MUNICIPALIDAD PROVINCIAL DE CAÑETE

Although researchers adopt a variety of different methods within the tradition of ethnography, qualitative research embraces different paradigms such as post- positivist, constructivist and critical theory (Guba, 1990; Creswell and Miller, 2000). Whereas post-positivist research seeks to employ data collection methods which are systematic, constructivist research asserts that all knowledge is co-constructed and so prioritises depth over methodological procedures (Creswell and Miller, 2000). As such, qualitative enquiry employs data collection strategies such as in- depth interviews or participant observation (Polkinghorne, 2005). Use of Geertz’s (1973) thick description is deemed particularly significant in constructivist epistemologies and ethnographic studies (Creswell and Miller, 2000; Lietz and Zayas, 2010).

The notion of thick description is aligned to interpretive ethnography in anthropology (Geertz, 1973; Denzin, 1989). It reflects a term used to denote deep,

dense, detailed accounts of a phenomenon being studied ‘with particular consideration of the context(s) in which it occurs’ (Denzin, 1989, p.83). Cultural analysis here is not concerned with experimental science, but an interpretive paradigm which is primarily concerned with the search for meaning of the phenomenon being studied (Geertz, 1973). The understanding of culture here draws on methods that provide the description and explanation of the meaning of particular social actions, and what meanings they have for the actors whose actions they are (Geertz, 1973). This denotes a thick description of social discourse and provides a vocabulary for the role of culture in human life.

In embracing traditions of critical deconstruction of narratives and discourses, the methodological tool ‘anthropological strangeness’ was adopted on a day-to-day basis during fieldwork (Garfinkel, 1967). Derived from social constructionism, anthropological strangeness involves the suspension of our cultural understandings and attempting to record something as though we are seeing it for the first time (Garfinkel, 1967). Fook (2012) notes how in social work research, critical reflection is required including the idea that we must question taken for granted assumptions to de-stabilise our own frames of reference and routines. Aligned with a type of comparative fieldwork, the researcher here compares cultures; but as noted in this research, sociological qualitative researchers are interested in studying their own cultures (Zaharlik and Green, 1991; Maxwell, 1996).

When evaluating the credibility of qualitative research, Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Morrow (2005) suggest researchers should plan and conduct their studies seeking to achieve trustworthiness. Understood as whether the study is credible, transferable, auditable and confirmable, the thick description is considered trustworthy as it provides a thorough representation and study of inquiry and its context as perceived and experienced by the participants involved (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Shenton, 2004; Padgett, 2008). In drawing on the interpretivist tradition, the generation of the ‘thick description’ of the accounts of social workers underpinned the rationale for semi-structured descriptive interviews. Topic guides were drawn broadly from themes related to the literature review and pilot study. Understood as having the same purpose as descriptive observations in

ethnography, these were utilised to elicit broad categories of information provided by respondents from their own perspective. Miller and Glassner (1997) point out that though interviews in ethnography cannot provide a mirror reflection of the social world, they do provide access to the meanings people attribute to their experiences of the world, providing ethnographers with a means of exploring different points of view. It is also understood that points of view are granted a culturally honoured status of reality (Miller and Glassner, 1997).

Interviews encourage respondents to talk about a particular cultural scene (Spradley, 1979). The semi-structured interviews focused on generating data that included analysis of each respondent’s word choices used to describe the culture. They also explored how social actors may use these terms routinely in the culture studied (Spradley, 1979). The interview principles were guided by Spradley’s (1979) division of questioning which included: (1) descriptive, (2) structural and, (3) contrast questions. Descriptive questions, aimed to elicit a large sample of utterances in the informant's native language, are facilitated by simply asking a study participant for information using the terms and phrases most often used in the socio-cultural setting of the social actor (Spradley, 1979). For example, ‘In what way do you think social workers ‘help’ people?’ Following the initial questions that focused on description, as the study progressed structural and contrast questions were developed, generated from the information that had already been gained during the study (Spradley, 1979). This is because structural questions enable the ethnographer to gain information on the domains, or in this case, words (signs) that link to the respondent’s cultural knowledge. For example, ‘So you say it is about treatment, in what way?’ Structural questions are often repeated to try to gain more adequate description of the domain or sign being explored. For example, ‘Can you think of any other aspects that influenced you to come into social work?’ Contrast questions on the other hand want to find out what the respondent means by the cultural domains (signs) being used. For example, ‘In what way is it ‘all about paper work and not people’?

These forms of descriptive questions represented a move from less structured to more structured questions, as one moves from collecting more general information

to a greater focus in the data collection (Spradley, 1979). Initial interview topic guides were designed to elicit information addressing broadly the research aims, but more specifically the research question. As the study developed, more questions were added exploring the domains or signs deployed during the interview.

Lasting approximately 40-60 minutes, the interviews were digitally recorded, coded anonymously and transcribed through denaturalised techniques. Oliver, Serovich and Mason (2005) note how denaturalised transcripts are suited to methodologies located in ethnography and CDA. This form of transcribing involves standardising interview material and removing interview noise such as pauses or stutters (Oliver et al., 2005). These are depicted as techniques capturing speech content without detailed description of speech acts. Duranti (2007) notes how transcription are key to transcription within qualitative research, as transcripts are viewed as central to analysis but provide evidence to support the researcher’s claims (Ashmore and Reed, 2000; Duranti, 2007).

From a sociolinguistic point of view, transcription is understood as a political act (Green, Franquiz and Dixon, 1997) whereas Jaffe (2000) points out how the recording of speech reflects the transcriber’s analytic perspective. Transcription in this research is understood to be a representational and interpretive process (Mischler, 1991). “Located in linguistic anthropology, transcription here is viewed as cultural practice or cultural activity, and transcripts are viewed as artefacts that possess ‘temporal-historical dimensions” (Duranti, 2007, p.302). Consistent with the most basic assumption of CDA, that any social relations and social order are created in interaction (semiosis), transcribing data here was aligned more towards a Foucauldian analysis of text. This is because this study is primarily concerned with discourses of the talk of social work and how those discourses are being circulated, produced and reproduced in talk at cultural (discursive) and wider (social) levels. Gee (1999) points out how researchers only need to transcribe the words of talk and who the speaker is. He adds that if the analysis is concerned with grammar usage, then transcribing words only with some fairly basic intonational features is enough in CDA. In the context of the larger data set of this research (in comparison

to some discourse analytic studies), a non-verbal system applied to the transcripts showing silent periods and overlap between speakers was considered enough in drawing on Jefferson’s (1985) basic system (Wetherell and Potter, 1992) (See appendix G for one example of the interview transcription and interviews that took place.)

As (critical) ethnography and critical theory provided the interpretive and analytical framework for this research (Fine 1994), it is worth re-iterating how the qualitative researcher studies things in their own field or setting (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008). Here this research explores the language of student social workers within their natural learning environment. Creswell (1998) notes that there are five qualitative inquiry traditions: ethnography, phenomenology, biography/narrative, grounded theory, and case studies. These can also include critical, feminist and action research (Olesen, 2000; Hardwick and Worseley, 2011). Whilst many of these methods, such as case studies and narrative-based inquiry, can be easily appropriated to the study of language, this study primarily drew on ethnographic principles in the endeavour to understand the cultural context from within. Not only does this involve the exploration of discursive practices aligned specifically to the research questions, but this topic of study leads to a process of inquiry where, as researcher, you are immersed in the ongoing social activities of the culture (Wolcott, 2005). In drawing on interpretivist traditions and ethnographic principles of interviewing, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with the cohorts of students, designed to gain adequate (thick) descriptions of the key aspects of social work relating to the cultural world in which are a part (Spradley, 1979).

In utilising Spradley’s method of deconstructing native terms, this guided data collection focused on technique of interview as well as content (what is said). Following inductive principles of gathering data, as discourses emerged questions were added to further interviews exploring a similar subject or use of language.