (1993) in Cohen et al. (2011, p. 181) suggests that “validity in qualitative research replaces certainty with confidence in our results, and that, as reality is independent of the claims made for it by the researchers, our accounts will only be representations of that reality rather than reproductions of it”. In this study, the following actions were observed in order to ensure the trustworthiness of the data and findings:
Prolonged engagement in the field. In this study, I spent three months in the field. Since
my return to the university was as an insider-researcher, I did not take a longer time to get to know the teachers. However, I took two weeks to ‘break the ice’ with my ten student participants, being aware that building a good rapport with them would help to achieve the objectives of my research. Therefore, during the interview sessions, it was crucial for me to get to know them better as they were the ones who made up the learners’ social world. In addition, I tried as much possible not to be a threat to the students in the classroom. Prior to my actual data collection stage, I sat in the classroom during the writing lessons as I wanted them to know of my presence, that I was observing their teacher and their learning. I also needed time to be acquainted with the classroom setting and to get used to my dual role. It was my first experience being there as a researcher, although as a teacher myself, I had a lot of experience being in a classroom. My presence in the field enabled me to learn the social practices of the students and thus helped me to gain in-depth understanding as I attempted to explore the phenomenon under study.
The use of multiple sources. Braun and Clarke (2013) state that some researchers use
multiple sources to get “as close to the ‘truth’ of the object of study as possible” and limiting data collection to one method may lessen the breadth of the results (p. 285). This implies that using a variety of methods to collect data on the same topic will ensure the validity of the research, and this way also involves different types of samples. However, Stake (2010, p. 122) refutes the idea of using multiple sources as “a form of confirmation and validation” because it is akin to ‘checking up’ various sources in order to arrive at the ‘right’ truth or at a single reality. Patton (2002) states that triangulation refers to the use of multiple methods or data sources in qualitative research to develop a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon. In this study, multiple source s were used but not to triangulate the data to cross-validate data; they were used to capture different dimensions of the same phenomenon. The use of multiple sources in this study – such as classroom observation, semi structured interviews and documents – provided good understanding from different perspectives of an investigated phenomenon.
Interactive questioning. As some of my research participants were my own colleagues
and the students knew my return was as an insider-researcher, I was aware of the possibility of them giving responses that were ‘tailored’ to please me. I was also aware that one might question how reliable (accurate or inaccurate) the students’ recollection of memories about their writing experience in school were, for me to consider th ese to be part of my data. I acknowledged that as humans, we are all fallible but researchers are able to uncover discrepancies in responses by employing iterative questioning (Shenton, 2004) as a strategy. In cases where “contradiction emerge, falsehoods can be detected and the researcher may decide to discard the suspect data” (p. 67). The use of probes and paraphrased questions were among the strategies I used to obtain and elicit detailed data and also to gather possible explanations.
Member checking: The researcher can seek accuracy and new meanings through member
checking (Stake, ibid). In this study, I presented my research participants with the interview transcripts and an offer to check the interpretations in my analysis. All of the participants whom I interviewed were given the opportunity to verify their own responses against the transcriptions of the interview that I had with them.
The process of coding and re-coding of data. In this study, I took the effort to code and
re-code the data several times and this process helped me to understand the students’ struggles and how they navigated themselves when writing in the new context.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state that the purpose of a qualitative research is to develop an in-depth and unique understanding of a certain phenomenon and not to generalise its findings. Therefore, it is also impossible to replicate a study as each study is bound up with the peculiarities of the participants and its context, the circumstances as well as the researcher (Stake, 2010). What makes one research rigorous or trustworthy is the researchers’ careful design, strategies and “questions congruent with the philosophical assumptions underlying this perspective” (Merriam & Tisdell, ibid, p. 239).
4.9CONCLUSION
Early in this chapter I wrote about my difficulties when trying to obtain consent from my own colleagues at the data collection stage. I said to myself, ‘could this be because my
position of a researcher was seen as an outsider as I was temporarily on study leave and no longer teaching in this HEI for a duration of four years?’ There are certain recognised
strengths when the teacher takes the role of the researcher (Hammersley, 1993), but with my limitations, I realised that my presence as an observer could also strain the collaborative researcher-colleague and researcher-student relationship on which success depended. Dwyer and Buckle (2009) commented on the problems that outside researchers are likely to encounter. I attempted to keep the degree of disturbance as low as possible in order to represent the teachers’ and students’ perspectives as authentically as I could. During my fieldwork, I tried to block the teacher in me from making assumptions and the researcher in me from trying to prove a favourable bias.
The resultant trust that developed between myself and the teachers and students overcame the slight initial disturbance posed by audio recording interview sessions and classroom talk. Any remaining anxiety was diffused by my continued presence in the classroom as one who routinely audio recorded class activities. I believe that, by appearing unobtrusive, I was able to build rapport with my teacher and student participants and allow for the means by which to capture nuances.
On the down side, at first I did not realise that my insider position would lead to the loss of two of my student participants. Because I had previously been their teacher’s colleague, the students appeared to have particular assumptions about what they should tell me during the interviews. For example, when I asked specific questions about their writing preferences in the classroom, they responded, ‘will you tell her? [...] I don’t feel
comfortable sharing my experience because I saw you coming out from the same car, are you friends?’ Soon afterwards, both students texted me and opted out as my participants.
These questions made me reflect that I falsely projected myself as a colleague-researcher and thereby became a threat to their learning experience. I discussed this with my colleague and we agreed that it was better not to be seen together and we created a degree of distance in order to help me to get students’ participation for my interview sessions.
In addition, while writing up my analysis, my insider knowledge caused me to struggle as the academic writing teacher in me overshadowed my role as researcher. My familiarity with the teaching writing practices in the university created a bias as to what I felt should be taught in the classroom. Later, after multiple drafts of writing the analysis chapters, I held my teacher self back and tried to see it from the lens of a researcher. In fact, the struggle between these two roles allowed me to explore my teacher-participants thoroughly and influenced how I managed to reveal mismatched expectations between teachers and students.
I learned that in ethnographic research, reflexivity and the writing-up process cannot be separated; Hertz’s (1997) collection examined “reflexivity” and “voice”, with reflexivity being described as a concern with how the selves and identities of the researcher and researched affect the research process. The researcher plays an active role in the production of knowledge by constructing the collection, selection and interpretation of data (Koch & Harrington, 1998). Thus, it is crucial for them to be critically conscious of any potential biases (Wood et al., 1993). Reflexivity requires a critical attitude towards data, and the research of factors such as location of setting, sensitivity of topic, power relations in the field and nature of social interaction between researcher and researched, all influence how the data is interpreted and conveyed when writing up the results (Brewer, 2000). Jones and Watt (2011) suggests that “reflexivity is more than mere reflection but rather a theoretical, ethical and political stance whereby ethnographers consider their position within their research, their relationship to their field subjects and
their wider cultural context” (p. 8). The concept of reflexivity informed me of the biases, values and experiences that I might bring to my qualitative research. Since the field for my study is very much related to the nature of my work, my past experiences might have shaped my interpretation of the phenomenon, conclusions and the interpretations drawn in this study.
In Chapter 5, I begin my analysis by looking at the teaching writing approaches used. My approach in the analysis chapters is to present and analyse the data with minimum discussion, as detailed explanation of the findings is provided in the concluding Chapter 9.