Moving on to the process of case selection, it was felt that the PE teachers who
worked as coordinators of the HPELA Advisory Group were a good starting point because they could meet all the criteria identified in the last section. This group
included both senior and middle-aged, male and female teachers, and those who had graduated from a range of universities including the Normal University and the Sport
University. More importantly, they were interesting because they had an overview of schools, teachers and the education system, all of which were considered key for the
purposes of answering the research questions. At the same time, it was recognised that, although the coordinators could provide rich data, their insight was also limited in one
sense. They were dedicated to work relating to the curriculum reform, which meant they also lost the perspective of those who were against, indifferent to, or
marginalized from the educational reform. Nevertheless, since coordinators are PE teachers who were active in taking on additional work, it could be assumed that they
might have an interest in being involved in the study. They also had a good overview of the education system in their areas, so had valuable knowledge of the reform in
action. In some ways, therefore, they were an ideal group not only for this study but potentially for further studies concerning understanding teachers’ career and
professional development.
Before approaching participants, lists of coordinators were drawn from the official website of the HPELA Advisory Group in each county. A list of potential participants
was then selected from coordinators in Taipei City and Taipei County, because (1) there were sufficient coordinators in these two regions, and (2) it would be practical
for me to access the field and conduct fieldwork. While the situation and environment were largely unknown, Goodson and Sikes (2001) suggests that, it is better to contact
a key person who knows the field before rushing into it. After I arrived in Taiwan in November 2007, I therefore visited two professors at the Normal University, with
whom I was personally associated, and who happened to be frequently involved in the delivery of PE CPD courses in Taipei. I asked them to help me in identifying and
accessing two key persons (coordinators) from the Advisory Groups in both Taipei City and County. Preliminary meetings were arranged with both coordinators to (1)
introduce myself and the research project, (2) request their consent to participate in the study, and (3) discuss the lists of potential participants in order to select a suitable
range. In this process, the third step was similar to snowball sampling, which involves employing the knowledge of someone you know in order to gain some preliminary
understanding about someone/something you did not know. Afterwards, the number of potential participants was reduced from fifteen to six in Taipei City and from seven
to three in Taipei County. Potential participants who were not selected included those who were also head teachers, some HE teachers, and those who were unlikely to be
available for the whole research period. Three figures follow to briefly illustrate some personal information about (Figure 3.01) and the geographical background (Figure
3.02, 3.03) of the invited participants. Both the names of the participants and their schools are pseudonyms to protect them.
C a se Name S ex Age Early experience in sports Highest Educational background Current work Years of working in school Years of being coordin- ators
A May F 57 Sport elite
(Basketball) Master (Education) Retired 35 13 B Woody M 55 Tennis Master (Education) Administration (Head of Education) 31 14
C Cherrie F 44 Sport elite
(Soccer) Master (PE) Administration & Teaching 21 4 D Malone M 44 None Master (PE) Tutor & Teaching 17 3
E Jim M 40 Track & field
Master (Sport Biomechanics)
Tutor
& Teaching 9 2
F Yang M 36 None Master
(PE) Teaching 11 4 G Fiona F 40 Sport elite (Track & field) Master (Adapted PE) Teaching 15 7
H Hank M 32 Sport elite
(Rugby) Master (PE) Teaching 10 1 I Sunny F 29 Swimming Master (Adapted PE) Administration & Teaching 5 1
Taipei City (台北市)
Dimension：271.7997 Square km Population：2,629,269 人
Population density：9,673 persons/ km2 Secondary school：98
(22 of them are comprehensive high school)
Case A BT High School Class: 68 Students: approx. 2000 Case B SP High School Class: 86 Students: approx. 2600 Case C WC High School Class: 22 Students: approx. 600 Case D LJ High School Class: 18 Students: approx. 500 Case E CA High School Class: 35 Students: approx. 1000 Case F LA High School Class: 84 Students: approx. 2500
Taipei County (台北縣)
Dimension：2,052.5667 平方公里 Population：3,798,015 人
Population density：1,850 persons / km2 Secondary school：73
Figure 3.03 School cases in Taipei County Case G GS High School Class: 50 Students: approx. 1800 Case H GL High School Class: 39 Students: approx. 1500 Case I CS High School Class: 90 Students: approx. 2800
When planning to gain access to conduct fieldwork in a setting openly, Jorgensen (1989) suggests that researchers start:
“by seeking permission from the highest possible authority, and gradually convincing them, as well as other people in the setting, that the
researcher can be trusted…… Good initial relationships with such people can be invaluable as they may be willing and able to become powerful
advocates” (pp. 46-47).
This suggestion seemed to be helpful based on my personal cultural understanding of the Taiwanese social context where personal connections play an important role in
many organisations. For example, I surmised that a stranger who was introduced by someone trusted was more likely to be accepted than a person who simply arrived in
the setting. Moreover, after the initial introduction, I was aware that development and maintenance of the research relationship relied on respect, honesty and efforts made to
offer ‘trading points’ (as noted earlier in this chapter). The above ideas, hence, influenced me to approach, invite and develop a working relationship with the
participants during fieldwork in a particular way. Relevant principles and examples are illustrated below.
Firstly, with regard to approaching and building an initial relationship with the
participants, whereas the key person outside the Advisory Groups – a professor – helped me to gain access to the group, the key person inside – the first contacted
participant – was helpful in getting to know and building relationships with the other members. An example of this occurred when I conducted a preliminary participant
observation at an in-service training course with the first contacted participant (Case C: Cherrie). During the break, she automatically introduced me to other potential
participants whom I had planned to invite to become respondents. On that occasion, I had a feeling that I was accepted by other members at first sight because of being
introduced by Cherrie – a person they trusted. Similarly, I was introduced to the rest of the potential participants in the regular meeting of both Advisory Groups.
During the first meeting with the participants, I deliberately presented my identity as a
research student introduced by the professor in Taiwan with whom they were familiar, rather than primarily a research student of Loughborough University, which was not
familiar to them. Having said that, as the research progressed, they began to be further interested in me and in Loughborough. To some degree, the development of initial
relationships worked like a chain of connections, whereby I got to know each new person by consistently referring to the person I and they already knew.
The second challenge, following building initial relationships, was to arrange and
identify the appropriate occasion and time point for the official research invitation. Based on my cultural understanding of the field of PE and sport in Taiwan, it could be
assumed that as long as I was connected with someone the potential participants knew/respected, I was very likely to gain a participant’s consent immediately and with
few reservations. However, I was also aware that in participating in such a project that involved relatively long interviews and participant observation, participants could at
any time drop out if they did not feel fairly treated/respected. Hence, although it was relatively easy to gain consent, I was aware it was vital to consider participants’ long
term feelings right from the beginning of the study. This is an illustration that consent procedures are ongoing processes throughout a research project.
I decided that it would be desirable and respectful if the consent form was distributed and explained in person. Since participation in the study was, in effect, a private
contract between the researcher and the participant, I also felt it would be best to request consent in an arranged closed meeting. In addition, although the participants
might have been somewhat aware of what I intended to do, it did not seem appropriate to present the consent form right at the beginning of a conversation. Bearing the above
thoughts in mind, the invitation to participate was delivered as follows:
A meeting that allowed for private discussion about the research project was arranged in advance. The location of the meeting was usually in the teacher’s
workplace. This also enabled the researcher to begin to gain an understanding of their working environment.
The meetings began with expressions of appreciation for their time and willingness to participate, followed by an informal conversation about
educational issues relevant to the study or other topics which the participant raised. The purpose of discussing educational issues was to highlight how
valuable their participation would be, and to prepare for invitation (an invitation letter indicating the research proposal consent form, Appendix: II). Some of the
conversational responses I used in this step were, for example, ‘yes, there are quite a few challenges for PE teachers to cope with…’; ‘Indeed, nowadays there
are certain problems in the Taiwanese CPD system…’; ‘I agree that teachers need more support in terms of learning and working…’; ‘That’s why I want to
conduct this study, and your participation is valuable… this [research proposal] has more details about this project…’.
I allowed time for the participant to read the research proposal so that I could explain exactly what was required of the participant (how many interviews, and
for how long; what kind of participant observation, and its purpose). The participants were also fully informed that they could drop out of the study at any
time without providing any reason. (However, it was noted that if they did drop out, I might ask their advice about improving the conduct of future studies.)
Two copies of the consent form were signed by two parties. One was collected by the researcher and the other stayed with the participant. After the above steps,
the first interview – about the teachers’ backgrounds – was either arranged for the next meeting or conducted right away, depending on the time remaining.
With the exception of one, all of the participants were approached and invited
following the above procedures. It was slightly different, however, when I approached Fiona, who was the key person in the Advisory Group of Taipei County. During the
period I planned to contact both key persons, she was too busy to arrange a meeting. After a short telephone conversation with her, she asked me to e-mail her the proposal
before our first meeting. Following this, a meeting was finally arranged, the consent form was signed, and the first interview was conducted.
The third major challenge was to develop and maintain research and interpersonal
relationships with the participants. Apart from the ethical issues illustrated in the previous section, it seemed to me that the quality of the research relationship also
depended on my character as not only a researcher but also a person. While interviewing the participants’ personal development, I often heard intimate details in
relation to their lives, such as difficulties, crises and bitterness. These revelations were sometimes accompanied by some emotional reaction. In most cases, I was silent, not
only because I chose to be but also because I did not know what else to do. I was silent, for example, when Cherrie told me how she discovered her husband’s cancer
and managed to take care of him and their children; and when Malone explained why he did not have any children because of his wife’s health condition; and when Yang
disclosed that he once thought about suicide; and when many of their other intimacies and emotions were uncovered in front of me. Even though those stories might be
partially relevant to my interview topics, I was still surprised that they shared such personal stories with me. Being junior to them, I really did not have many experiences
to be trading back. In a sense, although the teachers wished their stories to be heard, they did not necessarily need comments, advice or even feedback in return. Thus, for
the situation and context, being a silent and understanding listener was perhaps the most appropriate role I could play during those moments.
Although I did not have much to trade in these story-telling episodes, (and I doubted
that anything specific should be said given that I was engaged in research, not counselling), lack of experiences in common did not prevent me from gaining a level
of understanding of their stories. Rather, it could be argued that it helped me to see the participants’ stories in their way. It has also been argued that relationships can still be
developed by making an effort on alternative trading points (Goodson, 1991). After all, I did not only meet them during the interviews. There were quite a few opportunities
to chat with, care about and stand in a similar position as them during participant observation. Moreover, being a person from outside their living context, I could often
share something new if they asked; such as: relevant policy in the UK, what life was like studying abroad, travelling information or how to learn English. However, when
they asked my opinion about some of their practices, instead of making them feel they were being judged, I often tried to respond by re-telling the event in a neutral and
Malone: What do you think about our teaching? Are there any differences from other schools [you have visited]?
Researcher: … Basically, PE teaching might be similar everywhere. I felt… PE teachers are quite committed to their position. They were all on the field and looking out for pupils, though… not everyone performed the same. However, because I’ve only come here for a few times, what I know is just one aspect of it. Besides, I know teachers tend to arrange different targets for different grades of pupils. So, I can’t really say anything.
Malone: Yes, we do arrange different goals depending on grades. Those who seemed not to be learning were pupils of the Ninth Grade. It’s because they’ve already completed the curriculum. And… Because they need to prepare for academic exams, so we would like to arrange more time for them to play.
(IMa-2-33)
The same principle – being neutral and understanding – also applied when they asked me to share what I had learnt from theirs’ or others’ stories and the participant
observations.
3.9 Fieldwork: Data Collection and Something about the Field