Thinking epistemologically, non-positivists (interpretivists) believe that a single reality is highly complex and a social phenomenon can change along with a clear broader in- depth understanding of different social settings (Bassey, 2001) and interpretations, providing illuminative evidence through analysis (Cousin, 2009: p.31). However, its critics believe that instead digging deeper into a reality, interpretivists have widened the scope of research inquiry, as Cousin (2009) reflects on it from different perspectives by arguing that there is ‗no black and white thinking‘ in social science research. Non- positivists argue for the importance of subjectivity, privacy and emotional knowledge – all which is socially constructed (p.32; Bassey, 2001: p.10) with other individual entities, which Thomas (2011) emphasises that ‗individual views are constructed on the base of a particular representation given in the context of one‘s own experience rather
87
than calling it a generalisation‘. One has to agree that there is no way for generalisation in such a perspective, which Thomas puts as ‗there is no special or common generalisation in social sciences research rather it is all about interpretation in a given context and one‘s own experience‘ (p.27).
This challenge of the variation in the way students adjust to a learning environment allowed me to use a subjectivist approach for interpretation of students‘ views as those of individual cases; which according to Knight (2010) is crucial to an educational study where participants are expected to be self-reliant, articulate and opinionated, rather than an objectivist one; and which Thomas (2011) advocate for as a case of representation ‗given in context and understood in that context‘, admitting that its interpretation is only possible in one‘s own context of experience (p.31). Although an objectivist approach is somehow crucial in terms of self-direction for creativity, freedom, curiosity and self- respect, the research needs to take a subjectivist approach to serve the interests of a diverse group of learners (Knight) rather than students of the same origin (Kapoor, Comadena & Blue, 1996). It does so in a naturalist setting and with constructivist understandings, which Charmaz (2006) put in the following words;
―Neither data nor theories are discovered, rather, we are part of the world we study and the data we collect. We construct our grounded theories through our past and present involvements and interaction with people, perspectives, and research practices (p.10).‖
The data-ordering strategy used in this research reflects my understanding of a qualitative approach, based on Flick‘s (2009) data ordering and collection technique, an essential method in a constructivist paradigm. The order of data collection is questionnaire-interviews - where the questionnaire, after piloting stage, was followed by the first stage of interviews - to a qualitative, with two more stages of interviews, a sequence Flick (2009: p.26) endorses. The reason for this particular ordering is the need to identify diverse cultural issues that would not happen otherwise; hence applying more weight from a subjectivist epistemological stance to enforce inductive subjectivity. This order of data collection was adopted for the purpose of GT to establish a theoretical background and gain all data relative to the qualitative perceptions of students to construct meaning of the data and to generate a theory.
88
3.4.1 Sample
The goal of this chapter is to formulate the approach used in this research and throughout the research process. The scope is limited to students of selected nationalities. Non-European Union (Non-EU) countries were ranked by the number students studying at UK higher education institutions; only overseas students from the top ten non-EU countries (as revealed in HESA, 2010) were selected for interviewing with preference given to students from China, India and Pakistan.
These students share similar educational attitudes and are more focused on medicine than sciences or social studies. This distinction is important because David et al. (2009) suggest that a better understanding of HE diversity should be based on a full range of social, cultural and educational backgrounds (p.17). In order to formulate methods to investigate these issues in more detail, a methodological research approach using Patton‘s (1990) three probes, (detail-oriented, elaboration and clarification probes) during semi-structured interviews, is appropriate to achieve the objectives of this study.
While a total of 95 students took part in the whole study, 66 of them participated in the questionnaire (see Appendix: 9). This approach relied on the availability of students to participate in interviews and their access to email accounts for the questionnaire. The questionnaire was first randomly emailed to 90 students whose email addresses were provided by friends and their colleagues. Due to my national background from one of the countries of interest, I made all efforts to minimise possible bias; therefore, the questionnaire was emailed to participants by an anonymous electronic method. The questionnaire was also sent to graduate overseas students from the countries of interest (at University of Worcester) in the form of an invitation. A total of 66 completed questionnaire responses were received.
3.4.2 Sampling Phases: Convenience to Purposive Sampling
Purposive sampling is commonly used to seek information from a particular respondent in a specific area to serve the purpose of a study (Puparampil, 2011). Particularly, it seeks to gain access to those who have deeper knowledge of the research issue (Flick, 2009 & 2014). This kind of sampling is common in qualitative research and offers the
89
researcher some control in the selection process (Barbour, 2001) to serve specific requirements. Purposive sampling is important for relevance rather than representativeness and, according to Flick (2014), this strategy should not be jeopardised at the cost of convenience (p.176) sampling which facilitates the researcher more than the researched. However, there are stages when a researcher has to rely on convenience sampling (p.177).
Elaborating on sampling strategy, Flick (2014) suggests that there are points of which the researcher needs to be aware, such as the purpose of a research study. Here the researcher role needs to be acknowledged because various factors can influence the sampling strategy and the nature of the analysis, which must be known to ensure a speedy and steady process. Newby (2010) outlines low-response and limited resources as indicators which can influence the sampling strategy (p.260).
Taking into account all the above criteria, the major focus of sampling strategy in interviews here is to gain relevant, possibly expert level, information from participants, which can best be determined from participants‘ level of knowledge and understanding about a given area of research. This type of ‗purposive sample‘ selection is one of the characteristics of the qualitative research where “the individual participants are selected deliberately for their specific characteristics that are of importance to the study” (Crinson & Leontowitsch, 2006). Thus the study heavily relied on purposive sampling; however there was also a need for proximity because the questionnaire and interview data in stage one could be properly obtained with the assistance of close friends and their friends - using the aforementioned ‗convenience sampling‘ technique which has also benefits.
One of the benefits of convenience sampling is that it expedites the systemic and rigorous research process (Procter et al., 2010: p.149) and offers maximum variation in sample selection. In the current study, convenience sampling, which begins with identifying the selection criteria (see Trochim, 2006) and using friends of colleagues, forms the groundwork of sampling in the first stage. Hence, during the electronic self- questionnaire and interviews procedure, there was heavy reliance on purposive
90
sampling; however the use of convenience sampling was kept to a minimum, only being used at times when I had to rely on friends of friends for possible participation in the beginning of this study to avoid lack of participants.
The use of both convenience and purposive sampling makes my sampling method a diverse strategy, which can also create many issues. One major problem with diverse sampling is the kind of bias which can pose a threat to its strategy, e.g. a specific sample of male or female can cause a threat to gender-specific representation etc., which was avoided by designing a gender-free sample; hence this study has no gender specific ambition. Similarly, the behaviour of the interviewer or interviewee can also jeopardize the smooth process of sampling which was avoided through the use of an informed consent form. Hence a balance was kept to suffice the core requisite of, ethically accepted, sampling strategy.
3.4.3 Sampling Justification
Different sampling strategies are used in both qualitative and quantitative research, and different guidelines suggest various sizes of what is called an ‗appropriate sample‘ e.g. Gorra, (2007) and Feeler (2012) etc. have used a combination of both qualitative and quantitative samples. Generally, qualitative studies use smaller samples than quantitative studies, and essentially require a clear strategy to present a lucid understanding of ―how the related participants were selected and the characteristics of the population in the study‖ (Crinson & Leontowitsch, 2006). A good sampling process is one which represents the population from which it is selected (Jacobs, 1999), however its emphasis should focus on the relevance of cases instead of representativeness (Flick, 2009: p.121). Sampling decisions, while planning the research, are mainly defined in relation to the structure of the group taken into account (Flick: p.117). My sampling strategy is diverse due to the nature of the current GT research and is based on a combination of convenience and purposive sampling (refer to
Previous Section). The nature of the current study, comprised of qualitative methods,
suits my specific requirements; therefore, purposive sampling is considered suitable; and thus largely used.
91