DEL TRÁNSITO ADUANERO INTERNO

The pilot study was designed to test the theoretical framework developed for this study (see Chapter 2) as well as some of its research instruments. In this study’s initial form, collaborative autobiographies and narrative interviews were designed to gather the necessary information about the students’ shared experiences. However, after being tested in the pilot study, collaborative autobiography was found to be less suitable for this study.

Collaborative autobiographies are tools for ‘sharing personal and professional experiences in a group setting’, which can ‘promote collegiality within a group by stimulating shared

reflection on experiences and insights disclosed by individual members’ (Lally and Scaefe, 1995, p. 325).

Lally and Scaife studied a group of teachers using collaborative autobiography to empower themselves and reconstruct the complex relationships between power, knowledge, ideology and schooling. They argue that ‘the use of collaborative autobiography created a more accepting climate for reflection about the personal histories of members of the group’ and ‘sharing and articulating led to clarification of new pathways to future action: this discussion had generated a sense of professional empowerment’ (1995, p. 326). Hauserman studied two vice-principles who used collaborative autography for professional development (Hauserman, 1993). The participants were able to share ‘information about past experience’, during which he noticed ‘reoccurring themes that can be linked to actions that the individuals are taking in the present’ (1993, p. 19). Butt et al. (1990) state that in collaborative autobiography settings, the participants are provided the opportunity to evolve their personal and professional life stories in collaboration with others so that all participants gain a collective perspective while catalysing the writing and interpretation of each other’s stories (1990, p. 257). By interacting with peers and reflecting on experiences, individual experiences are added ‘the synergistic effect’ by being in ‘a group with a common problem, being in the same (experiential) boat and sharing a common purpose’ (1990, p. 263). It provides positive interpersonal support and mutual affirmation and creates a sheltered environment for taking risks (Wideen, 1989).

While the authenticity, completeness and validity of the narrative data might be questionable, by using collaborative exercise, the stories are grounded in ‘current reality, illustrated by vignettes, provides a measure of reality-testing’, to check ‘over-fictionalised accounts or rationalisations’ (Butt and Raymond, 1989, p. 414). The participant-observers in this collaborative group witness the validity of others’ accounts and the congruence between the story and observation. Trust can be built up within ‘the conditions of narrative interaction, and the authentic examples of others’ encourage participants to unmask and disclose underlying problems’ (p. 414). In this way, the ‘counter-biographies’ of the various participants provide ‘a horizontal cross-checking’ of accounts; and the multiple draft- making over time represents a type of ‘longitudinal or vertical cross-checking’ (p. 414).

The following collaborative autobiography activities were originally designed for the study:

1.1 introducing the research project 1.2 introducing the participants

Phase 2 reflections on past personal and educational life:

2.1 each student is asked to talk about the life experiences and influences that affected their personal and educational decisions, as well as their typical experiences of exercising agency 2.2 a preliminary discussion of each memory; exchanging views, perceptions, commonalities and differences in the reflections

Phase 3 critical appraisal of current situation:

3.1 reflective talking about their opinions of their current educational condition

3.2 sharing their reflections, responding to each other’s reflections, discussing similarities and differences in their views, talking about the major issues.

Phase 4 reflection on the future:

4.1 reflective talking about their opinions of their future plans

4.2 sharing their reflections and discussing similarities and differences as well as the major issues concerning their forming of career aims

4.3 group discussion: what they have learned from this activity and the value of the activity for them

Unfortunately, many of the participants in the sessions were reluctant to share their reflections and respond to others’ reflections. This was especially the case with those who thought that their difficult learning experiences were too embarrassing to share in front of their peers. Others were worried about offending their peers by commenting on their experiences. I found out later that some participants had experienced family crises or difficulties at school which they were not comfortable about revealing to their peers. Collaborative autobiography gives each individual participant the opportunity to share, yet, at the same time, it puts pressure on every participant to tell their stories in a group setting. I observed that the participants felt as if they were ‘being put in the spotlight’ when they were asked to share. Thus, the information they revealed was very limited and may simply have been their ‘public voice’, rather than their ‘inner voice’ (Seidman, 2006). Collaborative autobiography also requires at least three meetings, each of which lasts at least 60 minutes. It is difficult to arrange these meetings and ensure the same participants attend every time. Therefore, I decided to replace collaborative autobiography with the focus group method, so that the participants would feel less pressured to share or comment and the flow of their inner voice would be much less inhibited. This way, the participants were not being forced into the spotlight. The resulting group interactions were improved as the participants appeared

more relaxed and carefree. Those who felt less comfortable talking about their experiences in a group could choose not to do so, and I would invite them for a private narrative interview if they were willing to participate. The focus groups were also more flexible and easier to arrange than the collaborative autobiography groups. Reflecting on my experience with the collaborative autobiography method, I would suggest that it may be less suitable for studies such as this which involve sensitive topics or experiences that might be considered embarrassing or uncomfortable to share and comment on.

After adjusting the research instruments, one focus group (eight participants per group) was conducted at each college with students from mixed subject areas and levels of study. Four narrative interviews were conducted at each college. The feedback and reflections generated from the pilot study informed the questionnaire design. Critical questions were added to the questionnaire, relating to matters such as the student’s internship experiences and their preparation for obtaining relevant qualifications or certificates. The pilot study served as an evaluation of the data collection methods and provided valuable experience in using the various techniques. The theoretical framework was also demonstrated to be relevant and suitable for this study.