Realizar actualización de los programas ambientales en Nexans Colombia

Having established the field of study and reviewed the relevant literature, this chapter examines the methodological approach that has been employed, challenges that have arisen from using the chosen methodologies which were highlighted by the pilot study, research limitations, and ethical issues. This chapter begins by exploring the epistemology and ontological position of the research. The chapter then justifies the methodological approach taken following the review of literature, which ensured the research tools were fit for purpose, building on, and complementing, previous research in this field. Finally, details of the fieldwork are presented, including the pilot study, research difficulties, ethical issues and analytical techniques.

The overarching question to be considered is what are the characteristics of family literacy programmes in the case study areas? To address this question a series of sub- questions were identified as stated at the end of chapter 1. The reason programmes were funded; the key differences and similarities; why learners attended; the benefits, if any, programmes have on the literacy skills of learners; and the intended future direction of programmes, needed to be determined to answer the research questions. Issues of learner identity, gender and power, which came to light through the reviewed literature in chapter 2 (Barton, 1994; Taylor, 1983; Scribner and Cole, 1981; Heath, 1983), were also highlighted as areas of interest and possible sites of conflict requiring further exploration in relation to family literacy programmes. As a comparative piece of work, it was important that the case study areas selected had commonalities as well as differences,

which could be compared and contrasted. This was illustrated in the selection of the participating sites detailed in chapter 1.

Epistemologically, this study is formed by my participation in previous research carried out for the National Research and Development Centre for adult literacy and numeracy (NRDC) into adult literacy provision in rural areas of England, (Atkin, et al., 2005). According to Hollis (1995; 9) epistemology is ‘…the theory of knowledge’. The research found that family literacy programmes were one strategy amongst many being utilised by policy makers under the SfL agenda to address low levels of language, literacy and numeracy (LLN) skills in adults. It was envisaged by policy makers that such interventions would lead to improved employment opportunities and enriched, fulfilled lives, as defined by society’s political and educational élite (DfEE, 1999; DfEE 2001). Ultimately, such initiatives are intended to eradicate social exclusion for marginalised groups and communities. Whilst this ideological position is to be applauded, it could be considered misguided, since those in positions of power are offering strategies based on their own ontological assumptions, (defined by Hollis as “what there is”), of the needs of ‘others’ (Lewis, 2001) in order that they, the ‘others’, can lead fulfilled, useful and economically productive lives.

My ontological and epistemological position inevitably had a bearing on the subject chosen for investigation and the study’s nature, design and interpretation. As stated in chapter 1, when justifying England as the benchmark for the inclusion of case study areas, I am British. I am also white, mature and female with an interest in matters of social policy, social inclusion and social justice. Of particular interest is the effect of government polices and rhetoric on families, education and the wider community. As a

policy researcher in the social sciences, I have been involved in a number of research projects focussing on adult education. My professional background and life experience permits a holistic approach to the interpretation of the data and an understanding from a variety of perspectives, not purely from an academic viewpoint.

Justification for methodology approach based on the research literature

According to the literature evidence reviewed in chapter 2, much of the research conducted in the disciplines of literacy, learning and families, takes a qualitative case study approach (Cloke and Little, 1997; Hannon, 1995; Heath, 1983 and Taylor, 1983). Some large-scale, mainly quantitative, research has been conducted. However, these are very much the minority with most falling under national government evaluations rather than research projects undertaken by individuals. Three such examples are, the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) report (2000), which surveyed current family learning practices in 28 Local Authorities across England. One of the report’s main findings was the ‘…disturbing absence of men involved in family learning’ (Ofsted, 2000:10). NIACE’s 2003 evaluation of family learning programmes that were LSC funded, employed a range of data collection techniques, including the distribution of postal surveys to 150 LEA’s in England. The final example is the Estyn Quality and Standards in Family Learning report 2004 (Estyn is the office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales, equivalent to Ofsted in England), which investigated the contribution family learning programmes made towards children’s achievement at Key Stages One and Three. In this case, a large number of organisations involved in family programmes were visited, pupils’ work was assessed and operational and strategic reports were examined. This section concentrates on the case studies in the literature as evidence to support the methodological approach taken towards this

research study. The issue of comparative research is also discussed. As noted in previous chapters, the published literature concerning research into literacy, families, and learning is vast and frequently overlapping, which is often the case in concepts investigated by social scientists involving the structures of society and the actions of individual actors.

This chapter begins by looking at the literature and justifying the research methodology employed for family literacy including approaches to comparative education research. In the area of general literacy research, Barton (1994) considers three examples of case study methodology. These are the work of Scribner and Cole (1981), Street (1984) and Heath (1983). The latter two, Street and Heath, take the majority of their methodologies from an anthropological epistemology. A common theme through all three studies is that they were looking at specific social groups and assessing how literacy was being used within that context. The studies were conducted from either a psychological or sociological perspective, rather than an educational stance, which has since become the normal field of enquiry.

Taylor’s (1983) early research in the field of family literacy, conducted in the USA, was also firmly based within the case study approach. In the area of adult community learning, Balatti and Falk (2002) used a case study approach to investigate three rural towns involved in such programmes in the state of Victoria in Australia. The main research techniques used by Balatti and Falk were ethnographic and conversation analysis using theory development. In April 2002, Brassett-Grundy also employed qualitative data collection under the case study technique. Twenty-five family learning participants from two London Boroughs took part in five focus groups. Two in-depth

interviews and one focus group, with four non-participants, were also undertaken. All but one of those participating in the research were female.

The majority of research studies reviewed in the literature consisted of standard qualitative methodology using case studies. Many studies used a combination of ethnography; participant observation both in the classroom and the home; modern participation where researchers endeavour not to interfere but simultaneously are not wholly passive; and in-depth, semi-structured and follow-up interviews with parents, teachers, coordinators, policy makers, learners and non-participants. The utilisation of conversational interviews, discussions and focus groups were also in evidence. Frequently, researchers gathered evidence of literacy practices from either the family home or the school environment. All studies involved two or more locations or families, sometimes geographically related to each other but sometimes not. Interviews may have been taped and transcribed, but this was not always the case. The majority of children involved in the relevant case studies were pre-school or primary school children, between the ages of two and ten. Larger studies made use of quantitative data which was generally collected by assessing learner literacy levels using established tests, before and after the intervention, as well as by postal surveys, telephone interviews and parental questionnaires (for example, various evaluations by Brooks, et al., 1996, 1997, 1998 ). Finally, many of the studies referred to, or implied that, there was a large proportion of mothers participating in family literacy programmes compared to fathers, but few actually state figures. Men are often not in evidence at all on the programmes. Goldman (2005) highlights this general deficiency in research, calling for all studies to explicitly stipulate whether participants in family literacy programmes are mothers or fathers. A notable exception is the work of Brooks, et al., (2004) for example, when reporting the

findings of the Sure Start initiatives in England for the BSA, the ratio of men to women involved in the study is clearly summarised. For each of the six programmes mentioned, women account for between 91% and 99% of participants (Brooks, et al., 2004: 33).

The predominance of females in family literacy programmes led to the examination of feminist pedagogies and, by default, issues of power, identity and empowerment. In so doing, further weight was added to the justification for qualitative methodologies as the best method of investigation. Barr (1999), David (1993), Hayes and Flannery (2000), Pritchard-Hughes (1995), Rockhill (1987) and Tisdell (2000) are some of the principal writers and researchers in this area. Their work could be viewed from a qualitative paradigm employing case studies to highlight the position, politically, socially and environmentally, of women learners and practitioners in education. Particularly useful is Rockhill’s (1987) work looking at Mexican migrant women in Los Angeles. The emphasis in feminist pedagogy is placed on providing women, who are normally silenced, with a voice and finding the appropriate educational spaces in which that voice can be heard (Hayes and Flannery, 2000). Taking into account the preceding reviewed literature, a quantitative approach to data collection was not seen as an appropriate or viable option for this research project. Instead, predominantly qualitative methodologies were employed in the form of a small-scale comparative case study.

However, before any comparative research can be carried out Bereday (1964) believed it was imperative that the researcher read extensively about the area of study in question. According to Bereday (1964: 10), the researcher should also acquire three key competencies, ‘…a knowledge of the language of the area under study, residence abroad, and a never-ceasing watchfulness…to control his own cultural and personal

biases’. Bereday was concerned that the researcher should be prepared for the task and respect and understand the culture of study. Further, researchers should be aware of the cultural and ideological preconceptions they bring with them. Bereday asserts that it is not possible to undertake a comprehensive comparative study without actually travelling to the area in question and living amongst local residents to experience and understand the full context under investigation. For Bereday ‘…a knowledge of the language is the ideal…travel and residence abroad are keys to the selection of trustworthy tests and research techniques when the time comes to study schools systematically’ (Bereday, 1964: 11). Bereday is most concerned that a student working in this discipline does not do so in ignorance. Therefore, not only were the areas involved in the case study researched and visited in advance, time was also spent at each location during the fieldwork stage of the data collection.

According to Gail, et al., (1982: 512), who reviewed key writers in the field of comparative education research, former students of Bereday, Noach and Eckstein, dismissed the traditional qualitative approaches to the discipline in favour of ‘quantification’ and hypothesising. As a result, large-scale comparative education studies became popular in the 1960s with the creation of the OECD (Holmes, 1981). Linked to economic investment and growth, cost benefit analysis and economic reward formed the main motivation to study the success or failure of different educational systems in the developed world, to assist those in developing countries. According to Holmes, probably one of the largest comparative studies of this era was undertaken by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), funded by the Ford Foundation. Originally, the study compared attainment in mathematics. This was because there was a perception that mathematics was not a

culturally specific subject. Later the study on mathematics was followed by several other subjects including science, literature and civil education. The study covered 20 countries over a seven-year period in almost 10,000 schools, involving over a quarter of a million students.

However, comparative studies do not necessarily have to be large, qualitative cross- national studies. Frequently, comparative examples of research are found within a small geographical area. For example, the study undertaken by Hughes (1997) in two Welsh villages (see later in this chapter) and the research into adult literacy provision in rural England by Atkin, et al., (2005).

One of the main difficulties in engaging with worldwide comparative education is defining the field of study in a standardised way so that it is uniformly understood and accepted by all concerned. This is particularly difficult to achieve when the definition of the comparative discipline itself is often contested. This difficulty is illustrated by the work of Carr-Hill, et al., (2001) in defining formal and non-formal education in different countries and is highlighted by the many terms used to describe family literacy programmes as discussed in chapter 2. Without agreed definitions for the field of study, analysis and comparisons can be challenging. It should be noted that sites selected for comparative study require an element of difference as well as similarity, as demonstrated in the literature, to enable the researcher to compare and contrast the objects of study (Taylor, 1983).

Methodological approach – ensuring fitness for purpose

Qualitative methodological techniques, which can be applied equally across all three participating case study areas, were felt to be the most beneficial way of answering both the main and subsidiary research questions. Such methods have frequently been used by previous researchers in the field for investigation into small-scale case studies. Whilst this approach yields a rich source of data it is often criticised: criticisms, which should, at this point, be acknowledged. The most commonly cited drawback to this methodological approach is that the findings cannot be generalised. When research is confined to a handful of areas or individuals, findings are often perceived as being only applicable to that place and time. However, Stake (1995: 7) points out that due to the in- depth nature of case studies, ‘certain activities or problems or responses will come up again and again’. These will allow the researcher to make generalisations on a theme, which can then be refined through further investigation. The aim of case study research is rarely to produce generalisations, rather it seeks to consider a particular concept or issue in depth, illuminating key points or, as Stake (1995: 8) comments, ‘the real business of case study is particularisation, not generalisation.’ Another point of criticism relating to case studies is that they tend towards the subjective, relying on individual interpretation. According to Stake, this is not just applicable to the findings but also to the research design, which is often adjusted to accommodate emerging themes as the project progresses. Interpretation always takes place within the ideological framework of the researcher because of his or her knowledge and experiences. For some the issue of interpretation is seen as too subjective and based on too small a sample. Case studies were not, therefore, felt by their critics to be a scientifically robust method of data collection or analysis. Stake (1995: 12), believes that a ‘good case study is patient, reflective [and] willing to see another view’. Furthermore, as long as the researcher is

aware of, and takes into consideration, the above issues, there is no reason why case studies cannot be a valid method of research.

This does not mean that quantitative data was completely ignored during this study. Secondary quantitative data from each case study area was requested and, where available, gathered to allow for triangulation, verification and contextualisation of the field. Such data included the number of learners attending courses in previous years; learner achievement levels; retention rates of learners; progression routes and funding levels. However, the main method of data gathering was qualitative, in the form of semi- structured, face-to-face interviews.

There often appears to be a conflict in educational research and social science in general, between which types of methodology to use. Positivists, first introduced by Comte in the nineteenth century (Cohen, et al., 2000), prefer the use of quantitative data, believing it leads to scientifically robust conclusions. Originating from the natural sciences, positivists like to test their theories through universal laws, so that outcomes can be generalised. Data needs to be empirical and quantifiable to ensure validity and truth; it cannot be disputed. However, as discussed earlier in this chapter, qualitative methodology is less reliable and can rarely be generalised. Qualitative methods are derived from a phenomenological perspective, which relies on trends and themes emerging from the data. They are descriptive and open to interpretation, unlike empirical evidence that is thought to be more reliable and difficult to manipulate. Therefore, this study is phenomenological in that it is based upon, and values most, the use of qualitative methodologies, such as probing interviews and ethnography, which provides contextualisation, rather than statistics or experiments, which can be replicated time after

time. By its very nature, the conditions of the research when investigating family literacy programmes differ each time, for example, the learners who attend each session. Therefore, sessions are unique, each offering their own depth and richness of data. Further, qualitative data allows for the exploration of concepts, ideas and attitudes by the researcher with the subject, i.e. the interviewee, that is not possible with quantitative data.

During this research, semi-structured interviews were conducted with local or regional coordinators, adult practitioners and children’s teachers or school representatives who participated in the delivery of programmes at each case study site. Classroom observations were undertaken in the spirit of Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) participation model. In this model, the researcher does more than passively observe the situation, rather it is permissible for the researcher to interact as a participant observer. Lave and Wenger (1991: 39), advocate this kind of participation in research observation, terming it ‘legitimate peripheral participation’. This was particularly important in family literacy sessions where everyone present was included in discussions and activities; it also helped to gain trust and rapport with the learners, all of whom were potential case study participants. Interviews were used where the gathering of women’s stories, in relation to family literacy programmes, were designed to give previously unheard women, a voice (Luttrell, 1997; Hayes and Flannery, 2000). To this end, learners and ex-learners were interviewed in-depth, with the emphasis placed on conversational interviews. This allowed for the building of life histories and encouraged women to tell their own stories, since the majority of those interviewed were mothers, (See Tables 5, 7 and 9 below) in relation to any benefits or the possible impact of participating in family literacy programmes, whether negative or positive.

Interviewing both learners and ex-learners helped to establish whether any benefits or changes in attitude remained with the learner in the long-term. Learners accounted for the majority of interviewees in the study. Depending on issues of time and access, it was