In this section, I explore my research position in this project and the ways in which I am both an insider and outsider and how I have attempted to negotiate these roles during the research process.
My aim is to report what Bloome (2012) would describe as everyday life and culture in the selected social group. For this investigation, the social group is the Thai teachers and their students in the English language classroom and I am using observations and interviews to provide a detailed picture of what happens in their classrooms in north-eastern Thailand. This qualitative research aims to provide a realistic understanding of how learner-centered teaching has been implemented in the English language classroom under a cultural lens. The sociocultural approach I am using assumes that by conducting research in English language learning and teaching, I am an insider as I have been teaching English in Thailand for fifteen years, which has included training potential English teachers and continuing this training once they have graduated. Over time, I have earned the trust of Thai teachers of English in general and have built a reputation for understanding the daily problems that teachers face, demonstrated in the presentations that I have given in national and international conferences and publicised using a weekly column in a popular English language daily newspaper, the Bangkok Post for three and a half years. Having said that, I may also be an outsider by some of the participants (teachers and students) as I am not
75
Thai, I am male when most teachers are female, and so may not be considered one of them, especially as I do not teach in their schools.
To explain this further, it is important to understand that differing personal backgrounds and language histories (how English was learned), teacher education experiences and work in different contexts shape the mental lives and practices of English language teachers (Kubanyiova & Feryok, 2015). Because of this, I am an insider and an outsider at the same time depending on the participants and stakeholder perspectives. I am also an insider and outsider to varying degrees depending on the task at hand as well as my perceptions and the perceptions of others. This could be classified as being an insider and outsider at the same time in a multiple series of parallel continuums (Labaree, 2002), depending on the context and perceptions of those concerned. To this end, the location, time, participants and the phenomenon being investigated dictate where I am on different sets of axis on a multiple dimensioned continuum along the insider/outsider dichotomy (Mercer, 2007). On reflection, I find myself as having refined shades of insiderism and outsiderism (Hellawell, 2006) depending on the aspect of research I am covering.
I am looking at this investigation from etic and emic viewpoints. The idea behind looking at this study from both an etic and emic standpoint is to look at the data but from two differing positions (Pike, 1967); an observer’s viewpoint as the researcher, investigating the learner-centeredness of the classroom, with all the trappings of my own culture based in the west, and the values and beliefs of the teachers and students that are part of that learning process in the Thai context. Furthermore, the positioning that is made has direct consequences as to how the research was conducted, for example, theories, methods and the object of the investigation (Berry, 1969). As already explained, a sociocultural approach to this research was chosen to reflect both the etic and emic standpoints, even though Harris (1976) believes that some academics would have us believe that etics are the
76
emics of the observer, which in my view, is not the case. For this research, using
definitions by Harris (1976), analysing the interviews of teachers and students will explain what goes on in the mental life of the participants and is culturally specific (emic). By observing the teachers and students in the classroom, we can view real living individuals as they are in actual life, and if what is viewed is outside the minds of the actors (observer and participants), this is cross-culturally valid (etic). The idea that etics is nothing more than the emics of the observer is only true if the researcher regards what is viewed through their own cultural lens.
I have a background in education in Thailand as a teacher. This plays an important part in my approach to this research, as do my assumptions, objectivity and biases concerning my understanding of Thai culture and learner-centeredness from a westerner’s perspective and my affinity with the people from north-eastern Thailand. For these reasons, I use a
reflexive approach in that I try to anticipate problems, biases and as a researcher, my personal values and beliefs to produce an honest and ethical account of the research taking place, as recommended by Burgess, Sieminski & Arthur (2006). A section on ethical considerations appears later in this chapter. The possible negative biases are the perceived thoughts and beliefs I have concerning the research questions due to previous observations, comments and discussions that have taken place over several years, which should not contribute to this research as it was not approached from a formal academic point of view.