Determinar la relación de consistencia (RC), que se define con la Ecuación 7:

This section of the investigative stage outlines issues involved with negotiating and managing access to the primary means of data collection. It looks firstly at access and ethics, then at making contact, personal access and representing research. Dörnyei (2007:63) quotes Miles and Huberman (1994:28) who state: ‘Any qualitative researcher who is not asleep ponders moral and ethical questions In this regard negotiation of entry is a vital but often neglected aspect of qualitative research methodology. At the same time, successful entry at the expense of goodwill can fatally undermine data gathering. When seeking access to their attitudes towards writing and their provision of feedback on students’ work I felt it important to bear in mind that teachers at IYTE, like all ordinary citizens, tend to value their privacy and that without clarifying matters, although at the outset they may be interested in assisting on a limited basis, they may not enjoy systematic and continued requests from a researcher. Dörnyei (2007:64) points out how ‘... as human beings with moral principles, we cannot deny either that there is more to life than research, and if there is a possibility for a clash between the researcher’s and the participants’ interests, it is clear where the priorities should lie Access to students’ and teachers’ work therefore has to be carefully negotiated. The following sections concern gaining such access and related issues.

4.7.1 Arranging consent

Dörnyei (2007:64) quotes Punch (2005) who points out that issues concerning ethics are more acute in qualitative than quantitative research because the former ‘..often intrudes more into the human private sphere: it is inherently interested in peoples’ personal views and often targets sensitive or intimate matters Dörnyei (2007:64) continues by pointing out the tension between on the one hand the researcher realising that ethical issues may be a hindrance, and on the other the need to be aware that in a politically correct age ethical issues can be blown so far out of proportion as to help grind the research to a halt. It is worth adding, however, that Dörnyei (2007:65) also points out how Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2006) observe that discussions on ethical issues tend to be marginalised. Dörnyei suggests this is due to the assumption that fellow researchers reading the report are already aware of them. Throughout this study no such assumptions were made. At all stages I was sensitive to the issues relating to permission (Appendix A), agreement to be recorded (Appendix B) and explanations of what ‘involvement’ meant (Appendix J). The following sections looks at several key ethical dilemmas and issues.

Consultation in order to arrange consent with persons such as directors is likely to involve Dingwall’s (1980) hierarchy of consent. Richards (2003) points out that it is important to know how far any consent given may actually extend, and whether the consent was given freely or under an element of coercion. One suggestion Richards (2003) mentions is offering something in return for cooperation and assistance with access. As 4.2 explains, under the name of IYTE, I provided seminars at national and international conferences on the

progress of this study. With these points in mind, I negotiated access to teachers and their work via a letter to the IYTE Director (Appendix A) in which I briefly outlined the study.

4.7.2 Arranging participation

Richards (2003) points out that ‘All the evidence of the literature points unequivocally to the conclusion that it is personal contact which is likely to open doors’. It would have been easy to overlook such matters during this study, therefore this was another reason for a letter (Appendix A) written to the IYTE Director outlining my research intentions. The content related to issues on representing the research but ensured not too much detail was revealed too soon. I was given permission by the Director to solicit interest in this study in which six teachers were invited to participate in a group interview, described in detail in 3.4.2. All were current teachers of writing at IYTE, and all with experience of teaching writing in the higher education sector in Turkey. Further details of the members of this group along with why the group interview format was chosen are given in 4.8.2 and 4.8.4, respectively.

4.7.3 Relationships

Dörnyei (2007:65) explains how qualitative research, with its degree of close contact, especially during individual interviews, may often result in intimate relationships in the attempt by the researcher to establish rapport and empathy while trying to gain access to participants’ lives. Ryen (2004), for example, discusses the issue of flirting with adult participants. One other issue also concerns how to end a research project, since bringing it to an end too

abruptly may leave participants with a feeling of having been used. Feeling that a letter of thanks to each was perhaps unnecessary, when the time came for AR team members to depart, or for the final team to disband, I took the time to thank them individually and encourage them to visit me to discuss any related matters. All participants are named in the acknowledgements on page five.

4.7.4 Access to data

Concerning personal access, my professional role in the writing unit at IYTE is described in more detail in 1.4, which outlines the context in which this study took place. It is important to note that my relationship with colleagues was as their administrative coordinator, a role with more responsibility to organise the teaching programme, and not one with power to promote or berate. Having direct access to such a wide range of potential research data required a great degree of sensitivity. Sections below outline further issues regarding access, then types of data that were available, along with how access to each type was negotiated. A key point in regard to data is over its ownership and to what extent the data belongs to the researcher. In a multi-method project degrees of ownership may vary according to the data type. Related issues concern editing, restricting access to and releasing data, all of which required discussion prior to all phases of this study.

4.7.5 Representing research to participants

Richards (2003) suggests there is a fine line between limited description and deliberate deception, and that we cannot give away too much or we face the

risk of compromising the research before it has even begun. However, I did not feel it necessary to withhold details of what I was currently planning to do in this study. A further part of the negotiation phase to address was the way in which the data was to be used. The initial letter (Appendix B) soliciting interest was informative, but did not provide in-depth explanations of main research intentions.

Bearing in mind the above considerations, the following section details how I negotiated access to sources of research data. It explains research instruments used, including group and individual interviews with teachers.