Estrategia SAR

In considering what data might prove a rich vein, the original questions of specific research interest were revisited. Firstly I was interested in novice

undergraduates’ experiences’ during a literacy intervention and in particular moments of transition. However, it was not my intention to directly study the intervention, rather the impact and outcomes the intervention might have on novice undergraduates’ behaviour. So following Latour’s approach (2005), which emphasises the need to describe events without interference of analysis or opinion, my intention was to identify rich interactions, relationships, strategies and literacy practices as recounted by learners. Starting from the premise that learners are experts in their own experiences (Creanor et al., 2007; pp: 10) I was keen to find a doorway into their complex experiences (Bryman, 2012; pp: 471), thus gathering data from the students themselves seemed obvious. To illuminate the research question I was also interested in exploring written artefacts produced by the respondents as a point of comparison with their expressions of literacy practices for academic study and writing.

An initial review of approaches to data collection indicated a number of possibilities and whilst focused interviews (Cohen and Manion, 1995; pp: 289) and document content analysis (Cohen and Manion, 1995; pp: 55) were adopted, a number of others were considered. Focus groups and journal keeping were evaluated and eventually dismissed; reasons are now presented.

Focus groups would have been a low-cost way of getting a sense of the range of informants’ perspectives from a large group, or multiple groups (Knight, 2002; pp: 71) and would have facilitated a broad-ranging collective conversation (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2008; pp: 375) enabling an understanding of the particular issues, from the perspective of the participants (Liamputtong 2012). However, given the small group size, in terms of obtaining a rich picture that might illuminate subsidiary interrelated factors, this approach seemed limited. In particular, possible challenges around group management and potentially dominant individuals (Knight, 2002; pp: 71) made me think this data gathering approach was not the best for my data gathering requirements.

This decision led me to consider asking respondents to maintain a journal or diary as a research tool (Robson, 1993). Diaries as a data gathering tool were initially appealing as they might render exceptionally rich data during the period the respondents were participating in the literacy intervention (Kenten, 2010). However, it would have placed a great deal of responsibility on the respondent (Robson, 1993). This responsibility on first year students in addition to the transition to Higher Education would have been impractical and difficult to justify in terms of ethics. Additionally it would have meant ethical compromises by commencing the research prior to the completion of the module. As a result of this student journals/diaries were not used at any stage of the research.

It became clear that interviewing would most effectively illuminate respondents’ understanding and allow access to their complex experiences (Bryman, 2012; pp: 471). Additionally, analysis of written artefacts produced by respondents would enable a cross reference of respondents’ description of their literacy activities as represented in their actual documents’ content, thus further enriching the picture gained.

Thus data were gathered by the researcher in two ways, firstly through respondent reports (Cannel & Axelrod, 1956) ascertained through interviews and secondly through a triangulation of artefacts/essays (Robson, 1993; pp: 290) produced by respondents during the literacy intervention. These activities took place over a period of a year. Thus data gathering commenced following the end of the first semester of study during which time respondents had participated in a literacy intervention designed, and embedded in a module to support their entry and progress in their higher education course of study. Data gathering was completed in the six months following the end of their literacy intervention. One set of evidence (18 essays, three per student) provides evidence of actual change in terms of literacy practices used by the respondents whilst the second set of evidence, respondent transcripts, contained respondent accounts of their literacy practices during the intervention as shown in the following Table 5-1. This is initially presented below in Table 5-1 and then described in detail in the following sections 5.10 and 5.11 which describes phases one and two in greater detail.

Phase Where? Focus Evidence Analysis Phase 1 Chapter 6 Literacy practices

(RQ4) Written artefacts: 18 essays (3 per student) 2 formative & 1 summative Pen portraits, Comments from respondent transcripts Documentary Analysis – Classification using a framework derived from the SCONUL Seven Pillars of Information literacy practices – core model to identify actual literacy practices used and showing

change/development of literacy practices over the 3 essays for each respondent. Background context showing respondents as representative of non- traditionally qualified entrants. Respondent comments from transcripts illuminate perception of literacy practices

Phase 2 Chapter 7 Student’s perceptions of practices (RQ4) Interviews 1 per student = 6 Researcher field notes of interviews Thematic Dimensional Analysis Temporal Analysis Explanatory Matrix Limits of Grounded Theory

Phase 3 Chapter 8 Synthesis (RQ5) All the above

Table 5-1 Data gathering and evidence

The advantages of software for qualitative data management and analysis were considered (Dey, 1993; pp: 55-62), but after careful reflection and in the light of my small data sample size I preferred to handle and feel the data myself (Bailey, 2008). I was keen to work with the data manually, physically sifting, sorting and cross checking until patterns and elements emerged through repeated interpretation (Savin-Baden & Howell-Major, 2013; pp: 431). This involved effective use of Word, Excel and hard copy data management techniques. The next section moves on to consider the data gathering activities and outlines analysis activities undertaken.