Formas de expresión de la violencia

This research explores what is currently taking place in classrooms and thus the researcher concluded a naturalistic, ‘real world’ context was important (Guba, 1978; Gillham, 2000a; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). From a positivist perspective this involved the researcher going into the field and returned with the story of the research location and participants. Naturalistic inquiry was seen as ‘discovery-oriented’, the researcher observed the events as they unfolded naturally and was open to whatever emerged (Guba, 1978). The concern was with finding the ‘truth’ and observing it objectivity. With the emergence of post- positivist arguments came the concept of multiple realities, that is there can be no one reality to be measured (Rubin & Rubin, 1995) as objects and events are understood differently by different people. Working with teachers’ perceptions and interpretations of their teaching situations and learners there would be no ‘one truth’ (de Vries & Beijaard, 1999) but rather interpretations of data and events to develop possible theoretical frameworks and models of pedagogy in an adult ICT user skills classroom. Crucially, this opens new dimensions to

concepts of participation and objectivity. The researcher is no longer an outsider looking in but becomes part of the research location, or event; the researcher as instrument.

The literature suggested that there were complex layers of meanings and influences that impact teachers’ decision making. Teachers’ professional knowledge derives from their understandings and value concepts gleaned from personal, institutional and wider social experiences. Scheurich (1997) provided a framework comprising four levels from which cultural values might be, overtly or covertly, entrenched: individual, institutional, societal, and civilizational. Teachers’ do not work in isolation; the classroom process involves interaction between the teacher and the learner. The learners will similarly come to the situation with their own embedded values, understanding and expectations. Within the observed classroom there is a third partner, that of the observer who will come with her own set of values, understandings and interpretations of events. Each observed episode is thus a tripartite event [Figure 3.1] with

complex layers of meaning for the researcher to unravel. Multiply this ‘value cube’ by the number of observed exchanges within a lesson and then by the number of lessons observed and the complexity and polyhedral nature of the observer’s task begins to emerge. The interpretivist researcher needs to be constantly aware of these layers of influence when analysing and developing meaning from data both in terms of how they may impact on the teachers’ and learners’ perceptions but also how they may impact on the researchers own understandings.

The value laden nature of naturalistic research can be problematic to the researcher. All observations of the world are shaped, consciously or unconsciously, by the observer’s personal perspective of what is valuable or relevant and what can be discarded (Kincheloe and Berry, 2004). What questions to ask and what data is pertinent will be influenced by the personal outlook of both the researcher and the individuals or groups being researched. Just as the researcher makes value judgments about what is important to the research story so can the participants. This may influence what they say or do during the data gathering process. This could lead to flawed or bias findings as only the evidence the researcher or participants want might be sought or found, and contrary views could be dismissed or ignored. It was assumed that such dangers could be overcome by the researcher remaining neutral, reflective and objective.

Perspectives since the post-positivist recognize that it is impossible to have completely value free research and that researchers are not neutral (Patton, 2002). The researchers’ values feed into the inquiry process by their choice of research problem, paradigm and theoretical framework, data-gathering and analysis methods, context, treatment of values already resilient in the context and the format for presenting findings (Lincoln and Guba, 2000). Thus Kincheloe and Berry (2004) argued even positivist research can not be said to be value free. Patton (2002:433) described the ‘human factor’ as qualitative inquiry’s great strength and weakness, ‘a scientific two-edged sword’. The

strength of value positions is that it is what drives research on. This researcher’s values and beliefs from her own teaching experiences raised the questions, and advanced the ideas and arguments on which the research was based and expanded (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). She could also use that experience to bring diverse view points and concepts to ideas to encourage contrasting stances, and to recognize multiple value positions (Guba, 1978). The weakness is that bias may not be immediately obvious or recognized. The significance of data not matching the researcher’s concepts may be missed or misinterpreted. This could affect the integrity of the data and subsequent analyses and conclusions. Unsound research can distort findings and issues, and lead false trails for the researcher and others to follow.

For this research the implication of the human factor is that the researcher needs to be reflexive. She needs to be aware of the social conditions that surround her research and to seek out the wider influences such as cultural, political, historical, linguistic and social powers that might subtly but profoundly influence the research. This is not only in terms of the multiple value levels impacting on her participants but also her own cultural identity. She needs to acknowledge her own subjectivity and reflect critically on the self as a researcher, the ‘human as instrument’ (Guba and Lincoln, 1981). This involves constantly asking herself ‘What do I know?’ and ‘How do I know it?’ (Patton, 2002). A process Mason (2002) called ‘active reflexivity’ and Reason (1988) ‘critical subjectivity’, describing it as a shift from objective consciousness to a quality of awareness of subjectivity which should be used consciously in the research process. This is more demanding than orthodox research as it requires a high degree of self-questioning, self-knowledge, self-reflection and engagement with the research process.

Lincoln and Guba (2000) described the research process as a dualism of ‘writing up’ (field notes) and ‘writing down’ (narrative). From the postmodern perspective qualitative research goes beyond the capturing of experience and relaying it in text but rather the experience is created in the text (Denzin and

Lincoln, 2003). Richardson (2003) argued writing is not merely the transcribing of some reality, but writing in the form of texts, notes and presentations become the tool of discovery of the subject and of the self and thus forms part of the active reflexivity process. This, it is argued, ‘opens the door’ to the use of far more dynamic, creative, open-ended and complex forms of writing and representing data. But, as Dadds and Hart (2001) observed, for researchers such as PhD candidates too much creativity runs the risk of failure of assessment criteria. For this research therefore the writing process may be viewed as a valuable tool to interpretation and dissemination but could be constrained by academic convention.