2012 influenced the PSH and WB of the players. Objective 5. Disseminate the knowledge gained, giving recommendations to the GB
Chapter 3: Methodology
Thoughts must now turn to the methods selected to facilitate the research.
Qualitative Research
What is Qualitative Research? Qualitative research is the subject of much
discussion, a complex phenomenon which doesn’t conform to neat definitions. This can lead to ambiguity and disparity. For example Tenenbaum and Driscoll (2005) define qualitative research as “the collection of primarily non-numerical data, such as rich descriptions of research settings or interview transcripts with key participants” (p. 575). Conversely Fade (2003) views it as a way of “describing or illuminating social phenomena and human experience” (p. 140). Thus as Culver, Gilbert, and Trudel (2003) conclude it is difficult to arrive at a universal definition, a claim upheld by Stige, Malterud, and Midtgarden (2009).
Having said this, for the purpose of this research it is fundamental to define the parameters of qualitative inquiry, and establish what is meant by ‘qualitative research.’ As Madill and Gough (2008) further explain, it has for some time been rationalised as simply ‘not quantitative research.’ Yet of course the focus should not be on what it isn’t, but on what it ‘is’ or can be. Different approaches can be employed in defining and contextualising qualitative research, notably a characteristic and paradigmatic approach.
In first considering the former, qualitative research possesses key traits which
determine its character. One is its tendency to seek an insider’s perspective whilst remaining an outsider, or as Gratton and Jones (2004) put it, to “try to understand the subjects ‘from within’” (p. 19). Willig (2008) claims that qualitative researchers seek to see the world through the eyes of others and vicariously experience their feelings, rather than imposing their own reference on proceedings. Such research is thus characterised by its desire to establish meaning rather than make predictions, to celebrate individuality and subjectivity, and to offer an ‘emic’ perspective (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). As such it is arguably more humanistic than quantitative research, and given its desire to gain rich insights into human beings it tends to be ideographic. Strean (1998) explains this:
Qualitative researchers tend to focus on a relatively small number of individuals or situations to preserve the individuality or specificity within their analyses. This approach tends to enable qualitative researchers to understand how events, actions, and meanings are shaped by the unique circumstances in which they occur. (p. 336)
Thus the key characteristics which are indicative of qualitative research are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2
Key Characteristics of Qualitative Research
It is next possible to investigate the meaning of qualitative research via a paradigmatic approach. As Sparkes (1994) reveals “each and every individual who engages in research will make sense of the world through a particular set of paradigmatic lenses” (p. 11). In essence a paradigm is the world-view of the researcher, borne out of and shaped by their beliefs (Sparkes, 1994). Our ‘paradigmatic lenses’ influence how we view the world and translate that picture for others. As Sparkes (1994) explains,“these lenses can shape how different communities of researchers feel about the nature of social reality (ontology), along with the grounds of knowledge and how we might begin to understand the world and
communicate this knowledge to others (epistemology)” (p. 12).
One paradigm is that of interpretivism, a world view which challenges the more traditional one of positivism (Gratton & Jones, 2004). Interpretive researchers adopt what Sparkes (1994) calls an ‘internal-idealist stance,’ rejecting the idea that data can be
scientifically extricated from the subject by a robot-researcher, free of human interpretation. Instead at the heart of interpretivism is the belief that our minds shape our concept of reality (Sparkes, 1994) and thus research cannot be entirely objective. Indeed the ontological stance within this research was thus relativism and epistemological stance constructivism.
According to Sparkes (1994) one draw of an interpretive approach is the opportunity for researchers to ingratiate themselves into the culture of a group, enabling them to enter their lives and “see the world through their eyes, through their cultural lenses” (p. 12). It must be
Key Characteristics
Insider’s Perspective
Meaning rather than prediction Allows for individuality/subjectivity An ‘emic’ approach
Focus on process as well as outcome Ideographic
said however, as Smith (2008a) points out that it is difficult to imagine another person’s life, due to their ‘alterity’ and thus researchers must be mindful of this, for invading too crudely poses the risk of committing ‘symbolic violence.’
Finally, in returning to the paradigmatic assumptions that inform qualitative inquiry, having collected the data researchers committed to interpretivism endeavour to translate it to construct meanings and interpret its value to the world. Qualitative research is thus again characterised by its personal, humanistic approach.
Why do Qualitative Research? Having arrived at an understanding of its meaning attention must turn to why it was chosen for this research.
Qualitative research offers many benefits, not least its orientation towards meaning rather than prediction (Willig, 2008). This is significant as this research sought to explore the meanings of health over time for WhB players. What’s more, as Semerjian (2009) propounds “qualitative research on the experience of exercise and rehabilitation captures the experiences of individuals with SCI in ways that are simply unavailable through quantitative methods” (p. 273). Brustad (2009) agrees, revealing that human sporting experience is also a phenomena which cannot be picked up without qualitative inquiry:
Sport is an entirely human endeavour. Our involvement in sport and physical activity is full of personally and socially generated meanings as our participation occurs in interaction with other individuals in various social and cultural contexts. Qualitative researchers in sport and physical activity have an essential role in uncovering the meaningful nature of this involvement....In order to improve the sport and physical activity experience for individuals, we need to better understand the lived meaning of the experience and qualitative/interpretive forms of research provide us with important tools for achieving this goal. (p. 112)
As touched upon by Brustad (2009) the draw of qualitative research is not just its potential to understand the lives of others, but to generate data that is meaningful to them. It can also be significant to a wider audience than simply academics. Thus qualitative methods and methodology was selected for this research for its ability to generate data which was workable and accessible for the intended audience (Strean, 1998) – coaches, players, and disabled people.
Methods of data collection
As Willig (2008) points out, opting to conduct qualitative research has implications in relation to methods of data collection available to the researcher. Gratton and Jones (2004) concur, explaining that the ontological and epistemological stance taken by the researcher affects their data collection decisions. This comes as little surprise given Sparkes’ (1994) affirmation that all researchers own a set of ‘paradigmatic lenses’ which influence their view of the world, and therefore the tools with which they see fit to explore it.
Whilst researchers may favour traditional methods of data collection (Culver et al., 2003), Madill and Gough (2008) reveal qualitative research to offer an assortment of techniques, ranging from the more traditional interviews to the less well-known vignettes. Thus selecting methods was complex. Given the desire to embrace unfamiliar techniques whilst not dismissing tried and tested traditional methods, to achieve rich data, and to honour the epistemological beliefs, a number of methods were selected. It was hoped that their combination would enable data to be achieved which spanned time yet operated within a strict timeframe, which tracked multiple lives yet offered individual insights and which provided an insider’s account whilst being an outsider.
Interviews: Life Histories. If the research was a vehicle, seeking to undertake a journey of discovery about the lives of WhB players, then interviews were the engine, the driving force behind the research. For if insights into the players’ lives were to be achieved then interviews were indispensible. As Tenenbaum and Driscoll (2005) point out, “we cannot observe everything, and we cannot be sure how people organise the world and attach meaning to things unless we ask them” (p. 591). Nevertheless there were many complexities to unravel relating to their composition. This is due to the variety available, which
contributes to the difficulties facing researchers in defining what an interview actually is. Tenenbaum and Driscoll (2005) argue that interviews exist to “gain information from the other person’s perspective” (p. 591), and compartmentalise them unstructured, semi- structured and structured versions. Conversely Madill and Gough (2008) claim interviews “tap lived experiences” (p. 256), but cite fourteen examples, extending the previous list with additions such as narrative and reflexive interviews.
For the study to be successful it hinged on the participants being at its heart and empowering them to tell their stories, something Culver et al. (2003) claim can be hindered by over-zealous researchers preoccupied with their part. It was paramount that they took centre stage, relegating the researcher to the stalls. As such life histories were the most
conducive for the initial interview. These must not be confused with life stories which centre on a subject telling their life story, by recollecting experiences (Randall & Phoenix, 2009). Instead as Strean (1998) asserts a life history is “where the life story is contextualised and theorised in its broader social, psychological, political and historical contexts” (p. 337). The participant positions their stories in relation to these contexts. In turn as Carless and Douglas (2013) explain the “stories individuals tell of their lives offer insights into the cultural settings in which they are immersed” (p.701). Thus, they may be autobiographical in nature, but they also offer a taste of the world in which they live. Huang and Brittain (2006) agree:
The life history approach, therefore, aims to capture the firsthand subjective accounts of the actual experiences of individuals from their own perspectives. It allows for individual voices to be heard and at the same time allows groups of individual voices to be compared in order to highlight both the individual and communal issues raised by the participants in a particular study. (pp. 356-357)
This notion is supported by Madill and Gough (2008) who call for the “elicitation of personal stories with minimum researcher prompting” because “participants will, unconsciously, provide important information about themselves” (p. 256). Thus one rationale for selecting life histories was the opportunity they offered for the participants to, in their own time and words (Smith & Sparkes, 2005) tell their stories. In fact Strean (1998) reveals this approach to be particularly effective when seeking to understand athletes because this enhances the credibility and accessibility of their stories for others:
The emphasis on athletes’ perspectives and understanding particular performance contexts has great potential to inform practice because athletes are recognisable to themselves in the research findings. They can then relate to the analyses and results in ways that allow them to transfer across settings and make connections to their own performance conditions and practices. (p. 342)
Therefore, a further reason for using life histories was the scope they offered for athletes to speak directly to other athletes, optimising the achievement of workable data. They allowed players to reveal their journey to London, pausing to recount stories of trauma to training, mapped to their PSH and WB. Essentially they told the stories of their lives over time.
With regard to their timing, training and competition schedules were consulted to avoid disruption and ensure time for their completion. Typically they lasted an hour, though this was affected by the time players took to address topics, which was in turn influenced by
their length of service in the sport and their responsiveness. Coaches were also interviewed to gain their opinions on the relationship between WhB and player/team PSH and WB, and to establish how they affected player PSH/WB. 4 All interviews took place between January and October 2011, as shown in Figure 4. One transcript can be found in Appendix 2, and the interview guide used with the players in Appendix 19.
Follow-up Interviews: Life Stories. According to Atkinson (2001) “a life story is the story a person chooses to tell about the life he or she has lived, told as completely and honestly as possible, what the person remembers of it and what he or she wants others to know of it, usually as a result of a guided interview by another” (p. 125). Whilst similarities can be seen with life histories, the follow-up life story interviews differed in scope and emphasis. Within the life history interviews players examined their lives and provided a historical timeline, flagging up significant days and dates and mapping stories to wider
4 The interviews (of players and coaches) totalled 1043 minutes (17.4 hours), with an average of 52 minutes. Figure 4. Data Collection Timeline
Interviews 1 = life history, 2 = pre-London follow-up, 3 = post-London final
Observations *training, **GB camp, ***competition/match, ****meeting/video analysis/TV interview
N= Nottingham, L= Liverpool , S = Sheffield, SM= Stoke Mandeville, LS= Lilleshall, PWC= Paralympic World Cup, WS = World Series
= Paralympic Games. C = Classification places, SF = semi-finals, BM = bronze medal match - male players - female players - both
Autophotography. 1 = Explanation & giving of cameras 2 = discussion of images 3 = discussion of images (with late ones)
Figure 4. Graphic illustration of data collection methods used from the period December 2010 to August 2013, including interviews, observations and employment of visual methods. London logo (2012) retrieved from Panasonic, copyright 2015.
historical and social contexts (Strean, 1998). Following this biographical excavation of their lives, the follow-up life story interviews focused on investigating forgotten stories, clarifying experiences and updating the timeline, even forecasting future directions. As such, one rationale for selecting them was the scope they offered to cement and build on foundations formed by preceding interviews, or as Atkinson (2001) puts it the opportunity “to understand the past and the present more fully, and ....leave a personal legacy for the future” (p. 126). Moreover Smith and Sparkes (2012) in their review of the disability literature noted that qualitative research into elite disability sport has tended to favour single interviews, and instead recommend multiple ones, advocating narratives. Indeed, as already mentioned WhB research has followed this trend, with narrow, one-off enquiries favoured (Ashton-Shaeffer et al., 2001; Campbell & Jones, 2002a;Williams & Kolkka, 1998). And yet with researchers subsequently criticising their approach and stressing the need for more thorough enquiries, the decision to team up life story with life history interviews was further justified. Together they offered scope to achieve a more complex picture of athlete PSH and WB over time.
What’s more as Atkinson (2001) points out, these interviews can be enlightening. Sharing stories can evoke joy, release inner demons and be a normalising experience where feelings are validated (Atkinson, 2001). This was reflected in the researcher’s journal and vindicated their selection further:
Finally life story interviews offered the interviewer a degree of flexibility which was very useful. At times she could be a passive conduit (Potter & Hepburn, 2005) encouraging players to simply tell their stories. At others by being a ‘full recipient’ (Potter & Hepburn, 2005) or ‘collaborative storyteller’ (Rapley, 2004) there was scope to discover mutual experiences enabling the excavation of other stories. In short this allowed for multiple layers of data to be unravelled.
Ultimately life story interviews were chosen for the follow-up interviews as they enabled the exploration of experiences previously unearthed by the life history interviews yet the excavation of new ones. This ensured that the past could be understood, the present
04/02/11: Having now interviewed 4 GBWB women, one thing of note is their demeanour. Whilst I worried dredging up past experiences could open old wounds,
there has been much laughter at recounting forgotten times of their youth. They have enjoyed telling a ‘foreigner’ like me about WhB, and I suspect they’ve liked
examined and the future speculated, fleshing out and updating the timeline as the players made their way towards London. In terms of their number and duration, it was decided that two follow-up interviews would be conducted with players and coaches, taking place in the year preceding and following London 2012 (see Figure 4). They lasted 30-80 minutes.5 This decision was borne from the need to respect schedules, avoid interference with pre-Games preparation and ward against frustrating the players which seemed probable if several or lengthy interviews were favoured. An example of one interview is presented in Appendix 3.
Observation and Participant Observation. As Baker (2006) explains “definitions
of observation per se are difficult to find in the literature” (p. 173), as some researchers focus on the observed phenomenon and others the observer. Gratton and Jones (2004) claim that observations exist to “observe behaviour, rather than question people about it” (p. 160) and classify them as participant or non-participant. On the other hand Tenenbaum and Driscoll (2005) claim that “the point of observation is to render a description of what is going on in that setting without unduly influencing what is being studied” (p. 581). They (2005) point to Shank’s (2002) eight categories of observers including the ‘Embracer’ or ‘Abstractor,’ as evidence of the ambiguities. Thus as Baker (2006) concludes, confusion arises out of “the variety of labels that seem to be used interchangeably by researchers to describe what was once called simply ‘observation,” (p. 172).
Nevertheless common to all is the belief that they exist to “study and understand people within their natural environment” (Baker, 2006, p. 173). Moreover researchers
(Culver et al., 2003; Fade, 2003; Strean 1998) are united in their endorsement of observations alongside interviews to allow multiple layers of data to be uncovered. Culver et al. (2003) stresses that “when other sources of data relating to human activity, such as various forms of observation, are combined with multiple interviews to study human activity, it is possible to capture a more complete picture of the processes involved in such activities” (p. 7). This is supported by Lindemann and Cherney (2008) who claim that the combination of observations with interviews of WR players was effective in providing insights into “on-court displays, athletes’ off-court talk, athletes’ off-court storytelling, spectator reactions, and organisational attributes of game conduct” (p. 112). Thus one reason for conducting observations was to strengthen the research by not just asking the players what they do (in interviews), but also observing what they do in various settings.
One type of observation used was participant observation, which Madill and Gough (2008) define as “a technique that utilises knowledge developed through the researcher’s
5 First follow-up interviews totalled 1025 minutes (17.1 hours), averaging 57 minutes (2 players were unavailable)
Final interviews totalled 811 minutes (13.5 hours), averaging 48 minutes (1 coach & 2 players were unavailable)
social engagement with the phenomenon of study” (p. 257). As Iacono, Brown, and Holtham (2009) clarify, the researcher overtly participates in the observed activity, whilst recording their insights. The rationale for using such observations revolved around witnessing first- hand tiresome training, classification conundrums and for example ‘boyish banter’. Such an approach is endorsed by Lindemann (2008) and Lindemann and Cherney (2008) who found that using participant observations in their research with WR players generated data out of reach for the observer sitting in the stands. As Lindemann (2008) reveals, it provided access to “social talk” such as “sideline conversations about players’ displays of athleticism” (p. 103), which enabled an appreciation of how players constructed their understanding of their disabilities. Moreover Apelmo (2012), having employed this method with WhB players championed it as a means of getting accustomed with native jargon and situating comments