Bryman (2016), provides a clear distinction between the terms research design and research method that he believes can be, at times, muddled. While research design gives an outline and guides the collection and analysis of data, the latter is the specific technique used to obtain data.
This study follows a qualitative longitudinal research design and studies a single group of participants over a period of time43 (Goodwin, 2010). This period enabled me as a researcher to monitor the participants’ reentry to their home country, from their own perspectives over time, and capture their thoughts and feelings. It also allowed participants to experience and recognise a sense of change, if a change appears to present itself, either at a certain phase and/or throughout their journey. According to Saldaña:
‘we conduct a longitudinal study for two primary purposes: to capture through long-term immersion the depth and breadth of the participants’ life experiences, and to capture participant change (if any) through long-term comparative observations of their perceptions and actions’ (Saldaña, 2003, p. 16).
This was accomplished by using in depth interviews (see 3.3.4). Adopting this approach seemed appropriate for several reasons. First, qualitative interviews can reveal how individuals understand themselves and their experiences within their social world as they provide us with:
‘evidence of the nature of the phenomena under investigation, including the contexts and situations in which it emerges, as well as insights into the cultural frames people use to make sense of these experiences. Combined, they offer important insights for theoretical understanding’ (Miller & Glassner, 2016, p. 63).
Second, the use of regular in-depth interviews was in response to the observed scarcity of qualitative research on reentry adjustment, especially a longitudinal approach (Martin, 1984;
Stringham, 1993; Alandejani, 2013). In fact, McLeod & Thomson (2009, p. 61) believe that a qualitative approach to longitudinal research is able to provide the ‘close-up’ shot of real lives
43 That is, from the time Saudi PGSs begin to plan their return to their home country and throughout the first year of their arrival back there.
46 which is necessary for this type of study, providing us with detailed moments and turning points in life after returning home. As discussed in the previous chapter, most studies on readjustment are quantitative, relying merely on retrospective accounts (Wolfe, 2005; Altweck & Marshall, 2015) and, therefore, adopting a longitudinal approach could minimise, but not solve, the problem of relying on memories as it allows the investigation to take place during the process of readjustment rather than after. As Black, et al. (1992, p. 755) suggest, ‘while most social science research can benefit from longitudinal research designs, the processional nature of repatriation adjustment makes this type of design even more appropriate’. However, as Plumridge & Thomson indicate:
‘there is always some time lapse and intervening events between interviews [in longitudinal studies]. The analyst still has to strive to make sense of contradictions in accounts which may be accumulated and amplified over time’ (Plumridge &
Thomson, 2003, p. 214).
Moreover, one of the greatest challenges in a longitudinal design is participants’ availability, in addition to managing and analysing the extensive amount of data (Saldaña, 2003).
As qualitative research aims to understand the meaning of human action in a particular context (Schwandt, 2001), it corresponds to my aim as a researcher to understand the returnees’
behaviour in a specific social context (i.e. KSA). In addition, it addresses the gap identified by McLeod & Thomson (2009), and the need for a deeper understanding of the dynamic processes involved in transitions which can best be attained through discussion in a natural setting i.e.
qualitative interviewing. Qualitative research methods are valuable when researchers seek to examine phenomena ‘about which little is yet known’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 19).
Qualitative approaches seek to discover and develop new concepts rather than proving preconceived ideas about the people and events under investigation (Gerson & Horowitz, 2002).
This involves some sort of direct encounter with ‘the world’, in this case selected people, and how they construct, interpret and give meaning to certain events or experiences (e.g. returning home). Hence, adopting a qualitative approach contributes to the researcher’s understanding of how individual experiences differ across contexts and provides the mechanism through which to examine the complexity of the real world from all angles (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
In designing this study, I was aware that other methods, including focus group (FG), could be suitable to elicit a variety of perspectives or understandings of the reentry experience as its interactive nature might help in any exploration of the topic and clarify participants’ views (Kitzinger, 1995). Moreover, FGs could be ‘empowering’ in the sense that participants share their views and realise that others have had the same experience (Braun & Clarke, 2013, p.
111). However, FGs do not allow in depth follow-up of individuals’ experiences and are
47
logistically difficult, especially when participants are invariably busy professionals, as is the case here (ibid). Therefore, individual interviews were preferable, given the aim of the study is to elicit detailed personal experiences rather than broader socio-cultural meanings. However, this choice is not without its flaws. The issue of how interviewees respond to us remains open.
According to Block (2000, p. 759), the data from interviews do not necessarily reflect the underlying memory but rather they represent ‘voices adopted by research participants in response to the researchers’ prompts and questions. These voices might or might not truly represent what the research participant thinks or would choose to say in another context and on another occasion’ (emphasis in original). Similarly, Deutscher, et al., (1993), believe that a person’s choice to say something may not always represent what they actually do in real life.
In addition, Charmaz (1995) concurs that people may not want to, and they do not have to, reveal everything about themselves. My position, however, is similar to Nunkoosing’s (2005, p. 701) who worked on the premise that the interviewees’ accounts, whatever they choose to tell or are interested in, are ‘authentic rather than true’ and are of equal importance since they contribute to an understanding of their experience.
It is worth mentioning at this point, that the choice of a specific research design rather than another is triggered by some philosophical assumptions that social researchers usually bring to their study i.e. the ontological and epistemological positions (discussed below) and how they conceptualise our reality and our images of the world (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
3.2.1 Philosophical Assumptions: Ontology and Epistemology
While ontology refers to one’s view of reality, and whether it is dependent or independent of our own practices and understandings, epistemology reveals the nature of this reality, whether it is discovered or created through the process of research i.e. the nature of knowledge and how one acquires it (Braun & Clarke, 2013). The belief predicating this study is that we can reach reality through socially constructed meanings between the researcher, who is involved in the production of that reality, and the active role of individuals (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Bryman, 2016). Hence, the ontological position adopted is constructivism44 which implies that social phenomena are not just the outcome of social interaction but are also in a constant state of revision (ibid). According to Richards (2003, p. 39), constructivists ‘seek to understand not the essence of a real world but the richness of a world that is socially determined’; that is, the lived experience from the point of view of those who live it. This position corresponds to the nature and aim of this study, where there is more than one reality as seen from the eyes of the
44 Often also referred to as constructionism (Bryman, 2016).
48 participants. With regard to epistemology, the study adopts an interpretive approach, through which I have described and interpreted particpants’ feelings of a social phenomenon (i.e.
returning home) as they perceive it. This was accomplished by means of in-depth interviews which permitted the coconstruction of meaning between the researcher and the participants and provided an element of interpretation of data that offered a meaningful insight into the phenomenon (Mills, et al., 2006).
Within this paradigm, our basic understanding is formed by interpreting what people say they encounter, and how they view their realities (e.g. returning home). Furthermore, in this approach, researchers need to be aware of the necessity of not imposing their own expectations on interviewees, or allow their expectations to influence what they hear and see. To achieve this impartiality, the researcher must know what his/her biases are, and how they may impact on the research. This issue is discussed in more detail in section (3.6).
3.3 Procedures