RECICLADO Y VALORIZACIÓN

The data collection methods used in the research include semi-structured interviews, focus groups and analysis of documents. As every method gives a different outcome, by combining different methods “researchers are able to obtain a better, more substantive picture of reality; a richer, more complete array of symbols and theoretical concepts; and a means of verifying many of these elements” (Berg & Lune, 2012. p.6). This use of multiple methods is known as triangulation. By collecting data in multiple forms I was able to obtain a more complete understanding of the perceptions of both the teachers and students of religion, citizenship and identity.

4.5.1 Semi-structured Interviews

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data from the religious education and citizenship education teachers of the chosen schools. As Johnson & Christensen (2012) point out, interviews are used to obtain information on the interviewee’s “thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, reasoning, motivations and feelings about a topic.” (p.202) They allow the researcher to gain an understanding of that person’s perspective. A semi-structured interview allows flexibility for additional questions and impromptu issues that arise at the time of the interview (Berg & Lune, 2012). Individual interviews were conducted with the teachers, as there were only a small number of teacher participants, and topics of religious tolerance and personal identities would potentially need to be recorded in confidence. A digital recorder was used to document the all of the interview sessions, which I later transcribed myself (See appendix H for interview questions).

4.5.2 Focus Groups

(Johnson & Christensen, 2010). They reveal “conscious, semiconscious, and unconscious psychological and sociocultural characteristics and processes among various groups” (Berg & Lune, 2012, p. 144). As students may view individual interviews apprehensively, focus group interviews were used with students in each of the three schools (See appendix H for interview questions).

As suggested by Berg & Lune (2012), this method is an effective technique for drawing out the participants’ perceptions, which in this case are the perceptions of the students regarding tolerance and their personal identity. The group dynamic is made use of in order to gather data regarding topics of interest to the group that the researcher can see might provide perspectives and viewpoints. Berg & Lune (2012) suggest that the ideal number of participants for a focus group interview is six to eight. Groups in this study ranged from six to seven in size. This group size aided in effectively eliciting response from the students in all the focus group interviews. Immediately before commencing the focus group sessions, two mind-mapping activities were conducted in order to help stimulate discussion prior to the interviews. The mind map used a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis on religious tolerance and students’ sense of identity. The SWOT analysis also provided insights about the students at each school, and allowed some of the quieter students to participate equally, as focus group interviews are often dominated by outspoken members (Berg & Lune, 2012).

The process of the focus group interviews slightly differed between schools. All of the participants from each school initially showed hesitation prior to the interviews as the mind-mapping activities initially proved difficult for them. Some students suggested that this was due to their concerns about the topic of discussion (field notes, 2013). Yet, given time, students from the Madrasah and the Jakarta Public High were able complete the activities, although students from the Jakarta National High were unable to do so and opted to proceed to the focus-group interview.

During the focus group interviews, students from the Madrasah showed enthusiasm and curiosity towards the research, often inquiring further about the topics being asked. A similar occurrence took place while interviewing students at the Jakarta Public High: many displayed deep interest in the research topic. Students from the Jakarta National High, however, showed a lack of response to or interest in the topics being

addressed, giving minimal and short answers. This may have been due to the different social and economic conditions of each school, as students from Jakarta National High had lower educational socio-economic status compared to the other two schools and lower levels of literacy as well.

4.5.3 Secret Box Activity

One significant challenge in this research was to find ways to address the sensitive nature of religious issues and how to encourage young people to discuss these. The secret box activity is a strategy that asks the student participants to anonymously write down thoughts or ideas that they were unwilling to discuss in the focus group interviews and post their responses into a box when done (Punch, 2002). As focus group interviews with young people are flawed for a number reasons, such as dominance from the outspoken members (as explained above), or the sensitive nature of the topic being discussed, there was the potential that some might feel it was unsuitable to discuss some matters openly. The secret box strategy was used immediately following the focus group interviews as a way to allow students to raise other issues or describe ‘hot’ topics. All of the students who participated in the focus group interviews participated in the secret box activity. Most students either reiterated or expanded on the points they made in the interviews, while some discussed more of their personal experiences regarding tolerance and personal identity. This provided data that otherwise would be hard to obtain through methods such as the focus groups, as the secret box method provides anonymity and thus freedom to communicate opinions on sensitive or personal issues.

4.5.4 Secondary Data

As explained by Johnson & Christensen (2010), secondary data may include personal documents, official documents, physical data and archived research data. The collection of secondary data was done in order to achieve a more detailed picture of the perceptions and practices of the teachers and/or students of each school. Secondary data was collected from various sources including official documents, websites, lesson plans and teaching guidelines. I used these to provide supporting information on how teachers

perceive the topic being taught and to see if data such as official curriculum documents aligns with the perceptions of the teachers.