with that couple. The last question probed whether another couple had been considered for nomination to initiate a discussion about why they were not nominated.
Figure 2
in a table in Appendix Three to assist illustrating gender differences regarding SDL.
The qualitative section was separated into three parts: key SDL components; shared SDL; and social networks and SDL. The questions on the key SDL components were to investigate the initiation and process of SDL activities. One question investigated the initiation of SDL activities.
Two questions investigated the nature of planning of learning, one question asked how partners planned their activities and the second asked what influenced the planning of their learning. To investigate assistants, partners were asked who or what assisted in their activities. Evaluation of learning involved two questions, how did partners evaluate their learning and what benefits did they recall from their activities.
The last two parts of the qualitative section pursued descriptions of the SDL partners share and social networks and SDL. In focusing on the interaction between cohabiting partners, one question
probed partners' motivation to share SDL activities and another on how partners coordinated their " . shared activities. Two further questions focused on the involvement of other community members
in the SDL activities of partners. In particular, the circumstances which encouraged the involvement of other locals and how locals assisted in their SDL activities.
The follow-up interviews focused on issues which emerged from the examination of the responses to questions on shared SDL activities and social networks, including issues about the interaction between cohabiting partners and shared SDL activities. Four questions focused on the learning behaviour and circumstances of cohabiting partners. Partners were asked whether they would contribute to a partner's activity, whether they did their shared and individual activities differently, whether they noticed any personal change about the way they conducted their learning, and whether living on a farm influenced these changes. Two other questions probed learning relationships partners had with the community. One question focused on the influence of nominating couples on the SDL activities of the. interviewed couple. The other question probed for the characteristics of an influentia1 local learning assistant
29
This section has summarised the questions asked in the three interviews. The introductory interviews focused on the social linkages between nominating couples. The main interviews investigated SDL activities and probed the learning behaviour of cohabiting partners. Responses about learning behaviour provided questions for the follow-up interviews. The following section explains the analysis of the data from all three interviews.
3.7 Analysis
The interview data was separated into two separate groups: the key SDL components part of the main interview and the rest of the data. This reflected the two perspectives of SDL this study investigated: the individual perspective involved the probing of specific SDL components, and the rest of the study investigated 'the social context to explain the circumstances in which these activities occurred. To analyze descriptions of the key SDL components, partners' responses were aligned with the components investigated: incentive, benefits, assistance, influential factors, and evaluation.
Analysing partners' responses about key SDL components involved scanning transcripts for statements of behaviours, actions, and events which summarised a major theme. This theme was then used to categorise the response. The themes of responses were further collated into groups which identified similar patterns. This process relied on the researcher's interpretation of a linkage of one or more themes which characterised partners' descriptions of their SDL activities. The similarity categorising each group of themes became the label used to identify the group.
The analysis of other data were simply cross referenced with questions asked to highlight trends within the sample. In particular, common phrases along with explanations of actions, behaviours, or events were noted and themes developed. The themes are illustrated with common or selected phrases, or descriptions of partner's explanations.
The data analysis provided the basis for the emergence of ideas about their pattern and meaning.
The analysis involved the development of themes using common phrases 'and descriptive explanations from partners. Analysis of the key SDL components imitated Tough's method with
30
. ~'. '.the use of frequency counts to illustrate the extent of emergent findings whereas the social perspective relied least on frequencies and more on developing concepts.
3.8 Conclusion
Essentially this chapter has described the qualitative approach to the SOL research used in this study. Oespite the use of pre-arranged questions in this study, "the fundamental principle of qualitative interviewing is to provide a framework within which respondents can express their own understanding in their own terms" (patton, 1980, p. 252) [original italics]. The method has allowed this principle to be used by paying attention to couples' views of, and experiences about, SOL.
Adaptations to the traditional SDL method included the use of: multiple interviews, separating different aspects of data for investigation; diaries as consciousness raising tools; interviewing partners together; and rephrasing questions instead of vigourous prompting.
Other adaptations included the use of the snowballing technique to generate the sample of 12 couples. In addition, investigating the nomination criteria for social criteria can show how these couples perceive each other socially and what bearing this had on their SOL. Finally, the analysis of the data did not involve pre-coded categories but was influenced by the individual and social aspects of SOL which this study investigated. The following chapter presents the findings which emerged using the above techniques.
31
:,:'." .•. .r_~ .-.. ~,.,.,_':.
,,-' -~.~: :.'. ': ~..:~. '-:-:-'-:
::.;x·,::;.-:..:~.:.;.--:~:"';:~:";~
~ . ',' -' ,,-.. ~ .... ,.