INCUMPLIMIENTO CONTRACTUAL

(p. 52). Thick description is essential so that the cultural milieu of participants is passively observed during the first stage of the research so that during

reconstructive analysis (Carspecken identifies this as the second stage) any

changed behaviours over the course of the data collection process can be observed and analyzed according to the cultural norms of the participant group studied. In this way, Hawthorn effects created by the research observer are not suffered.

Contrasts of participant behaviour between stage one (passive observation) and stage three (researcher as facilitator of talk and discussion during interviews) is essential to the understanding of the beliefs and practices shared by the TCK participant group (Carspecken, 1996).

3.2.5 Data Collection Procedure: Stage Two

In this section, I discuss stage two of the data collection procedure: the preliminary reconstructive analysis. According to Carspecken (1996), stage two of the data collection process is when coding of data commences, although this coding was checked and adjusted during stage three of the data collection process.

Stage two of the data collection procedure constructs tacit and subjective

information observed in stage one of the data collection process. After completing initial observations, I made a note of possible “underlying meanings” that may

“suggest patterns as well as highlight unusual events that may be important to [my] analysis” (Carspecken, 1996, p. 95), and through this process constructed possible meaning fields (Carspecken, 1996). As I reconstructed the data, I looked for action patterns as well as any action that serves as an anomaly to the patterns I identify; this information was copied into a new word processing file so as to

allow for the primary notes and field notes to remain intact in their original form.

Within these new files, I went through the copied notes line by line to “add discursive articulations of tacit modes of meaning” (Carspecken, 1996, p. 95) I believed to be important to the actions recorded and coded.

Next, I include the possible meaning fields (labeled as MF) that I generated during this stage of the research. After observing community as a recurring concept during my observations, I used Carspecken’s (1996)

ethnographic research framework and initiated possible meaning fields for this code, first. Then, I looked for codes that intersected with community, and constructed meaning fields for those codes; after, I looked for more intersecting codes and constructed meaning field for those codes as well. Below, are meaning fields that I considered to be significant:

1. Possible meaning fields [MF] for COMMUNITY:

[MF]: Community and collectivist culture are highly connected, therefore, building community builds or relates to collectivist culture, and as a result creates environment relative to the collectivist culture that this research TCK belongs to.

[MF]: and/or, community is influenced by the classroom routines established

[MF]: and/or, community is influenced by the amount of comfort the student feels

[MF]: and/or, community is influenced by the way in which cultural customs are present in the class or brought into the class through discussion

[MF]: and/or, community is influenced by the way in which the teacher permits pushing boundaries, or 'breaking norms' or 'freedom from authority' in the classroom.

[MF]: and/or, community is influenced by the way in which fun, or enjoyment, is established by the teacher or permitted by the teacher or by students in the classroom.

2. Possible meaning fields [MF] for TEACHER-STUDENT RAPPORT:

[MF]: Rapport is built through classroom routines, and the space for students to test boundaries behaviour is a coupling of rapport with

classroom structures. It is the classroom structures that allow the testing of boundaries to still be appropriate and not destructive and then build

rapport between teacher and student. Rapport is built through the balance of speaking Thai and speaking English.

[MF]: Rapport is very prevalent for participants, and is a clear aspect of community building. Aka: No rapport with teacher, no community.

[MF]: rapport is built through structured and routine discussions.

[MF]: rapport is built through humour.

[MF]: Community, therefore, is built through rapport, which is dependent upon: routine, structure, discussion, humour, speaking Thai/Speaking English, pushing boundaries

[MF]: And. Establishing relationships with teacher is important to TCKs trying to negotiate identity. Perhaps counter is true, establishing

relationships at home is also necessary and important to successful cultural identity negotiation.

3. Possible meaning fields [MF] for CULTURAL HYBRIDITY:

[MF]: cultural hybridity is an important aspect to a students’ ability to successfully create the interstitial culture that helps negotiate and benefit between culture of home and school. Cultural hybridity is influenced by the following factors:

[MF]: and, the role that language use has on identity formation, such as the combined ability to speak both English and Thai at school as representatives of primary and secondary cultures, and the access permitted by language to both. When students are able to find ways to express themselves (the power of expression) in both language and culture for both primary and secondary culture, the negotiation and beneficiary of both cultures is heightened. When language use is code-meshed, it

scaffolds successful schemas for interstitial (third) culture.

[MF]: which relates to/and the availability of primary culture at school.

Perhaps influenced by the role of discussion in the classroom and teacher rapport.

4. Possible meaning fields [MF] for HUMOUR:

[MF]: humour is highly present in all or most observation contexts.

[MF]: humour is a trait of community, and, therefore, in a collectivist culture, it is highly important to developing the ethos of the community. It is also a strong aspect of individualistic culture as well as it helps people connect as individuals. It is also an individualistic identity expression, It, therefore, is important to both collectivist and individualistic cultures and is why it is the interstitial environment for identity negotiation.

[MF]: and, because of this cultural meeting point factor, if builds confidence as it is trading piece in both. It also takes confidence to be humourous, so it is a cyclical circuit.

[MF]: and, humour and discussion naturally correspond as community building factors and are often present together.

[MF]: and, language and identity are tied to culture and community as well as tied to the way in which an individual negotiates this identity could be through humour as a safe-guarding or coping mechanism of the stress of not belonging. Since support is essential in this context, teacher rapport (and their allowance for humour) is important to the success of a coping mechanism (or tool) used to negotiate more successfully.

5. Possible meaning fields [MF] for SPEAKING ENGLISH:

[MF]: when speaking English is done in environments that build community (through discussion, fun, rapport, practicing skills and

humour) it can empower individual identity expression and language and identity, which builds hybrid cultural identity negotiation.

[MF]: and, when combined with the ability to translate into language of primary culture (Thai) it is more beneficial to the negotiation of culture.

[MF]: and, the scaffolding of code switching or the instruction on this skill is helpful.

[MF]: and, the ability to speak English in this community environment builds language confidence, and as a result, confidence that one can independently negotiate cultures.

6. Possible meaning fields for LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL BELONGING:

[MF]: How identity is determined by language use may be relative to the way in which language is focused on at home or at school.

[MF]: and/or, when language, and the way in which it enables third culture identity negotiation is more successful, and the individual may negotiate both (or all cultures) more successfully.

I identified these possible “meaning fields” and used them to further code the data to create a range of possible meanings I had observed during stage one – this range was readjusted through the data collection process, again during stage three (described in the next section), and through the continuation of the data analysis process after stage three was completed. The findings chapter, chapter 4, presents the data in a way that readjusted data after the final reconstructive analysis stage, stage three. According to Carspecken (1996), “meanings are always experienced as possibilities within a field of other possibilities”, which is essential to remember during the data reconstruction period (p. 96). The initial reconstructive process is subject to possible error, and as previously stated, was revisited again after stage three had been completed in order to recalibrate the reconstructive analysis done in stage two. The dialogical data collected in stage three is essential to the reforming of this reconstructive stage. It is important, thus, as Carspecken (1996) suggests, to maintain low levels of inference of data during this stage so that my bias was kept under control. Carspecken (1996) writes an important note on researcher bias, and says that:

Values [of the researcher] are not exactly “chosen”[.] Highly value-driven researchers like we criticalists most often feel compelled to conduct research as a way of bettering the oppressed and downtrodden. It is a personal need to do so, not exactly a choice. But that pertains to our value orientation, to the reasons why we conduct research and to our choice of subjects and sites to investigate. This orientation does not determine “the facts” we find in the field. Here, in the realm of “fact,” the realm of validity claims made at the end of a study, values and facts are interlinked but not fused. And the sorts of values involved in research findings need not be the same as the values defining our orientation. This distinction is

an important one because good critical research should not be biased.

Critical epistemology does not guarantee the finding of “facts” that match absolutely what one may want to find. (p. 6)

The argument Carspecken (1996) presents, above, regarding researcher

orientation is why I have included my own personal researcher narrative within the introduction chapter of this research. Additionally, in chapter 6.2, in the validity of claims, at the end of this research, I discuss my experience existing in the threatened space of my research findings and conclusions. In this section, I discuss how some of my findings do not match what I originally wanted to find;

this threatened space of the research is important to the limiting of my own bias.

Higher levels of inference regarding meaning fields and codes were employed during the horizon analysis phrase, during which theoretical frames, as discussed in chapter 2, the literature review, are revisited in the findings chapter, chapter 4. Stage two of reconstruction analysis, however, helps put into words the tacit information collected from participants during the observation process of stage one. Tacit information may be expressed by participants through things, such as: “the complexities of vocal tone, posture, gesture, facial expression, timing, prosodic form, and so on”, therefore, reconstructing this information into words helps drive the research forward through stage three (Carspecken, 1996, p.

97).

Carspecken discusses the definition of the horizon analysis, by suggesting that we “understand an idea against a horizon from which that idea is brought forth” (Carspecken, 1996, p. 103). Essentially, information perceived is gathered from inferences drawn from the relationship between the focus action in the

foreground and the background information in which that foreground is located.

Meaning fields and resultant coding structures are important to the way in which inferences are made in this research, therefore, I looked not only for foreground information (the vertical inferences made directly in the field), but also the background information (the horizontal inferences, or horizon analysis, based within the theoretical framework of this research).