Having explained the theoretical considerations of my research, this chapter will describe the details of my research participants, the sample selection and research methods in detail. The two years of data collection involved collaboration with four participants from a Hong Kong UG and one assessor from a UK-based educational charity. My data collection started with a fusion of accidents of current biography and accidents of remote biography and personal history (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). I worked closely with the participants to explore the types of reading and writing that they engaged in in both volunteering and VQ work, as well as on Facebook. The research methods included a mixture of document collection, observing and participating in literacy events and asking interviewees to reflect on their practices. The central methodology of the research project was an analysis of both researcher- generated (etic) and participant-generated (emic) texts and agency-generated artefacts, complemented by in-depth interviews and participant observations.
3.2 Sampling
In the process of identifying VQ writers in the entire population, the criteria and strategies for the sample selection are two crucial issues I was most concerned with. I conducted purposive sampling to ensure the data collection process could be more effective (Silverman, 2005). I argue that ‘purposive sampling’ (Dörnyei, 2007) or more specifically, ‘theoretical sampling’ (e.g. Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Mason, 2002, Seale, 1999), was useful for me to achieve the ultimate goal of collecting varied and rich data from the participants for my case studies. My sample selection process was based on my considerations on the testing of theoretical concepts.
The essential criteria for the sampling selection were as follows:
1. Writers are aged 21 or over (i.e. adult members) in the UG regardless of rank13 and have joined one of the CVQO-led VQ programmes
– this is a most important point in line with my research aims and research questions. I tried to ensure that participants from diversified backgrounds were recruited.
2. Writers whose L1 is Cantonese and L2 is English
– these are the two mainstream languages used in the aviation-oriented UG. 3. Writers have at least one year of active service in the UG
– these adult volunteers have a basic understanding of the organisation.
4. Writers who are more willing to share their writing experience based on my impression of their personality and the rapport established through working closely with me on various projects for a number of years
– to benefit the information sharing involved in two semi-structured interviews, participant observation and unstructured interviews.
5. Writers who are active Facebook users and implicitly treat Facebook as an indispensable part in their repertoire of modes of connection with fellow volunteers
– to facilitate my data analysis, I deliberately selected such informants since they are both active volunteers and Facebook users who do frequent updates. I noticed that the complex nature of the online and offline literacy practices of other volunteers already offered rich copious data.
After conducting a criterion-based selection in the beginning phase of my research based on a list of specific pre-determined criteria (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993), as shown above, for a convenience sample, all of the participants involved in the research are my own Facebook contacts. I identified Sam, who was invited in the initial sample (the first participant), and five other five volunteers plus an assessor, who were officially invited to join my research after going through the ethical approval process for my research. However, the final number of VQ participants reduced to four because two volunteers withdrew from my study prior to the commencement of data collection for personal reasons: one secured a job in another country, one was too occupied at work.
The iterative process of sampling was halted when I satisfied that I had reached ‘data saturation’. As far as the sample size is concerned, the total number of VQ participants was only four since qualitative sampling in my research as an iterative process had already reached saturation point (Dörnyei, 2007). To put it more explicitly, the data related to Sam’s VQ assignments that I collected in Stage 1 became a perfect match with the emerging themes, including volunteering and
learning (Ilsley, 1990), vernacular literacies (Barton & Hamilton, 2012) and social media (Page et al., 2014), and also the rough theoretical framework of my research. Then I selected three more diverse samples with various backgrounds to refine the themes. I also invited the CVQO assessor to provide more input and insights in order to enrich my data.
In addition, sampling diversity enabled me to obtain richer data and make meaningful comparisons regarding the participants’ literacy practices. In my research, the target participants have a range of ages, abilities, educational and occupational backgrounds, in different ranks and positions. My sampling involved getting one from of each of the following categories: All four VQ participants were generally classified into two types according to the duration of their service history (see Data extract 3.1). Old-timers refers to those members who used to be cadet members and are currently adult members, whereas newcomers are those who joined the organisation as adult members.
Data extract 3.1 Types of HKACC Adult Volunteers
Moreover, as can be seen from the list of informants shown in Table 3.1, including adult volunteers of different ranks with three different levels of VQ qualifications within the UG enabled me to make meaningful comparisons regarding their literacy practices. Their different exposure to community service also led to a diversity of styles in their literacy practices. In other words, the literacy practices of
Type 1 –