All participants in the study were informed of the nature and purpose of the study and embarked on participation willingly and voluntarily. As I participated in the project as a writer, director, performer, audience member (retrospectively) and then as a researcher post- production, it was vital the project participants were made aware of my various roles at the outset of the research project so as to maintain a climate of trust and honesty where fellow participants were endowed as ‘co-researchers’ and brought their own insights about the project to interviews and felt valued for their contributions to the research. The more
participants that have ownership, the more change is possible (Taylor, 1996). However, this balance is delicate and must be monitored through “common sense and shrewd judgement” (O’Toole, 2006, p. 81) to effectively remain responsive, reflective and objective when viewing the whole project in its entirety.
Research participation required written consent, confidentiality and involved no physical or psychological harm. The parents/guardians of all students involved in the study completed a letter of consent form which outlined the research design, the fields of knowledge to be developed and how the data will be used, (e.g. stored, destroyed or returned) and that the results of the study will be published but without students’ names. The letter also provided the parent/guardian with an opportunity to withdraw their child from the study at any point during the research process.
The Indigenous study participants were interviewed within Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies, AIATSIS, 2012. This document contains 14 principles grouped under the broad categories of rights, respect and recognition; negotiation,
consultation, agreement and mutual understanding; participation, collaboration and
partnership; benefits, outcomes and giving back; managing research: use, storage and access; and reporting and compliance (Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies, AIATSIS, 2012).
As previously mentioned, I also acquired a State Educational Research Approval Process form, SERAP (appendix 1) on the 21st of June, 2013, from the Department of Education
before commencing research at Duruga High School.
By meeting the professional ethical standards required by The University of Sydney, I protected the participants in the research and created an atmosphere of trust, transparency, respect and confidentiality, thus maintaining authentic and valid data. Information from the individual interviews was verified and reviewed by research participants and is kept in a lockable filing cabinet for on-going storage, analysis and coding. All e-information is stored under the University of Sydney’s specific e-information requirements and guidelines.
DATA ANALYSIS
All individual interviews were digitally transcribed. These interviews were then subject to pre-coding, where “codable moments” worthy of attention were highlighted as significant participant quotes that were ‘striking’; not only unexpected but also surprising, unusual or conceptually interesting (Boyatzis, 1998; Creswell, 2007). These ‘striking’ quotes or
moments of observation provided the basis for the vignettes which appear at the start and end of each findings chapter. Each vignette highlights the individual journey of a study
participant from each chapter and brings a personal dimension to the case study data included in this thesis.
The coding process was carried out manually and then code phrases were assigned to passages in the first cycle coding process (rather than mnemonics or reference numbers to avoid confusion during analysis). The first cycle coding method I used was elemental coding where the interview narratives were split by applying a “content-based or conceptual phrase representing a topic of inquiry to a segment of data to both code and categorize the data corpus” (Saldaña, 2012, p. 66).
Second Cycle Coding was also achieved manually, though the phrases were now given numbers due to the volume of passages included for analysis. The second cycle coding method I selected was structural coding where the first cycle segments where further grouped into patterns. The splitting of phrases created a more nuanced analysis and then these split codes were entered into a separate code book. This code book (or file) became essential as the number of codes accumulated rapidly and changed as analysis progressed. The emergent codes were recorded with a description and a brief data sample for reference. This book/list became my way of organising the data into major categories and sub categories. I began this process on NVivo software, however quickly returned to manual coding. A method which can be beneficial for small scale studies under thirty participants where “there is something about manipulating qualitative data on paper and writing codes in pencil that give you more control and ownership of the work. A literal perspective is not always possible on a
computer’s monitor screen – after you feel the codes are well set then transfer them onto electronic file” (Saldaña, 2012, p. 22).
Once the first and second cycles of data coding were complete, the study design began to take shape. The emergent conceptual framework for the analysis of my data can be listed as
follows:
1) Duruga Community (the socio-economics of the area; largely for context chapter and framework).
a. Audience reaction to the production. 2) Physical transformation (of the school’s spaces).
a. Physical transformation (of the body as a space). 3) Site-specific theatre (as a performance medium).
4) Change in perception of learning (traditional versus contemporary pedagogy, purpose of education. E.g.: as a university filter? To prepare for citizenship?
5) Change in perception of teachers (traditional roles).
a. Change in perception of students (traditional value attributes and expectations).
6) Personal goals – transformation of individuals.
a. Family; enhancement of personal links to the family as a unit. 7) Connection and engagement.
a. National Partnerships program. 9) Ownership, belonging, pride.
10) Arts in education. 11) Circus in education. 12) Technology in education. 13) The legacy of the project. 14) Teacher dissatisfaction.
a. Student dissatisfaction.
15) Magic wand question – how can this school become a better place? This framework was then narrowed to 5 key focus areas for closer analysis:
Participation roles and personal transformation; including any obstacles to participation (external and internal).
Personal and individual goals.
Evolution of learning process and the transformation of the school environment/culture.
Evolution of community (in particular, attitude and perception)
Willingness to participate in replica projects in the future (legacy of project/study). The collected findings were placed into chapter groups pertaining to staff, student and community responses. The student chapters were further grouped under circus students and Indigenous students and the community chapter was further sectioned under family. These divisions occurred due to the frequency of data pertaining to these sub-categories.
The different research paradigms including a case study based on data collected from key informants, archival data, and artefact collection, have ensured the successful crystallization of the data and convergence of all results (Anderson, 2012; Ely, 1996). Thus, identifying the “credibility, resonance, plausibility and transferability” of the research data collected
(O’Toole, 2006, p. 128) and the effects of large-scale, site-specific, celebratory/community theatre within a school framework. The collected artefacts, particularly newspaper articles and collected letters from audience members, provide a précis of the wider public perception of the site-specific performance within the broader Duruga Community.