RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: DEVELOPING THE TOOLS FOR INTERROGATING SCHOOL LANGUAGE CHANGE
3.4 Building theory from case studies
perceptions of and competing positions on the process of school language change to deepen understanding of the phenomenon of school language change.
In contemplating the distinction that Stake (1995) makes between case studies that are intrinsic (heightens understanding of a particular case) and those that are instrumental (provides insight into an issue or refines a theory), it is argued that this study is both intrinsic and instrumental. In seeking to understand the individual experiences of language change agents while at the same time using the collective experiences of all four change agents to deepen understanding of the phenomenon of school language change and to generate a theoretical understanding of the phenomenon, the study is both intrinsic and instrumental in its orientation.
3.4.1 Grounded Theory
Creswell (1998) states that the intent of a grounded theory study is to generate or discover a theory, an abstract analytical schema of a phenomenon, that relates to a particular situation. Grounded theory study was developed to encourage the generation of low level or grounded theories to represent the patterns surfaced in low level or setting specific research (Glaser & Strauss 1967).
Gephart (1999:6) outlines the steps in developing grounded theory pioneered by Glaser &
Strauss (1967). Grounded qualitative research often begins with sensitizing or orienting concepts which are examined through micro level observations of social interactions and developed and elaborated further to capture and reflect discovered features of the phenomenon examined. Data collection includes collecting multiple examples of the phenomenon of emerging interest which is then subjected to constant comparative analysis which is a process used to generate theoretical properties for a category or concept of interest. Essentially this comparative analysis process examines all data slices which are similar on a given dimension or category and compares these to slices which are similar on one or more dimensions but differ on theoretically important dimensions.
Constant comparative analysis is completed by comparing all incidents relevant to a given theoretically meaningful category, integrating the categories and their properties, delimiting the range of the theory and then writing the theory.
Eisenhardt‟s (1989) commentary on grounded theory development from specific cases incorporates the steps in developing grounded theory proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). However, Eisenhardt‟s (1989) comments on data collection and analysis warrant mention. According to this author there is frequent overlap between data analysis and data collection making the process iterative. Overlapping data analysis with data collection gives a headstart in analysis and allows researchers to take advantage of flexible data collection. According to Eisenhardt (1989), the researcher is allowed the freedom to make adjustments during the data collection process like amending the data collection to add on questions to an interview protocol so as to allow the researcher to
probe emergent themes or to take advantage of special opportunities that present themselves in a given situation. Burgelman (1983) added interviews with individuals whose importance became clear during data collection. This kind of alteration to the data collection plan during a study which Eisenhardt (1989) terms controlled opportunism is legitimate for theory-building research because researchers are trying to understand each case individually and in as much depth as is feasible. Furthermore, if a new line of thinking emerges in the research, it makes sense to take advantage by altering data collection if such alteration is likely to better ground the theory or provide theoretical insight.
Corbin & Strauss (1990) recommend steps for generating grounded theory which are an extension of the steps outlined by Gephart (1999). The first two steps cover research design, which involves literature review leading to selecting cases through theoretical sampling. Theoretical sampling translates in practical terms into two sampling events. An initial case is selected and on the basis of the data analysis pertaining to that case and hence the emerging theory, additional cases are selected. The third step involves developing data collection protocols; grounded theory advocates the use of multiple data sources converging on the same phenomenon and terms these “slices of data”. Different kinds of data give analysts different views or vantage points from which to understand a category and to develop its properties. The next step involves data collection, which is an iterative process overlapping data collection and analysis, and incorporates opportunistic data collection, which is foregrounded in Eisenhardt (1989). Step five involves data ordering and step six, data analysis. Analysis includes open coding to develop concepts, categories and properties; axial coding to develop connections between a category and its sub-categories; and selective coding to integrate categories to build a theoretical framework. Step seven involves replication across cases, which implies selecting additional cases through theoretical sampling to confirm, extend and sharpen the theoretical framework. Closure is reached when there is theoretical saturation and the final step involves comparing the emergent theory with extant literature and refining the theory.
3.4.2 Features of Grounded Theory Approach used in the study
This study utilizes some of the features of grounded theory development to generate a theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of school language change. These features relate largely to data collection and analysis. The study uses multiple data sources, employs sensitising concepts to orient and guide the analysis, and involves comparative analysis of data slices leading to development of themes, sub-categories and categories culminating in a theoretical understanding of school language change.
While the study does not technically employ theoretical sampling involving two or more sampling events, there are two distinct data collection events. Analysis of data from the first event (interviews with change agents and significant others, selected lesson observations, and collection of documents) prompted the second data collection event (the Focus Group Discussion involving the change agents) to deepen emerging understandings of school language change.
Other features of the grounded theory approach evident in the study include opportunistic data collecting and overlapping data collection and analysis. Data collection and analysis was an iterative process with preliminary analysis of interview data being used to develop prompts to generate discussion in the Focus Group session; the sensitizing concepts were also used as prompts in the Focus Group Discussion. Opportunities that presented themselves during data collection to interview certain members of the educator staff and/or to observe their lessons in each of the schools not anticipated in the data collection plan were exploited to deepen understanding of each agent‟s attempts at initiating and sustaining language change at his/her school. This controlled opportunism (Eisenhardt 1989) was exploited to deepen understanding of the phenomenon of school language change and should not be construed as a licence to be unsystematic.