T ÍTULOS OCUPACIONALES

The analysis of the data collected as part of my study can be divided into five phases. The first phase occurred after the pre-departure questionnaire responses had been received and enabled me to select the students to be interviewed. It involved developing a profile for each student with their age, gender, exchange destination, country of birth and residence, previous travel experience and language profile. The profiles of the final 21 participating students are contained in Appendix One, although the actual profiles used contained information that has been removed here so as to protect the identities of the students involved, including information on the specific countries that they had been to previously and the exact duration of their stay in each one. This data was also tabularised in a form similar to Table 4 contained in the Participants section found later in this chapter. This provided a valuable resource from which to seek context and examine possible relationships or trends during the latter phases of analysis, while the individual profiles contained more detailed data if necessary.

This initial phase of data analysis also involved attaching codes or what Saldaña (2009, p. 3) defines as “summative, salient, essence-capturing” words or short phrases to each unique reason given both in terms of their decision to go abroad in the first place and their choice of country. For example, the codes used to describe their reasons for going abroad included curiosity, to improve language proficiency and academic reasons. Meanwhile, the codes used to describe their choice of country included the host language, culture and geographic location. This was an iterative process, meaning that each response to this question was read and reread multiple times so to ensure that the codes used were as appropriate as possible. The number of students within each category and their names were recorded in a document, which like the table mentioned above, provided a resource from which to seek context and examine possible relationships or trends during the latter phases of analysis, while the relevant extracts were also included so to provide more detail if needed.

54

The focus of the second phase of data analysis was the interview transcripts. It involved attaching codes to each unique aspect of this data set considered relevant to the analytic interests outlined in the preceding chapters. Table 2 contains examples of the types of aspects coded and the codes used, while Table 3 contains an extract from one of interview transcripts and shows how it was coded. This too was an iterative process. Meanwhile, it was technically a deductive process because it was driven by my preconceived analytic interests in the topic (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Moreover, I made fieldnotes over the course of the interview phase of data collection, meaning I started this process of coding with preliminary analytic thoughts (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Some might not regard this as a good thing, believing that it would have narrowed my “analytic field of vision” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 86). However, it seems inevitable that anyone who collects their own data by what Braun and Clarke (2006) describe as interactive means (such as interviews), will have some initial analytic thoughts. Moreover, if I missed anything during this phase of analysis, which is possible, I don’t think that this is because I started thinking about the data while I was still collecting it. I started this phase of analysis without the assistance of any kind of data analysis software. This had not been a problem when analysing the data collected through the pre-departure questionnaires. Nonetheless, I came to use the ATLAS.ti programme to code the interview transcripts as it became apparent that the nature and sheer size of these required a more sophisticated approach. Table 2 – Examples of interview data coded and codes used

Coded aspects Selected codes used

Descriptions of certain aspects of the experience as being difficult, otherwise problematic, or not.

— Unfamiliarity

— Social isolation

Descriptions of the study abroad experience overall and its difficulty or lack thereof.

— Tough

— Smooth

Descriptions of the host society. — Similar

Descriptions of differences encountered/observed — Attitudes

References to home society — New appreciation

Descriptions of learning or growth or lack thereof. — Host society insight

Descriptions of contact with locals — Little contact

55

Table 3 – Interview data extract, with codes attached

Data extract Codes attached

I found the uni quite difficult and I felt like I didn’t really get much help. Like the trickiest things are probably getting enrolled in uni, choosing my subjects and getting my residence permit. And like choosing subjects is totally different to how you do it in Australia. I am enrolled in a degree but it doesn’t really have core subjects. There are thousands of subjects on the database and you search them choose subjects and then just turn up and sign up and you can continue with them or not. It’s actually really flexible, but it was a bit overwhelming. I felt like I just wanted someone to hand me a timetable and say these are the subjects that a normal student in their third year of this course does, but there is some flexibility if you want change them; instead of kind of being let loose. And the database is in German and stuff, but now it is fine. But I was kind of stressed about it in the first week of uni. And also you have to sign this form back home with your home uni when you sign up for new subjects and there they don’t offer the same subject. So it was ok for me where I have a lot of flexibility, but if you were doing something that was more rigid it would be very tricky I think. 1. Described particular aspect as / difficult 2. Described particular aspect as / stressful 3. Particular aspect =

enrolling and getting set-up

The third phase of data analysis involved quantifying the responses of the students to certain closed questions asked in the follow-up questionnaire, including questions asking if they had learned from their experience, if they had gained much of an insight in terms of the place or the people of the place where

56

they were based and whether it had challenged them to think about anything at home that they had previously taken for granted or accepted without question. This phase also involved coding their responses to a number of open-ended questions, such as: Please explain any particular things that stand out in terms of what you learned about the place or its people, i.e. laws, norms, practises or anything else? The wider data set arising from the follow-up questionnaire was also examined in case important information relevant to my analytic interests was contained elsewhere. This constituted another deductive and iterative process. These first three phases of analysis allowed me to summarise certain aspects of the data relevant to my analytic interests. For example, eight out of the 21 participants described being separated from family and friends as difficult in their interview, while five of them listed this in the follow-up questionnaire as one of the hardest things about spending a study period abroad. Meanwhile, 17 of them answered in the affirmative to the question about whether they had gained much of an insight in terms of the host society. However, this does not mean much in itself or at least not in terms of my analytic focus. Therefore, I examined the coded data again with a view to adding important context where deemed necessary. For example, what reasons did those students who said that they had not gained much of an insight give for this? Did the examples given by those who answered in the affirmative to this question indicate deep understanding according to the criteria outlined in the introduction to this thesis and discussed in the previous chapter? What about the students’ descriptions of differences identified in the interview transcripts or elsewhere in the follow-up questionnaire responses? What level of host national contact did they have given that this is a central element of the idea of deep understanding? This was a key theme in the interview data and a question was also asked about this in the follow-up questionnaire. In addition, were there relationships with other aspects of the data collected, such as student motivations? This phase involved constantly referring back to the data relevant to a particular aspect. To assist with this process, I had deliberately coded the data inclusively, meaning that when attaching a code to a particular

aspect, I made sure to include any potentially relevant surrounding data.10 _This

10 _{This mainly applied to the interview transcripts because the nature of the questions asked in}

57

meant that there was less risk of important context being lost (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The wider data set was also read again just in case important information was contained elsewhere. I also examined as much relevant literature as possible with the aim of adding important context. For example, the literature referred to in the previous chapter in the section that discussed the idea of deep understanding. These publications allowed me to understand and explain in greater depth the data relevant to this analytic focus. The literature used during this phase of analysis was often that which I had used when designing the study. However, I also sought out and used additional research where appropriate. This phase of analysis constituted a shift towards a more interpretative form of analysis and coincided with the process of writing up my findings, which Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 86) deem “an integral part of analysis.”

The final phase of analysis involved drawing conclusions from my data, guided by the following question: What can be learned from my research? This process actually began during the data collection process and continued throughout the earlier analysis phases, but it was here that I attempted to articulate my main conclusions in more detail. I also presented them publicly on two occasions, meaning they were subjected to criticism, a process which allowed me to refine them further. They are also waiting to be improved by further criticism. That is, in the words of Popper (2002, p. xi), “by attempted refutations, which include severely critical tests.” Criticism, argued Popper (2002, p. xii), assuming it is listened to, “is always a step forward.” Indeed, as he argued elsewhere, “criticism may be important, enlightening, and even fruitful, without being valid: the arguments used in order to reject some invalid criticism may throw a lot of new light upon a theory, and can be used as a (tentative) argument in its favour” (Popper, 2011, pp. 495-496).