Principales valores morales

Blaxter, Hughes and Tight (1996) raise some important points:

reliability has to do with how well you have carried out your research project. Have you carried it out in such a way that, if another researcher were to look into the same questions in the same setting, they would come up with essentially the same results... Validity has to do with whether your methods, approaches and techniques actually relate to, or measure the issues you have been exploring. (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 1996; 200)

According to Brewer and Hunter (1989), the use of a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods can ensure that the weaknesses of any one of the data collection techniques is offset by combining it with others. This section, then, details the combination of questionnaires, interviews and other primary data collection techniques that were used to increase the validity, and the processes of analysis undertaken to ensure a greater reliability for the research methodology.

The Data Collection Flowchart (Figure 3.1) shows the main primary data collection techniques. These commenced with an informal pilot questionnaire that was distributed amongst a convenience sample of black5 students and graduates, which was followed up by the amendment of the questionnaires according to feedback. Thence, the pilot questionnaire was distributed to HE students to elicit mainly quantitative data for a basic analysis of the demographics and the themes that

emerged were assessed. Amended questionnaires were then distributed to interviewees. Due to the relatively small survey population, questionnaire data produced descriptive, rather than inferential, statistics. Next, the interview schedule was designed for the first series of semi-structured interviews, which were subsequently conducted with the ten interviewees. Questions were edited and elucidated, where necessary, for clarity as I progressed through each series of interviews.

From their interviews and questionnaires, the demographics of the interviewees were obtained and themes were pinpointed for further investigation during subsequent interviews. Transcription was undertaken and where there was any ambiguity relating to responses, I contacted interviewees (usually by email) for clarification. The flowchart shows that the process looped back to the ‘Design interview schedule’ step, where I then designed the second interview schedule and progressed through the same steps as for the first series of interviews. This was then repeated for the third series of interviews, which concluded the main primary data collection.

Figure 3.1: Data Collection Flowchart Informal pilot questionnaires Analyse demographics & emergent themes for interviews Interviewee questionnaires Analyse demographics &/ or themes for next interviews Conduct interviews (x10) Edit questions for clarity Transcribe interviews Correspond with interviewees for any clarification Pilot questionnaires Amend questionnaires per feedback Design interview schedule

Loop for 2nd& 3rdinterviews

Questionnaires

Ritchie and Lewis (2003) outline that piloting allows the researcher to assess whether the data collection tools, such as questionnaires and interview schedules, are effective in eliciting the relevant information and providing an opportunity for respondents to raise other related issues during the research. In this project, the piloting stage included a small informal piloting, followed by the distribution of the questionnaire to a larger pilot group.

The first stage of primary data collection was carried out in January 2003 and involved the distribution of a trial questionnaire to an opportunistic sample of ten graduates and students of African and Caribbean descent. Blaxter, Hughes and Tight (1996; 2006) indicate that informal piloting helps the researcher test a data collection tool without being committed to using that tool or data for the research proper. The purpose of informal piloting in this project was to ensure the validity of the questionnaire design prior to wider distribution, by checking that the data obtained would be relevant to the overarching research questions and lend itself to appropriate analysis. Respondents were asked to give feedback on the format and questions. This feedback, along with their questionnaire responses, was used to evaluate and then amend the questionnaire, providing an opportunity to remove ambiguous questions. The data obtained from this informal pilot was not used for any analysis in the project and merely served to test the questionnaire, in order that the final questionnaire might be enhanced.

Blaxter, Hughes and Tight (1996) advise that it is wise to include a pilot stage in social research and when this is not planned, the early stages of the data collection can turn out to be a pilot after all, because of unanticipated outcomes. Despite my initial, informal pilot, I found this to be the case with the next stage of my research. In February 2003, a total of 134 questionnaires were distributed to university students who had described themselves as African, Caribbean or dual heritage, with the intention of making initial contact with potential BAC participants for the main data collection. Twenty-eight completed questionnaires were returned, but it transpired that a significant number of those respondents were overseas students and just six were British African Caribbeans. As the numbers were so small, I decided to treat this as a pilot and analyse the questionnaire data from British African and British African Caribbean, home students and discard the data from overseas

students. This enabled me to identify themes from a black British perspective that could be used during interviews.

Table 3.2: Ethnicity and Gender (Pilot)

Male Female TOTAL

British African 3 4 7

British African Caribbean (including dual heritage) 2 4 6

Table 3.2 outlines the ethnicity and gender of the pilot respondents used in the study. The interview population was then selected using the separate snowball sample discussed in the earlier section.

Questionnaires were forwarded to interviewees for completion before the first series of interviews began. This provided them with some insight into the topic, so that they might have an idea of what to expect during interviews. It also provided them with an opportunity to reflect on some of their opinions beforehand. The data collected from the interviewees’ questionnaire responses were later used for demographic data and for identifying themes for further analysis. This data was also used in conjunction with the narrative data to demonstrate common perceptions amongst interviewees.

The questionnaire (Appendix 1) consisted of 17 questions, divided into 4 sections, entitled, ‘Personal details’, ‘Motivations/deterrents to study in Higher Education’, ‘Other perceptions and influencing factors’ and ‘Further participation’. The first section obtained demographic information about the research population including their name, ethnicity, gender, family background and studies.

The second section posed multiple choice questions about how a range of influences, such as ‘Parental/family expectations’, had motivated or deterred participants from studying. Likert scales are ideally suited to measure the extent to which respondents’ agree or disagree with a statement (Bell, 1993) and so this section

included a five point Likert scale, where participants could indicate whether each factor was a ‘major motivation’, ‘minor motivation’, ‘not significant’, ‘minor deterrent’ or ‘major deterrent’. This facilitated the assessment, not only of whether factors were significant or not, but also how significant they were. The data collected from this section was interpreted and presented in graphs in Chapter 5, which clearly show the number of respondents and the extent to which they were motivated or deterred by each influencing factor.

The third section was designed similarly to the second section, but in this case no middle option was available. Participants were able to indicate the strength of their agreement with a range of statements such as ‘Education is a passport to success’, by selecting ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’. By not including a ‘don’t know’ option, I reduced the likelihood of participants using a non- committal response as an easy alternative. Participants were thereby encouraged to use their judgement as to whether they were in agreement - more or less - or disagreement - on the same scale - with each statement. The data collected from this section of the questionnaire was analysed and presented in Chapter 6. Bell (1993) warns that the use of percentages in small scale research projects can be misleading. Correspondingly, where graphs were used to present data, I was careful to include numbers rather than percentages to reflect the number of responses.

The final section was primarily geared at the pilot population, inviting further participation in the research and requesting contact details for this purpose.

Although the majority of questions were closed to facilitate clear analysis of the data, some were open ended and in particular, question 15 allowed space for respondents to raise issues, which I may not have been aware of, that were important to them. For the purposes of analysis, these responses were typed up as a separate document (see Appendix 2) and reviewed to pinpoint and categorize recurrent themes.

The relatively small survey population meant that the bulk of the data collected via questionnaires delivered descriptive statistics rather than inferential statistics. SPSS software enabled me to produce a wide range of cross-tabulations and frequency tables, in order to identify trends and analyse the data. By importing the most useful data into Excel software, I was then able to produce more aesthetically pleasing and informative charts. Similar responses given in the questionnaire were used to identify themes, which shaped the questions in the interview schedules and stimulated further discussion during interviews.

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews formed the main data collection technique and a life history and narrative approach was adopted to facilitate in-depth and exploratory analysis. Central to a life history and narrative approach is the stimulation of life stories or biographies that are narrated from the research subject’s perspective (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). Qualitative research methods such as these recognise the importance of participants’ perceptions of their lived realities in developing an

understanding of social phenomena and these methods have become more favoured amongst social science researchers in recent years (Hatch and Wisniewski, 1995). Channer states:

the life history technique is particularly suited to discovering the confusions, ambiguities, and contradictions that are displayed in everyday experience... [It] strives towards locating the individual first of all in his/her overall life experience in the immediate social context, prior to linking it with a broader socio-historical framework.

(Channer, 1995; 43)

Asher (2001) lauds the usefulness of biography and storytelling in research that seeks to present the perspectives of women of African and Asian descent and indicates that it is particularly useful for giving voice to the experiences of those that have often gone unheard. She suggests that by documenting these voices, researchers can create alternative discourses that challenge the domination of a ‘knowledge’ that serves to perpetuate inequalities. Like hooks and West (1991), she emphasises the political role of black academics in using their own agency to create new knowledge, with a focus on anti-oppression, which would inaugurate change.

It was with these objectives in mind that I elected to engage interviewees in discussions about their lived experiences, of education and their careers. Semi- structured interviews provided the ideal vehicle for exploring participants’ interactions with their worlds and for understanding how they had navigated their success in these environments (Alfred, 1997). As each interviewee gave freely of

their time and insight, it was important to ensure that interviews caused minimal disruption. Consequently, they were arranged at participants’ convenience, usually in their homes or workplaces, to facilitate their maximum ease.

Semi-structured interviews are more likely to be successful when there is a good rapport between interviewer and interviewee (Cheng, 2004) and the importance of trust is accentuated when participants are revealing personal details about their lives and perspectives. Thus, every effort was made to enhance communication and put interviewees at their ease, both before and during the interviews. For instance, prior to meeting interviewees that I didn’t already know, I chatted on the phone to them and gave them some personal background information about myself. I explained the purpose of the research and forwarded interview schedules to them in advance, to give them some idea of the issues I wanted to address and to minimise any anxiety about the meetings. There can be occasions when participants feel slightly reluctant to offer their opinions, because they considered the researcher to be an expert on the subject in question (Singh, 2004). On such occasions, I encouraged them to comment by reminding them that it was their opinions and their life stories that mattered and thus, there were no right or wrong answers. This seemed to have the desired effect of stimulating further discussion.

The subjectivity of the researcher and the researched is increasingly acknowledged as an important element of qualitative social research. Whereas in the past

objectivity was held up as the ideal for good research and validity, it is now widely accepted that the researcher is free to research from their own perspective, as:

...objectivity is in fact an impossible claim and fails to acknowledge the subjectivity of the researcher. (Bravette, 1996; 7)

If objectivity is an illusion for qualitative research, nevertheless validity remains an issue, and this can only be striven for if the researcher clearly states their position and agenda in relation to the research and ensures maximum transparency in the research methods. To this end, I incorporated a reflexive approach (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003), which explicitly locates me as researcher within the research process and acknowledges that my experiences, as well as the processes and activities involved, impact on the research analysis. To define:

Reflexivity is a term used: (a) to describe the ways in which a theory may be turned back upon itself and its practices; and (b) to explore the ways in which a researcher’s involvement with a particular study influences, act upon and informs such research.

(Nightingale and Cromby, 1999; 228)

Thus, adopting a reflexive approach, I recognise that my intent and political position are an integral part of the research process and I will, therefore, explain my motivations for carrying out the research, because these clearly influenced the outcomes. As Asher (2001) reminds us, it is difficult to ignore professionally what you experience personally and in my experience of research, it is also true that the

personal and the political are closely interconnected. As such, the direction of my research was influenced by the fact that I was tired of the common associations between BACs and educational failure in the popular media in the UK. I was driven, therefore, to explore the conditions of success for BACs in the British education system and give voice to an experience that was more in line with my own and others around me. The research might thereby contribute to moving the dialogue, from an onslaught of negativity, to a more positive discourse. This focus on achievement could promote an emancipatory agenda, geared to develop understanding of BAC experiences of education, which would in turn enable us to improve those experiences for future generations and ultimately build stronger BAC communities with the objective of greater economic and social inclusion.

As a BAC graduate myself, I have brought my own insights and experiences to the research process and these undeniably had much influence on my understanding and interpretation of the data. Researchers such as hooks (1989) have commented on the significance of race research being carried out from a black perspective and highlighted the benefit of research in which the researcher shares a similar ethnic background to the researched. Undoubtedly, my ‘insider’ status as a BAC who had gone through the same educational system as participants, aided communication and enhanced the degree of comfort for both the participants and myself when discussing sensitive issues relating to race and ethnicity in education. This, combined with my existing experience of research and teaching in education, provided me with the valuable perspective of a ‘situated knower’ (Collins, 2000) or an ‘outsider within’

(Collins, 1986). It must be acknowledged that a researcher from a different background may well have drawn different conclusions from the data, but as the research aimed to give voice to the perspectives of the research subjects, I consider my proximity to them an asset in the research process.

Gender was another dynamic that impacted on the research process and whilst I regarded being a woman as advantageous for interviews with other women, because of closer identification, I was aware of the potential barrier it might represent to male respondents discussing their views. Skelton (1998) acknowledges this dilemma in her research into masculinities, noting that male authors have the advantage of being able to tap into issues of masculinity far better than any woman can, because they can identify with the male subjects better. I am certain that this gender bias had some influence on my findings and gave me a better understanding of the gender issues relating to the women (such as conflicts arising between mothering and career progression), than those relating to the men.

Three semi-structured interviews were carried out with each of the ten participants at one year intervals from April 2004 to April 2006, and summative participant biographies have been compiled in Appendix 9. The first interview focused on race and HE, the second on identity and the third focused on learning styles and the relationship between political awareness and education. Open ended questions allowed the respondents to talk in a natural way about the topic and provided opportunities for the interviewees to bring in details that they felt were pertinent to

the topic. The flexibility of semi-structured interviews allows for discussions to take a number of different directions (Gilbert, 1993). The downside to this is that the data can be more chaotic to organise afterwards. The technique also requires a range of good communication and interpersonal skills, including the ability to relax the interviewee, elicit the appropriate information, take notes and listen effectively. Most interviews lasted between one and a half and two hours. However, others lasted much longer and on occasion it was a fine balancing act to maintain some degree of control over the interview, without stifling discussion. Interviewees consented to having interviews tape recorded, which made it easier to pay attention to the conversation, because of a minimal need to take notes. Although important details, such as tone, can be captured on a tape recording, body language cannot and so it was sometimes necessary to include notes that conveyed added meaning to the recordings, which could be married to transcriptions and analysis.

The interview schedule for each of the three series of interviews (Appendix 3, 4 and 5) contained a handful of open-ended questions for discussion with participants. Under each of these key questions were additional sub-questions or prompts, which were more specific and served to help clarify any misunderstandings. Ritchie and