México

Issues of objectivity, bias and validity are viewed differently by different approaches to social inquiry. Advocates of the constructivist position argue that social reality is produced and reproduced by social actors, that knowledge is subjective, relative to time and context, so “researchers can tell a story about some aspect of the

social world, but it is simply their story.” They also maintain that because this account cannot be replicated, notions of objectivity, bias and validity are irrelevant (Blaikie, 1993, p. 6). At the other extreme “realists” assume social reality exists independently of the observer, and that this reality is ordered and that these uniformities can be observed and explained. One of the strengths of scientific method is supposedly that it is objective, that it eliminates or at least controls the biases of the researcher. Social science researchers applying this methodology specify procedures to achieve objective, unbiased and valid research on the assumption that “value free” research is more reliable (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995, p. 53).

Wiersma maintained that, “regardless of the form of research or the ends to which it is directed, we want research to be valid” (2000, pp. 4-5). For research to be said to be valid it must be based on fact or evidence that is capable of being justified. Internal validity, the extent to which results are interpreted consistently, is the main focus of this section, and the issues associated with external validity, or generalisability, warrant a separate section.

In qualitative designs like case study, internal validity is taken to refer to the degree to which the explanations of phenomena match the realities of the world (Burns, 2000, p. 476; McMillan & Schumacher, 1997, p. 405); that is, the degree of fit between what the researcher records as data and what actually occurs in the setting under study. The aim of the researcher, then, is to provide an analysis that meets criterion of what Psathas (1995, cited in Denzin & Lincoln, 2000a, p. 371) termed “unique adequacy,” in which analysis provides a good fit in representing the instance or the case. Data is presented through an interpreter, so the aim of researchers is to observe and capture as accurately as possible the perceptions of the participants if they wish their work to achieve as near as practicable, internal validity. Over the entire duration of the present study decisions had to be made about what data to collect, who to interview, what documents were relevant, and what material to select for final reporting, so the researcher’s perspectives are highly influential. These choices have been made with the research questions and aim of the study in mind but case study seems always open to the charge of subjectivity93

93

Indeed, a critique levelled commonly at case study is that it lacks rigour because the biased views of the researcher have influenced the direction of findings and conclusions (Yin, 1994, p. 9). Case study is regarded with disdain largely because of the “role of human subjectivity,” according to Burns (2000, pp. 473-474). Whilst bias can also occur in other forms of research, case study appears to be more at-risk of such allegations because “the opportunity to advance personal causes is strong, whilst external checks are weak” (ibid.).

that researchers are influenced by their own values, “constructing connections, meanings, frameworks, through which experience is sieved and made intelligible.” Similarly, whilst it is acknowledged that the researcher must be open to contradictory evidence, Denzin and Lincoln argued that there is no such thing as value-free inquiry (2000a, p. 19): Instead they maintained that qualitative researchers must make clear their value commitments, identifying the “lens” that their paradigm or interpretive perspective provides.

McMillan and Schumacher (op. cit.) appeared to be in agreement with this sentiment, clarifying that objectivity in quantitative research refers to reliable and value free instruments, whereas in case study and other qualitative designs objectivity is about the dependability and confirmability of the researcher’s interactive style, data recording, data analysis, and interpretation of participant meanings. This notion is supported by Gillham (2000, p. 28) who recommended that researchers strive for a level of detached honesty which acknowledges their own place in the scheme of things. In this study the perspectives I brought as a principal allowed me to “write meaningfully…about topics that matter and may make a difference” (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p. 742) but it also “problematize[d] the distinction between observer and observed, insider and outsider” (ibid., p. 741).

The dual positionality as researcher and principal allowed the study to move beyond the concerns of drop out rates typifying much previous research. It allowed me to find out what was going on at a deeper level, to explore the meaning of dropping out within the context of school life and for the students themselves. I was not, as Lareau described her own field work role, “a stranger forced …to observe the situation as an outsider […which] prevented me from feeling accepted and integrated into the classroom” (1989, p. 207). For me, this was a lived experience in the field. As Whyte (1996, p. 11) explained, in situations where researchers live for extended periods in the community they are studying their role is far from objective because their personal lives are inextricably mixed with the research.

[The researcher] has a role to play, and he has his own personality needs that must be met in some degree if he is to function successfully....A real explanation, then, of how the research was done necessarily involves a rather personal account of how the researcher lived during the period of the study. (Whyte, 1981, p. 279, quoted in Whyte, 1996, p. 9, emphasis in original)

1996, p. 4). In this case my personal knowledge provided a unique viewpoint but undoubtedly it also affected the way I interacted with participants. My reflections on the personal experiences encountered in this study have added a further dimension to those provided by the key informants.

In the introduction to Beyond Subjectivity Lareau and Shultz commented that the author, Krieger, found that approaching the research of a community she had been previously part of was very difficult (Krieger, 1996). Sorting through her emotional reaction to interviewees was an essential part of the research process, as it was for me. In the present study two of the students found they were pregnant, one told stories of drug taking which I swore not to disclose to the school, one of the mothers interviewed died whilst the research was being written up, and a teacher revealed tales of a student’s sexual abuse that she had discussed with the police but not with the parents. In the latter case I was asked for advice and reassurance which posed an ethical and moral dilemma for me. Similarly, the girls I interviewed often presented with problems (such as the need for financial support or how to find out what options for further study were available) which I could assist them with. Where this felt appropriate, I did so at the conclusion of the interview.

Krieger encouraged researchers to be assertive about using their own voice and vision in research accounts but stressed the importance of acknowledging the level of “involvement in one’s work and with achieving some level of honesty in writing about that involvement” (1996, p. 179). She argued for the use of personal insights as a way of helping to understand others and in depicting their experiences. To “take the internal life and make it external is important” (ibid., p.180) she maintained but there are prohibitions against self expression within social science writing that tradition dictates should be about others and how we came to know what we did about them. However, there is now increased recognition of the “interactional and contextual nature of social research” (ibid., p. 181) and that “self-examination may…add something fresh and significant to the development of sophistication in social science” (ibid.).

The selection of my own workplace as a research site gave rise to a number of ethical issues94

94 _{The letter advising approval by the Massey University College of Education Ethics Committee and a}

copy of the ethics application can be made available to interested readers.

associated with power inequalities and also for the potential for role conflict (Snook, 1999, p. 77). Laureau wrote about the “strains of straddling two

different worlds” (1989, p. 208), a conflict of time and focus I too experienced. In 2004 I moved back into the tertiary education sector, a career move which necessitated relocating to an area distant from any of the research sites. Working in a higher education institute, where the culture actively encouraged research, provided me with greater support and reduced some of these tensions. This move also resolved some of the potential ethical issues regarding follow up of students and parents from what had been my own school.

The interactive data collection methods used in this case study, such as the Telephone and Face-to-face Interviews, pose greater risks of potential ethical dilemmas than some other methods such as surveys. Students cannot be regarded as being on equal terms with the researcher, and certainly students are not on equal terms with their principal. This power differential was taken into account in the design and implementation of each stage of the research, as Cohen & Manion (1997, p. 352) advised. The resolution or avoidance of both researcher bias and ethical problems rests on researcher skill and planning, and the application of the ethical principles of beneficence, respect, justice, truth, and freedom (Clark, 1997, pp. 159-160).

When engaged in research with children the same principles apply but additional safeguards need to be put in place particularly with regard to consent (Massey University, 2000, pp. 25-26). Dealing with ethical issues requires “interpersonal skills of a high order, supported by humane personal and professional values,” Cohen and Manion (1997, p. 349) observed. They explained that the key to success is the ability to set the right tone for the investigation, one which allows the participants to feel a sense of trust and comfort in the process. No code of practice can cover all the ethical issues which may arise but in my dual role I needed to be particularly sensitive to the possibility of potential ethical problems because of the age of the subjects and the nature of the research topic, which gave rise to highly sensitive information being revealed, as already noted.

Positivists like Wiersma (1995, p. 102) have claimed that good research design is characterised by freedom from bias. Similarly, Yin claimed the researcher should be unbiased by preconceived notions, including those derived from theory (1994, p. 59) while Hopkins and Antes (1990, p. 454) spoke of bias as “not neutral.” In contrast, this inquiry adopts an interpretive framework which acknowledges my location in this case study of high school drop out and the duality of my roles. What I bring to this case study is “no longer a troublesome element to be eradicated and controlled but rather a

set of resources” (Olesen, 2000, p. 229). However, there are issues of researcher bias which need to be considered in establishing the credibility of research in situations like this, where the dissolving of the distance between researcher and participants “steps beyond traditional criticisms about researcher bias” (ibid.). This situation required a different, more reflexive and insightful approach, one which considers “what elements in the researchers’ backgrounds, hidden or those of which they are unaware, contribute” (ibid).

In the general literature on the topic, bias is most often equated with prejudice (Title, 1988, p. 392). However, Gillham differentiated prejudice from “preference,” defining the latter as what researchers want to find (2000, p. 27), where particular expectations they hold influence the research in a particular direction. It seems, then, that case study researchers are prone to interpreting evidence to support a preconceived position because they understand the issues and exercise discretion (Burns, 1994; Yin, 1994). This arises, Smyth and Hattram argued, because we read the world through a set of assumptions, socially shared and often unconscious, that frame knowledge and our relationship to it. Schools are “invariably premised on inequitable power relations,” they explained (2004, p. 13), so in dropout studies teachers’ voices tend to be heard above those of students, whose views are “easily disregarded on the grounds of immaturity, prejudice, pathology or mischievous intent” (p. 14). As a result dropouts are represented stereotypically as “depressed, helpless, and even without options…as losers” (Fine, 1991, cited in Smyth & Hattam, 2004, p. 15).

Whilst for a researcher to have a truly open mind is impossible, because “human intelligence is by its nature selective,” (Gillham, 2000, p. 27), steps can be taken to provide a check for researcher effects and to minimize researcher bias (Gillham, 2000; McMillan & Schumacher, 1997; Miles & Huberman, 1984, cited in Sowden & Keeves, 1988). It is not surprising that many of the strategies suggested to minimize researcher bias are similar to those identified as ways of enhancing validity. This is because the researcher provides the key to consistency in the interpretation of results and for ensuring the case report reflects, as nearly as possible, the reality of the case. To enhance design validity the use of a participant researcher to gain an insider’s perspective to corroborate data, the use of multiple researchers to gain agreement on data collected by the team, participant review of data and analysis, recording of precise, detailed descriptions of people and situations and prolonged and persistent field work were suggested by McMillan & Schumacher (1997).

A commonly used technique to improve internal validity is triangulation. Denzin (1978, cited in Janesick, 2000, p. 391) talked of data triangulation (with the use of several data sources), investigator triangulation (with the use of several different researchers), and theory triangulation (the use of multiple perspectives to interpret a set of data). The adoption of an ecological model was congruent with the principle of theory triangulation, incorporating with ease the contributions which various theorists from the biological, psychological, and social sciences make towards the development of greater understanding of the school dropout problem.

Triangulation aims to ensure that the findings are well founded and applicable but there are many more than three points of reference in such accuracy checks in qualitative research. For this reason Janesick extended this notion, arguing that Richardson’s (1994, cited in Janesick, 2000, p. 392) term “crystallization” is more apt to represent the myriad of different facets that are involved. Janesick maintained that “what we see when we view a crystal…depends on how we view it, how we hold it up to the light or not” (2000, p. 392). Richardson claimed that “crystallization provides us with a deepened, complex, thoroughly partial, understanding of the topic” through which, paradoxically, “we know more and doubt what we know” (ibid.). Because it recognises the many facets of any given approach to the social world as a fact of life, the more holistic approach of crystallisation appeared to be more appropriate than triangulation in the designing of a research strategy congruent with an ecological model of drop out. A “numbers and narratives” approach was therefore utilised in this study, incorporating many different methods of data collection (document analysis, written questionnaires, telephone and face-to-face interviews), three different school sites, and the perspectives of various key informants (students, peers, parents, school pastoral care staff, teachers, deputy principals and principals).

Key questions McMillan and Schumacher (1997, p. 404) identified to assist the researcher in assessing the degree of internal validity are whether the researchers actually observe what they think they observe and whether they actually hear the meanings that they think they hear. In other words, are the interpretations and the explanations credible? A research assistant collected data from my own school, for ethical reasons, and the opportunity to discuss with her aspects of the study over its entire duration allowed for some degree of investigator triangulation. Involvement in conferences run by tertiary researchers for their sector allowed me to gain peer feedback on the research strategy utilised (Coutts, 2005a). Presentations at other conferences

targeting secondary teachers and bridging educators facilitated peer review of preliminary findings (Coutts, 2005b, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c). These processes assisted in shaping the presentation of the varying and sometimes contradictory perspectives of dropping out.

The finely detailed accounts which typify case study are termed “thick” descriptions after work credited to Gilbert Ryle by Geertz, who explained that the significance of researchers’ work should be judged not only by their ability to capture details but the degree to which they are able to clarify what is going on (2001, p. 66). Bourdieu emphasised the importance of “reflexive reflexivity”; of the researcher monitoring “on the spot” the effects of the social structure within which an interview is occurring (emphasis in original, Bourdieu, 1999e, p. 608). But he also engaged in constant reflexion over a number of years. “Pierre Bourdieu did not really hear what these men were saying until a number of years later, after he had transcribed the conversation and listened to it carefully, repeatedly, and, especially, differently,” Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson pointed out in the translator’s preface toThe Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society (Bourdieu, 1999f, p. ix). This process was necessary to enable “the everyday lives of ordinary people” to be translated into “an understanding of the social world in which they, and we, live” (ibid.). Bourdieu clarified that this process includes reflections on the research relationship and on the ways in which this may have had an effect on results (1999e, p. 608). In this study the use of audio-tapes in the Face-to-face Interview situation facilitated this iterative reflective process, allowing for both accurate recording of conversations and for the development of transcripts which offer “more than just ‘something to begin with’…they are a public record, available to the scientific community, in a way that field notes are not” (Silverman, 2000, p. 829).

Atkinson and Heritage (1984, cited in Silverman, 2000, p. 830) pointed out that the production and use of transcripts are essentially “research activities.” The close, repeated listenings to the tape recordings often revealed previously unnoticed recurring features of the conversations. Such analysis is “strongly ‘data-driven’—developed from phenomena which are in various ways evidenced in the data of interaction. Correspondingly, there is a strong bias against a priori speculation about the orientations and motives of speakers” (emphasis in original, Heritage, 1984, cited in Silverman, 2000, p. 831). Conversation analysis is seen consequently as “active interpretive work,” Silverman (2000, p. 827) explained. The process of reflexion

includes reflections on the research relationship, on the ways in which this may have affected both the results and their interpretation: “In these matters…one cannot trust simply to one’s own good faith…because all kinds of distortions are embedded in the very structure of the research relationship” (Bourdieu, 1999e, p. 608). Member checks were one way used in the present study to allow participants to review the material and