Proceso de intervención

As has been stated previously, this project is situated in a constructivist paradigm and as such the research objectives and methodologies chosen for this study are

reflections of the researcher‟s perspective and the aim to gain closer understanding of experiences as regarded by the participants. For the constructivist, multiple realities exist, each unique constructions of individuals “who experience the world from their own vantage points” (Hatch, 2002, p. 15), although there are aspects that are shared. To the constructivist, knowledge is constructed socially and “meaning does not exist in its own right; rather it is constructed by human beings as they interact and engage in interpretation” (O‟Leary, 2004, p. 10), Burns (1994) remarking that, “Qualitative

Research methodology

78

research has made educators realise that reality should never be taken for granted, given that attention must be paid to the multiple realities and socially constructed meanings that exist within every social context” (p. 12).

The researcher also recognises that the data generated in this study could be

interpreted in other ways, as according to van Manen (1997), “A phenomenological description is always one interpretation, and no single interpretation of human experience will ever exhaust the possibility of yet another complementary, or even richer or deeper description” (p. 31). Rich or thick description provides details that give the reader a “strong sense of the particular realities involved” (Somekh & Lewin, 2005, p. 16), helping to bring a closer understanding of the phenomenon under consideration.

It is acknowledged that these understandings and consequently the interpretation of the data generated by this study will be influenced by the researcher‟s own social world, including culture and worldview. The research process is one of co-

construction between researcher and participant and this has the implication that “it is impossible and undesirable for researchers to be distant and objective. It is through mutual engagement that researchers and respondents construct the subjective reality that is under investigation” (Hatch, 2002, p. 15). Hatch (2002) also notes that, “Instead of pretending to be objective, the stance of qualitative researchers is to concentrate on reflexively applying their own subjectivities in ways that make it possible to understand the tacit motives and assumptions of their participants” (p. 9). Although the constructivist openly acknowledges the subjective element of the qualitative research process this does not equate to a haphazard approach to research, but rather research is regarded as “an activity that needs to be approached with both discipline and rigour” (O‟Leary, 2004, p. 59) with quality and consistency

maintained.

While acknowledging the essential contribution that subjectivity makes to the research process in enabling the researcher and reader to understand or come closer to an understanding of the experiences of others, there is the potential for researcher bias to occur in qualitative studies when the researcher‟s “biases assumptions, or beliefs are intruding into the analysis” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 97) due to the

Research methodology

79

close relationship of researcher and participants. There is the possibility in

qualitative projects that data may be interpreted in a particular way as a result of the insider position sought by the researcher (Punch, 2009; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), or as Punch explains “the very nature of the teacher-researcher‟s insider position may

bring about the risk of subjectivity and bias.” (2009, p. 44). O‟Leary (2004, p. 57)

comments that the issue of importance is not whether the researcher is or is not subjective, but rather whether the subjectivity is recognised and the manner in which any potential biases are managed.

While this may be considered more of an issue for the qualitative researcher, it is acknowledged that all researchers approach their work from some position and that any approach has strengths and weaknesses (Punch, 2009). It is beneficial to take into consideration Corbin and Holt‟s (2005) comment that, “Though a researcher brings a perspective to the research... these perspectives guide the question and influence interpretations. They don‟t drive the research” (p. 51). The analytic tools we employ enable us to consider the data at levels deeper than face value, and “it is the analytical tools we choose that help the researcher increase sensitivity to the data and help recognise bias” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 87).

In this study the researcher adopts a stance to subjectivity between both neutrality and subjectivity with transparency, as described by O‟Leary (2004, p. 58). To

O‟Leary (2004), the indicator neutrality recognises and negotiates subjectivity to

avoid bias while the indicator subjectivity with transparency discloses and accepts the subjective positioning of the researcher and how it may impact on the research. In this study the researcher acknowledges the influence of the subjective in the choice of methodologies and research design yet also the desire to keep findings and conclusions free from bias by employing strategies to ensure consistency and

credibility of the research process.

To enable the evaluation of the quality of the qualitative research project in the constructivist paradigm, the criteria credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability or auditability have been developed to reflect quantitative concerns (Hatch, 2002; O‟Leary, 2004). Dependabilityin a qualitative study can be ensured through methods that are consistent, systematic and well documented. Auditability

Research methodology

80

refers to the full explication of processes so that the reader is fully informed about the context in which the research was conducted, the participants, the data collection methods and analysis processes (O‟Leary, 2004). In this study the detailed

description of people and processes provided ensures auditability of the research conducted and the full documentation of processes undertaken ensures dependability. Transferability indicates the applicability of the knowledge or understanding gained to other contexts. This study does not claim to be transferable across the population or in other contexts; however there may be insights gained that can be taken to other contexts. The study provides us with understandings of the perceptions of the respondents at the time the interviews were conducted and the protocol writing texts constructed and as such has a temporal aspect. However, the experiences of learning and using English are not static and will change and develop over time as the

respondents move into different contexts and different roles. It is anticipated that the detailed description of the research context and methods implemented in this study provide adequate detail for the reader to decide on the applicability of the

methodology to other particular contexts (O‟Leary, 2004).

In any qualitative study, it is imperative to ensure the credibility of the results produced and this can be established “through strategies that ensure thoroughness and seek confirmation” (O‟Leary, 2004, p. 114). Strategies were adopted in this study to ensure consistency in approach to each aspect of the research process, and consistency of the methods employed, to ensure clarity and accuracy in presenting the details of the research. These strategies included the utilisation of triangulation in data collection procedures and of thematic analysis and grounded theory in data analysis. The methodology adopted for this study is explicated fully and sequentially to provide readers with details required to be fully informed about the study context, the phenomenon investigated, and processes undertaken (Freebody, 2003; O‟Leary, 2004).

Triangulation, the use of more than one data collection procedure to confirm the authenticity of each source, enhances consistency and helps avoid an overreliance on one method of data collection. Through the employment of more than one method the researcher can be confident about findings where outcomes of the different

Research methodology

81

methods applied to the same phenomena correspond or converge (Burns, 1994; Freebody, 2003; O‟Leary, 2004). In this study both face to face interviews and protocol writingwere employed to generate and collect data, and overall the data did converge and were able to be categorised together where commonalities in

experiences were noted. The guiding questions for protocol writing included questions on the organizational experience of the participants to reflect the different context in which they were situated and from which they were responding (Appendix C). Freebody (2003) observes the importance of including anomalous evidence when reporting results: “Disconfirming or anomalous evidence is important, and its analysis and explanation are important indices of reliability and validity for the reader” (p. 77) and in this study any anomalies were noted in the coding process and comments included in the results as appropriate.

5.2 Research Objectives

The research objectives on which this study is based dictated the form that the study would take, the research methodologies and data analysis methods that were adopted to fulfil the objectives. The three research objectives are explained in detail in the following section.

Research Objective One: To explore the routine experiences of adult learners and users of English as a second or additional language.

An examination of the everyday experiences of adult NNSE may seem mundane and trivial, but it is these experiences that lead to understanding the phenomenon of second language learning and usage from the perspectives of those who have been involved. In relating their own experiences, the responses from the participants in this study can assist others to understand what learning and using English as a second language is like for them. Respondents participated either in a written format

through the creation of one off written texts in response to guiding questions or through a face to face interview. Analysis and interpretation of data generated will facilitate the development of understanding for those involved in teaching or working with those who are learning and using English as a second or additional language. It is hoped that the findings from this study will inform the practice of English

Research methodology

82

language teachers, team members, and leadership at various levels within the organization.

Research Objective Two: To examine the lived experience of personnel within an international organization who use English as their second or additional language. In considering the lived experience of people working for the WCHO, the data sought were those that would describe the personal experiences of the respondents in relation to their use of English. The concept of lived experience is one that is

fundamental to this thesis and will be considered in detail in subsequent sections of this chapter. The participants were all involved in an international organization, and their experiences are directly related to WCHO contexts, either as trainees studying ESL or as volunteers working in multicultural teams in their COS. As such, insights gained from this research objective will assist those who work in multicultural teams within the organization to develop a deeper understanding of the nature of the

experiences of others.

Research Objective Three: to consider the significance of the findings for ELT pedagogy.

Pedagogical concerns are central to researcher as an ELT practitioner and are central to hermeneutic phenomenology. Findings from analysis of the data combined with the related literature presents aspects of significance to English language teaching that will be addressed with the aim of facilitating the further development of thoughtful practice. Strategies that may facilitate language proficiency will also be explored to enable better outcomes for English language learners.