Vive digital Colombia

Sample sizes are considered not of paramount importance in either critical theory or emancipatory action research as previously discussed in Chapter two. Rather, critical research aims to be reflective in nature, whereas this one study circle with a small representation of the sample population intends to raise tentative and provisional findings which others can reflect upon in relation to their own context (Burns 1995). The emphasis in this study is therefore “depth” not “breadth”. It is recognised that it is not possible, nor

is it the intention here to form reliable generalisations from a basis of the eventual six participants. However as Gall, Borg and Gall state: “… a study that probes deeply into the characterisation of a small sample often provides more knowledge than a study that attacks the same problem by collecting only shallow information on a large scale” (1996:231). Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter three, Kurland’s and the DPA-NIF study circle experiences in the USA demonstrated the potential problems in relation to aiming for quantity rather than quality.(Oliver 1997).

Nonetheless, it could be argued that the approach adopted in this study is a convenient available self selecting sample approach often used by educational and action researchers (Patton 1990; Best 1977). Patton, in an earlier publication contributed some noteworthy advice to those who criticise non specific sample approaches to reduce credibility:

‘It is worth remembering that some of the major breakthroughs in knowledge have come from studies with small sample sizes. Freud’s work was based on a few clinical cases. Piaget significantly changed educational thinking about how children learn with an in-depth study of two children - his own. There are even rumours that Newton’s major contributions in physics began with the study of a single apple’ (1982:218).

He also advises those who find the idea of research with small samples unreasonable, with the following amusing insight: “... the next time you go for a physical check-up I hope you’ll insist that they take all your blood - not just a sample” (1982:218).

A separate but relevant issue that Fetterman alerts researchers to is: “The selection and definition of the culture or subculture and problem, respectively, constitute significant ethical decisions” (1989:128). In this sense this research can be seen to fulfil the above ethical criteria as the participants self selected from the prompts in the recruitment flyer. That is; unemployed and interested in the issue of unemployment. The definition of this “culture” is therefore a response to the flyer; furthermore no applicants were screened or excluded from participating. This may suggest that the research participants consist of

those who are predisposed to being “active” (de-Vaus 1995). However, aside from the necessity that research participants in any research need to be volunteers for ethical reasons, study circle protocol endorses the voluntary nature of participation. Furthermore, active and interested participants would assist catalytic validity.50 As de Vaus explain, this can be problematic in relation to sampling, but the voluntary nature of participation is vital:

‘Voluntary participation, however, conflicts with the principles of representative sampling…[because]…Given the choice, certain types of people (e.g. those groups with low levels of education, from non- English speaking backgrounds) are more likely than others to decline to participate…However, compulsory [participation] is not the solution…it is best to maximise and do all we reasonably can to encourage voluntary participation.’ (1995:332)

There is also the issue that the actual researcher was not unemployed. However as Fetterman (1989) and Burns (1995) state in relation to action research, the researcher needs to be immersed in the culture and work collaboratively with the research participants (as also discussed in Chapter two). The issue of unemployment was of concern to the researcher and this needed to be expressed to the participants to demonstrate a commonality of concern amongst all. Therefore these mutual concerns over the issue of unemployment, which needed to be discussed with participants, were articulated at the pre-meeting stage and followed up in resultant correspondence (appendix 6.2). This, it was considered further rationalised the inclusion of the researcher in the process as discussed in Chapters two and three.

In relation to the discussion on reflective analysis in Chapter two, validity in participatory research is also strengthened when high convergence is employed. In relation to the experience and reflection phases, Reason suggests that cycling is maximally convergent when all parties explore the same “aspect” of an inquiry repeatedly (1990). In this particular study there were six participants (including the researcher), and eight study

50

circle sessions, therefore as Reason (1990) emphasises an “aspect” or thematic concern (in this case, unemployment), is explored up to a total of forty-eight times within the study circle season. Aside from this, each participant was individually interviewed, pre, mid and at the end of the season 51 (plus twenty-five), and a post study circle meeting was conducted after the season (plus six). This therefore constitutes a total of seventy-nine occasions where the same thematic concern was explored, thereby providing high convergence.

Reason states “The strength of total convergence is that it does revise that one aspect very thoroughly, with a maximal number of feedback loops” (1990:46). The method adopted to collect data with this study was seen to be fulfilling this requirement that Reason suggests increases validity.

Finally, in relation to suggested study protocol discussed in Chapter three, the literature suggested that study circles are able to operate efficiently with as little as five, yet no more than ten members (Gibson 1998; McCoy et al. 1996; Holmstrand and Harnsten 1992; Brevskolan 1980). The final membership of six therefore exceeded this minimum requirement.

4.3 Planning the data collection

‘Researchers are not so much owners of data as they are ‘majority stakeholders’ who … give participants a public forum for critique’ (Lather 1991:58).

In relation to action research, Kemmis and McTaggart state that “observation” needs to be tentatively planned in advance, but the “subject matter” of observation “will always be action” (1988:13). Observation therefore needed to document action but action would “take place in real time” and would be “fluid and dynamic” (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988:13). Furthermore as Reason (1990) suggests there needs to be a balanced cycle of experience and reflection, both at individual and collective levels.

As stated in Chapter one, the organisational specific aim ‘c’ of this study was “To gather data by conducting beginning, mid and end interviews with each participant, recording and transcribing meetings and collecting any documentation produced”. The following data collection methods were therefore employed;

• After each session, the researcher summarised the main themes of discussion. These interpretations were then forwarded in a letter sent out to all individual participants before the start of the subsequent session. At the commencement of each subsequent session, these themes were discussed and collectively agreed upon prior to the session commencing.

• Study circle sessions were tape recorded, transcribed and made available for participants to view later in the season.

• Resources, documentation and information produced by participants during the study circle season were all collected.

• The semi structured interview schedule was given to participants beforehand for the interviewee to review and consider responses. Pre, mid and post study circle interviews were conducted individually with each participant. These were tape recorded, transcribed and given to participants to check, clarify, edit and validate.

• A draft of the thesis was sent to every individual participant after the study circle season to peruse, check and respond to how their quotes and the reflections had been presented within the context of the thesis, to further validate.

• The group met again at a post study circle meeting a year later to discuss their views and opinions concerning the draft of the thesis and to contribute further to the reflections contained within.

The above methodology was also seen to fulfil the Code of Ethics of the Australian Association for Research in Education in that; “Participants in research should be involved in the planning and conduct of the research and in preparation of the findings,

where ever this will be of benefit to them and will not jeopardise the efficiency of the research” (Bibby (ed) 1997:118).