DEDICATION
4.3 Part three: Ethical Considerations and Data Analysis Strategy
4.3.3 Data Analysis Process
This section provides details of how the process of analysing data was followed. Here the paradigmatic orientation of the study shifted from interpretivism to poststructural. The shift was necessitated by the need to move beyond the general analysis of the rhetoric, to a broader understanding guided by the theoretical framework of the study. Because in the
end, it does not matter how one got the data, what matters is what one does with the data in the analysis. For this study, I chose Laclau and Mouffe’s (2001) discourse theory explained in detail in the previous chapter.
While the use of interpretivism for the field work and initial analysis of data allowed for the understanding of teachers’ and parents’ rhetoric, using a poststructural analysis highlighted how meaning gets obfuscated through the use of language. In addition, where interpretivism had revealed the dialogic nature of a discourse, poststructural analysis further revealed the contingency nature of a discourse, and its impossibility to be separated from its subjects.
The analysis of qualitative data is usually a rigorous ongoing process which usually happens concurrently with the production and interpretation of data (Creswell, 2009), and in some instances, with the writing of the research report as well. Identifying and organising patterns and themes which are then coded and categorised, is according to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011), a way of trying to understand the data in relation to the participants’ definitions of their situations. Therefore, the steps that the researchers take as an attempt at understanding the data at their disposal, are referred to as data analysis.
Whilst some scholars suggest specific steps (Creswell, 2009; Marshall & Rossman, 2011) that researchers can take during the analysis of data, Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007, 2011) assert that qualitative researchers are not restricted to prescribed techniques.
Instead, they are exposed to diverse ways of analysis and interpretation because of the nature of their research. Creswell (2014) argues that, not all the data in qualitative research can be used in the analysis phase because of their thickness and richness.
Therefore, researchers using qualitative approach often focus on some data whilst overlooking others (Guest, MacQueen & Namey, 2012), and data are grouped into themes.
Thematic analysis is regarded by Clarke and Braun (2013) as an analytic method which is used to identify patterns when analysing qualitative data. These authors highlight that different researchers have different constructions of what thematic analysis is about and use it differently depending on the researcher’s field or discipline. As such, there seems to be no consensus about what thematic analysis encompasses, even though it is widely
used in qualitative studies (Tuckett, 2005). Consequently, Clarke and Braun (2013) argue against the rigid construction (based on specific disciplines) of thematic analysis on the basis that the search for patterns or themes is not aligned to any specific theories.
Therefore, they claim that thematic analysis can be used within a variety of theoretical (and by implication, epistemological) frameworks, whether they are aligned to the essentialist or constructionist approach (Clarke & Braun, 2013); hence its flexibility.
When using thematic analysis, researchers are able to provide, not only detailed, but also complex accounts of data emanating, either from interviews or focus groups, and reflecting on participants’ realities (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). However, it is necessary for a study’s theoretical positioning to be clarified because naturally, all theoretical frameworks have certain assumptions in relation to the data. For this study, whose pre- supposed analytical method is discourse analysis, thematic analysis was also employed on the basis of its flexibility (used across theories) and amenability to analysing different types of data. I argue that data analysis took different forms and was an ongoing process throughout the phase of data production, which extended from November of 2014 to January 2016 (as indicated in the data generation methods section). Some form of analysis occurred when focus group members were cross-checking with other members for further explanations of their utterances. The other form of analysis occurred during the one-on- one interviews when the researcher used probing questions to elicit further information or sought clarifications from the participants. The continuous analysis was based on the researcher’s understanding that the production of knowledge about various phenomena occurs through interaction and conversation.
After the data had been verified by the participants, I had to familiarise myself with the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006) by reading all the transcripts and re-listening to the audio- recorded data when need arose in order to note any similarities or differences or points of contradictions. In order to take easy note of these aspects (similarities, differences and contradictions), codes were used to identify the participants and the sections of the interviews from which the compared utterances were extracted. I used the first letter of the participant’s name and the letter ‘T’ or ‘P’ to indicate whether the participant was a teacher (T) or a parent (P), and numerically coded certain paragraphs (in each transcript) which contained specific rhetoric around the issue under discussion. Coding is seen by
Clarke and Braun (2013) as an analytic process because the codes capture, not only the conceptual reading but also the semantics of data.
Searching for themes involved careful reading of the coded-data in order to find similarities in the data sets (from teacher participants and parent participants). In addressing the first critical question, excerpts from teacher participants’ interview transcripts were extracted and two broad themes were constructed, namely: the rhetoric related to teaching and learning; and the rhetoric related to parents and department of education or district officials. In answering the second critical question, extracts were drawn from the parents’ interview transcripts and two broad themes were identified, namely: the rhetoric directly linked to teaching and learning processes; and the rhetoric of goodness, dedication and expertise as characterising teachers’ work. The continuous reading and re-reading of coded-data and that of the full sets of data resulted in the identification of sub-themes for each of the broad themes. Theme one from the teachers’
data set further yielded eight sub-themes, namely: the rhetoric of monitoring of teachers’
work, the rhetoric of laziness of teachers, the rhetoric of teaching and learning resources, the rhetoric of leadership and management, the rhetoric of administrative work, the rhetoric of dedication or caring, the rhetoric of overwork or work overload, and the rhetoric of teachers’ and children’s rights. From theme two (teachers), two sub-themes were further created, namely: the rhetoric of parents’ involvement and attitudes, and the rhetoric of interference by the district officials. Themes and sub-themes addressing critical questions are discussed in detail in chapter five.
Eight sub-themes were identified from the parents’ data set. Five of the sub-themes were connected to theme one and these were: the rhetoric of monitoring and evaluation of teachers’ work and teaching programmes, the rhetoric of difficult work, the rhetoric of stressful work; the rhetoric of laziness of teachers, and the rhetoric of unprofessionalism or professionalism. From theme two (of the parents’ rhetoric), three sub-themes, namely:
the rhetoric of a good teacher, the rhetoric of dedication or passion, and the rhetoric of expertise were identified. Therefore, I can also argue that inductive analysis was employed to identify the themes across the data sets. For the analysis to be inductive, it means that the themes were not pre-planned (prior to the production of data) or imposed, but they emerged (extracted) from the data (Thomas, 2006); that is, they were data-driven in line with interpretivism. However, deductive analysis was also employed when data
were read in relation to the concepts of the theoretical framework; in line with poststructural analysis.
Because the focus group questions were crafted from the issues that emanated from interviews with parents and teachers who participated in this study, these questions were regarded as themes themselves. Therefore, interactional analysis was prioritised in the analysis of focus group data because of its emphasis on the dialogue that occurs between the narrator and the listener (Riessman, 2005). For this study, during focus group discussions, when a member of a group was sharing her or his experiences (narrator), other members would listen and ask questions for clarifications (where necessary). In this way, all members of a group participated in conversations in which they collaboratively created meanings. Kvale and Brinkmann (2009, p. 53) posit that “knowledge is neither inside a person nor outside in the world, but exists in the relationship between persons and the world.” This understanding of knowledge as relational highlights the multiplicity of meanings or interpretations that can be accorded to any talk, text or discourse. In this study, understanding the need to accommodate the multiplicity of meanings forced me to check and re-check the text for “alternative explanations and the degree of variability in the discourse” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2009, p. 390). Although the transcripts may be said to have captured the complexity of the conversations; the transcripts could not represent the unspoken, that is, participants’ gestures or the gaze, which were either embodied or enacted in the conversations. In addressing the third critical question, data excerpts were drawn from both focus groups (teachers only and parents only) on issues of: professionalism and unprofessionalism, unappreciation, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, ill-discipline, corporal punishment, leadership and management, as well as work overload. These focal points are discussed in detail in chapter seven to show the nature of the rhetoric that was inherent in the teachers’ and parents’ articulations about teachers’ work.
The iterative process of data analysis occurred over twelve months (December 2014 to January 2016). The findings of the study are presented through text and images, in line with the qualitative approach and interpretive paradigm.
For this study, which is underpinned by discourse analysis, note should be taken that analysis of discourses (rhetoric) was more than just identification of themes. Instead, the
focus was on what the participants said, why they said it, how it was said and by whom.
These aspects of a discourse are confirmed by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2009) to be essential in understanding the meanings of utterances made in relation to their contexts.
Therefore, the analysis of data took into consideration the various aspects of discourse by highlighting an array of focus-points.