PLANIFICACIÓN: PLAN OPERATIVO ANUAL Y LABOR FUNDAMENTAL

The second phase consisted of a qualitative component, the semi-structured interviews. According to Johnson et al. (2004: 18), qualitative research is characterised by induction, discovery, exploration, theory or hypothesis generation, the researcher as the primary instrument of data collection and a qualitative analysis of the data. Maxwell (2005: 9) states that “In a qualitative study, you are interested not only in the physical events and behaviour taking place, but also in how the participants in your study make sense of these and how their understandings influence their behaviour.” Thus the focus on what events ‘mean’ or how they are perceived by the participants is central. Chapelle et al. (2003) state that it is important for largely qualitative studies to explore the details and meanings of experience rather than attempt to test a hypothesis.

Qualitative research can be divided into three approaches: constructivist-interpretive; critical or Marxist and feminist. In this research study, a constructivist-interpretive approach was used whereby a subjective reality was assumed which consisted of stories and meanings grounded in natural settings. In other words, this subjective reality subsumes the existence of an objective reality uncoloured by emotions, feelings and perceptions. This view is supported by Edge et al., (1998: 341) who state that qualitative findings are created interactively rather than discovered from a privileged perspective. The researcher was also supportive of a more critical viewpoint as she believes that many of the injustices experienced by TESOL professionals are rooted in the lack of a power base in the profession, in the way that TESOL is perceived at educational

institutions and in society in general. This researcher bias is based on my experience as a TESOL teacher and is acknowledged at the outset. Hesse-Biber (2010: 456) supports this view

offers a multi-layered view of the nuances of social reality but also does not privilege the interests of those who occupy positions of authority and power within a given society.

In addition, qualitative approaches promote deeper listening between the participants and the researcher which enables the researcher to discover deep beliefs and values that only emerge through dialogue. Pinar (1988: 148) supports this view and maintains that “The price for seeking impartiality and comprehensiveness is superficiality and triviality…instead we need to use our personal and shared stories to excavate below the surface of daily life.” Furthermore, a critical paradigm involves examining issues of power, control and ideology that dominate one’s understanding of the social world, that is, how power dynamics within a social system serve to generate a given set of meanings about social reality and lived experiences. This has particular relevance in the field of TESOL where TESOL teachers are often employed on a series of short- term contracts which result in the teachers finding themselves in a position of weakness and unable to improve their working conditions due to the nature of their employment.

Edge et al. (1998: 341) maintain that educational developments include a growing interest in the lives of teachers and their personal narratives which have begun to permeate the world of TESOL bringing with them new attempts to make space for the actual voices of those who have previously been merely represented. Furthermore, Hesse-Biber (2010: 455) states that

qualitative research aims to understand how individuals make meaning of their social context. This social context is not independent of the individual’s perceptions but is created through the social interactions of individuals with the world around them. Qualitative research is thus committed to multiple views of social reality whereby the participants become ‘the experts’ as the researcher interprets their views of reality.

Johnson et al. (2004: 20) and Nunan (1992: 4) state that the strengths of qualitative research are:

Data are collected in a naturalistic setting. Qualitative research can describe

phenomena, as situated and embedded in local and situational contexts, in rich detail. Richards (2009: 149) agrees maintaining that qualitative researchers “reject artificially constructed situations”;

The data are based on the participant’s own categories of meaning. This is supported by Richards (2009: 145) who refers to this as “participant-oriented research” and Nunan (1992) who highlights the importance of the actors’ own frame of reference within a dynamic reality;

It provides a description and understanding of respondents’ personal experience of phenomena, that is, an insider’s perspective;

It is useful for studying a limited number of cases in depth and provides individual case study information;

It allows for cross-case comparison and analysis and can be used to describe complex phenomena;

The researcher can use the primarily qualitative method of grounded theory to generate inductively a tentative but explanatory theory about a phenomenon; and

Qualitative approaches are thus responsive to local situations, conditions and stakeholder’s needs.

Johnson et al. (2004: 20) maintain that the weaknesses of qualitative research include the following:

Findings may be unique to the participants in the research study. Thus the knowledge produced may not be generalisable to other people or other settings which affects the credibility of the research study;

o Therefore, there may be a focus on individual results and a failure to make connections to larger situations or the possible causes of the results.

The density of qualitative data may make it difficult to make quantitative predictions and to test hypotheses and theories;

Data collection can be time-consuming; and

Results may be more easily influenced by the researcher’s personal bias. Merriam (2009) disagrees, however, stating that in qualitative research, rigour is derived from the researcher’s presence, the nature of the interpretation of perceptions and the rich, thick descriptions.

Talmy and Richards (2011: 1) state that interviews have long been used as a method in applied linguistics. In quantitative research, for example, interviews have been used to generate insights into cognitive processes in language learning, motivation, language attitudes and language proficiency. In qualitative research, interviews have featured in ethnographic studies, case studies and action research covering a diverse range of topics such as investigations into student and teacher identities, experiences, beliefs and life histories (Talmy et al., 2011: 1). Hesse-Biber et al. (2011: 102) state that there are three types of interviews: structured, semi- structured and open-ended. Structured interviews consist of the same series of questions used with all the participants. The data consists of respondents answers to specific questions and has a high degree of standardisation giving the researcher a high level of control. It is thus easier to compare respondents and generalise from such uniform data. In open-ended interviews, the researcher has a particular topic for the study but allows the participants to take the

specific set of questions but is more interested in letting the conversation develop and having the respondents naturally touch on or bring up the topics of importance. The researcher may ask a few broad questions and then allow the respondent to take the discussion forward. The data produced is non-standardised and the researcher has the least control (Hesse-Biber et al., 2011).

Nunan (1992) recommends the semi-structured interview as one of the best means of discovering information as it is allows the researcher to focus on topics and issues and guide the conversation rather than focusing on a list of specific questions which may result in limited responses.40 This supports Seliger et al. (1989) who maintain that qualitative researchers are more likely to use semi-structured and open-ended interviews which allow the words of the respondents, and their experiences and perspectives to shine through. The format of semi- structured interviews, therefore, allows the participants some latitude and freedom to talk about what is of interest or importance to them. Thus, the researcher asks a specific set of questions but also allows the conversation to flow naturally, making room for it to go in unexpected directions. According to Hesse-Biber et al. (2011), interviewees often have information that the researcher may not have thought of in advance. When this knowledge emerges the researcher using a semi-structured design is likely to allow the conversation to develop and explore new topics that are relevant to the interviewee.

Seliger et al. (1989: 167) defines semi-structured interviews as follows, “there are specific core questions determined in advance from which the interviewer branches off to explore in-depth information, probing according to the way the interview proceeds, and allowing elaboration, within limits.” Brown (2001: 35); Nunan (1992: 150) and Seliger et al. (1989: 126) state that semi-structured interviews have the following advantages:

A high return rate;

Fewer incomplete answers than surveys as the researcher can clarify ambiguous answers during the interview;

Allow for digression from a set format, either in the questions or the answers, depending on the circumstances;

o In addition, semi-structured interviews allow for in-depth information gathering. Give the interviewer a degree of power and control over the interview and allow for a measure of flexibility. Furthermore, the researcher is able to make notes about the participants’ environment, and non-verbal behaviours such as body language, facial expressions and gestures;

40

The semi-structured interview consists of a short, structured section designed to gather biographical data, for example: age, gender, number of years that the person has taught TESOL and number of years at the current language school. Although age and gender differences are not under investigation, this information could be useful for further research.

Allow the interviewer to gather specific data from all the participants as the format can be designed to elicit the information required; and

Give the interviewer privileged access into the lives of the participants. This supports Hesse-Biber et al. (2011); Merriam (2009) and Nunan (1992) who highlight the

importance of contextual knowledge. Furthermore, Brown (2001) states that interviews are a ‘personal’ research instrument which yield rich spoken and written data.

In addition, Hesse-Biber et al. (2011: 95) state that semi-structured interviews:

Do not require observation of the participants in a naturalistic setting, that is, interviews can take place in a prearranged setting which is comfortable and convenient for the participants;

Yield large amounts of data in the form of interview transcripts which are later reduced in the analytical and interpretative process; and

Enable researchers to find patterns or themes in ‘thick descriptions’ of social phenomena.

According to Seliger et al. (1989: 166) and Brown (2001: 35), disadvantages of semi-structured interviews include:

Can be costly, time-consuming and difficult to administer; Tend to be limited to small scale research studies;

Are never completely anonymous; Tend to be restricted geographically;

Depend on the researcher being a skilled interviewer and thus may require extensive training;

Elements of bias and subjectivity may be introduced and establishing a rapport with the interviewees may lead them to respond in a certain way to please the interviewer. Nunan (1992:150) maintains that the main source of bias is the asymmetrical

relationship between the researcher and the participants as the researcher possesses more power than the participants. Thus this “inequitable relationship” will affect the content of the interview as well as the language used.

By means of the semi-structured interviews, the researcher gathered rich, thick descriptive data based on the TESOL teachers perceptions of what they found stressful inside and outside the classroom, what support structures were available to TESOL teachers and how the TESOL teachers coped with stress. This rich, thick data included a description of the setting and the participants as well as a detailed description of the findings with evidence presented in the form of quotes taken from the semi-structured interviews and other field notes. This supports Merriam (2009) who highlights the importance of keeping a research journal and Lincoln and Guba (1985) who suggest that qualitative researchers use an audit trail to assist independent

researchers in authenticating the findings of a study by following the trail of the original researcher. Dunne, Pryor and Yates (2005: 76) also recommend keeping a research diary so that the researcher’s “thoughts and feelings may be included as another research text.” All the interviews were recorded with the participants’ permission and were transcribed by the researcher. (See Appendix 3 for two extracts from the researcher’s journal).

3.7. Methodology