GENERALIDADES

blueprint.

3.9 Methodological Considerations and Choices for this

Study

I attempted conGT that goes beyond its focus on the individual and basic social process to take a bird’s eye view of interpretations situated within social and organisational realms. Philosophically and methodologically I ventured into new areas of research as well as policy analysis. The intellectual puzzle is a “wickedproblem” (Rittel & Webber, 1973) requiring a critical social justice element challenging traditional objectivist, descriptive, linear and confined approaches to research (Briggs, 2007). I had created a conGT social justice theoretical study but during and after application of methods I had to make choices about representation. These are fundamental to grounded theory and relate to: representation of the theory; steps I took to turn the traditional literature review into context to theory; and how I had to make choices about the “intensiveinterview”. I discuss each of these in turn.

3.9.1Representation

The fundamental methodological consideration for this study is one of representation which is postmodern. For the purposes of this study, postmodernism is not nihilism – the “anythinggoes”

(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005b) approach – eschewing all traditional ideas. My focus is on postmodernism as the eighth moment struggling with “the crisis of representation” and the other (Charmaz, 2006; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a, p. 18). I came to realise that representation of empirical evidence seems often to be at the heart of why there is turmoil in interconnecting paradigms (Denzin & Giardina, 2009): in social sciences; in political science; in organisational theory; in education and public policy all of which are relevant to this study. In this study, it is not about quantitative versus qualitative; it is about how can qualitative research be meaningfully represented across a range of disciplines which use different symbols and language? The methodological consideration is to clarify the emerging shape of the research topic; representation is then how to write it down in ways that will be understood by laypeople and, in this study, evocative to policy-makers.

I took the advice of Charmaz (2014) to be prepared to write and organise chapters to fit my topic, rather than to use pre-existing models of the format of theses. Further, I used five tools beyond the necessary memo’ing. The first five are: the use of the Foreword in the front of this thesis; the inclusion of a section in each chapter, with the exception of Chapter 7, about the “representation of”; the representation in Chapter 2 of evolving context that relates to the intellectual puzzle as well as to the theory of Chapters 5 and 6; the conscious decision to separate methodology and methods as theory/methods package and to give each detailed attention; and the decision to draw in writing grounded theory as an issue of method (Chapter 4). Finally, my language is consciously adapted to fit with constructivist philosophy and to distinguish from positivism. As Denzin (2014) recommends, I try not to use the term “data” for its positivist associations. I similarly avoid other terms such as validity, or findings. My preferences are for empirical material, or evidence, or theory.

3.9.2Contextual Literature

I relied on contextualised analysis of data, including literature (Charmaz, 2014) to resist forcing data. Vigilance was needed to decide whether literature was an essential comparative element

contributing to its task to be the “springboard” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, pp. 32, 79) of substantive grounded theory to the potential formal theory or whether its place was contextual in the sense of background to subjectivity.

Consistent with conGT, the task was to privilege the theory over literature (Ramalho et al., 2015). This calls for forensic care in deploying literature, both supporting and conflicting, to use literature in ways that are consistent with this philosophical and methodological position of the study. One way in which I addressed this matter is to present Chapter 2 as integration of context before and after the formulation of theory. The logic of this lay in the fact that the context of the study was constantly evolving and the original context was less and less relevant to the final analysis.

3.9.3Conditions and Context: The Intensive Interview

A primary consideration was that I had constraints on undertaking the prerequisite “intensive interview” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 56). First, the social justice of the study called for emphasis on conceptualisation (3.7.1) which could conflict with focus on the individual. This meant that while I aimed for writing that highlighted the “intensiveinterview”, it was difficult not to subsume the intentions of this into broader abstract theory. Second, I had the common problem that most participants had limited time for the interview but also the “intensiveinterview” was constrained because learners often identified that they had concentration issues and needed more time than others to answer questions.

A methodological consideration therefore was strategy to deliver concepts of the intensive interview. I applied the concept of theorising within analysis of the Straussian concept of conditions and

context (Strauss, 1987). It followed therefore that I had to be disciplined and to invest a great deal of time in observation, within interview and through memos, to develop context. In addition, I ensured I had plenty of time to observe learning and teaching spaces, interactions of learners and teachers, and other relevant activity. How then to represent evidence in this framework was a complex challenge in the substantive grounded theory (Chapter 5). It is a work of balance between conceptualisation and the attempt to be faithful to the individual voice.

3.9.4Chapter Summary

In this chapter, I describe the intellectual puzzle, the philosophical, qualitative, methodological and theoretical perspectives and strategies to implement the theory. I show the developmental intent of the puzzle, written with reference to the social justice dimension of this study and assembled aspects of research methodology that theorise to understand local (Bevir, 2010) social justice and normative human rights as matters of equity in skills policy.

The intellectual puzzle of this study demands “… an invitation to re-interpretation” (Crotty, 1998) and I garnered interdisciplinary research in methodology out of political science (e.g. Bevir), organisation theory (e.g. Clarke) and sociology (e.g. Charmaz, Denzin). I applied emerging conGT as well as emerging ideas about social justice within Charmaz’s methodology. In Crotty’s (1998) terms, constructivist research:

requires that we not remain straitjacketed by the conventional meanings we have been taught to associate with the object. Instead, such research invites us to approach the object in a radical spirit of openness to its potential for new or richer meaning (p. 51).

In Chapter 4, I present the Methods, the flexible guidelines, of conGT as one way of approaching equity in skills policy to open up to new understanding that may inform policy concerned with the equity gap. I draw attention that the guidelines represent practical methods but their linkages with philosophical and theoretical positions in this chapter are close. At times, this means the chapters are overlapping.

Chapter 4: Methods

4.1 Introduction

This chapter continues the approach of a theory/methods package consistent with the social justice, conGT methodology explained in Chapter 3. To re-cap, conGT is methodology for addressing

subjective, multiple realities; it is inductive and iterative (Charmaz, 2014) and although systematic it is not linear, chronological or descriptive. ConGT methods are based on grounded theory guidelines of Glaser and Strauss (1967).

This chapter sets out the methods of the research by presenting: • representation of methods;

• ethics;

• evolving research design represented in Figure 4.1; • sources of evidence;

• selection of participants; • processes for interviews; • processes of recruitment; • interviewing;

• grounded theory guidelines; and • rigour.

The grounded theory guidelines include examples of methods with discussion of how and why I theorised. The discussion is supplemented by Appendix K which provides “examples of analysis” of how codes were formed and theoretically tested. It must be noted that the purpose of Chapter 5 is to further fill in the gaps and the thought style that led to the emergence of the categories and core categories of the substantive grounded theory. Chapters 4 and 5 are integral.

4.2 Representation of Methods

The methods fit into the methodology set out in Chapter 3. The methodological challenge includes demonstration of rigour in a study that is subjective. I try to represent in this chapter how I inducted evidence to theorise without forcing data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

I use four tools for representing methods for a subjective study. First, the tool of reflexivity is intrinsic to credible theorising (Charmaz, 2014). I elect to use the “thoughtstyle” (Mruck & Mey, 2007, p. 527) (4.2) approach to reflexivity. Second, by including this section, I draw attention to the significance of representation and to signal that I have given it considerable thought. Third, I write about the methods in detail and exemplify how methods were applied to evidence. Fourth, I include diagrams to provide means other than a narrative of seeing how the methods are approached.

The representation of methods in this study attempts to show that grounded theory is more than inductive, qualitative research (Charmaz, 2014). Charmaz (2014) sets out “compulsory” methods of grounded theory and writes that what grounded theorists “do” is all, not just part, of: simultaneous, iterative data collection and analysis; focus on actions and processes rather than themes and structures; constant comparison; developing data for concepts; using systematic analysis for inducting abstract categories; construction not description or application of current theories; theoretical sampling; seeking out variation in studies, categories or process; category development rather than specific empirical topic (p. 15).

I designed the methods recognising that “all is data” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 29) although there will be variation in quality. The sources of evidence are consistent with conGT guidelines (Charmaz, 2014) and included: interviews; observations in-interview and with regard to context and conditions; extant material involving legislation and policy documents and a review of international, national and Tasmanian literature; radio and internet material. The methods of the grounded theory guidelines drove the research design such that the design evolved right to the end of the study in ways consistent with conGT (Charmaz, 2014).

I reiterate that I am committed to co-construction of evidence and I see the people whom I interview across learning, teaching and policy-making as interacting in a social manner. This research does not represent organisations as objectivist structures but as a criss-crossing of social relationships among people.

Following affirmation of ethics approval, the evolving research design is set out below.

4.3 Ethics

A full ethics application was submitted to the Human Research Ethics Committee (Tasmania) (HREC) Network approval number H13791, dated 27 May 2014. The learners experiencing disadvantage in this study are deemed vulnerable under the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human

Research (National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC], Australian Research Council, & Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, 2013