RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
4.4 Research methodology
4.4.2 Data analysis
Data analysis is: “The process of systematically searching and arranging the interview transcripts, field-notes and other materials which were accumulated by the researcher to
139
increase his or her understanding of the mind which enables the researcher to present that, which was discovered by others” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p, 153). There are various ways of handling and analysing data.
Qualitative data analysis, as with this study, is the non-numerical assessment of observations made through participant observation, content analysis, in-depth interviews, and other qualitative research techniques (Babbie, 2001). In other words, data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure and meaning to the mass of collected data. It is a messy, ambiguous, time-consuming, creative and fascinating process. McMillan and Schumacher (1993) further add that qualitative analysis is a systematic process of selecting, categorising, comparing, synthesising and interpreting to provide explanations of the single phenomenon of interest.
Qualitative data analyses vary widely because of different research foci, purposes, and data generation strategies.
Thus, data analysis “is data reducing whereby data is selected, focused, simplified, abstracted and transformed to enable the researcher to manage it” (Fetterman 1988, p, 229). In this research study the data consists of field-notes and a video recording of observations taken during the collage making/presentations/discussions, studying individual collages, the collage presentations and discussions. In analysing the data I initially watched the video recording and then transcribed the following verbatim: collage-making process, gallery walk and presentations and discussions. This, I then blended with my listener-observer field notes into a single document. All of this was done for each of the collages separately, meaning I had 17 data sets. Marshall and Rossman (1995) maintain that reading, reading and reading once more through the data forces the researcher to become familiar with the data in intimate ways which was my intention.
I must admit initially I was really confused and had to keep returning to my data to try and decide which would be the most appropriate way to do the analysis. Eventually with the help of my supervisor we decided that the most appropriate way to analyse the data would be on two levels. Hence I, refer to ‘level 1’ and ‘level 2’ analysis which is discussed in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 and will be explained next.
140
The first level of analysis of the collages was done according to an ‘open coding’ method. In other words, I did the open-coding for each of the 17 collages constructed. Open coding refers to the coding process and was my first step towards gradually making sense of the collages.
Coding is an analytical process in which data is categorised to facilitate analysis. This means that open coding includes labelling concepts, defining and developing categories based on their dimensions (Khandar, 2016). In other words, researchers need to give names to their ideas and concepts to define, analyse and share with others. Once it is defined, researchers can begin to examine them and ask questions related to them. It is also important that researchers name their concepts appropriately because people act toward things based on the meaning those things have for them and thus these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation. This thinking aligns itself well with symbolic interactionism which is the chosen theoretical framework of this study and is fully explained in Chapter 3.
In light of this, I chose to use open coding as a method to analyse my collages. I felt that it was a systematic way to condense my extensive data sets into smaller analysable units and therefore make sense of them, as discussed below. Open coding can be done in different ways, in other words there is no single ‘right way’ to do it. This was my initial stage of data analysis because the process was to ‘open up’ the collages and expose the views they hold for the collage-makers regarding school history. The intent of open coding here was to analyse the collages into categories in order to interpret them. Hence, collages were analysed by looking at the images and words used; the layout; the people depicted; the resources used; shapes; own insertions;
colours used; placement and layering. This meaning that all the collages in this study were analysed using the same categories. The reason why these categories were used to open up the collages is because collages rely heavily on visual data since it is an arts-based research approach. Hence, the categories mentioned above deemed to be most appropriate and suitable to analyse the collages.
Also as an artistic product the collage was analysed with the belief that learners can express their views of school history meaningfully through using images. Hence, the selected categories helped me to further analyse the collages and get a better understanding of the data in order to interpret learners’ views of school history. Collages were analysed in great detail and analysis of each collage ended only when I had reached saturation point. However, the
141
problem with open coding is it is very time consuming and tedious work. Sometimes it is difficult to decide when you have reached saturation point. I was able to overcome this by constantly returning and referring to the collages in order to ensure that I had captured and analysed every detail in them.
On completion of the ‘open-ended’ analysis of each of the 17 collages separately, I then compared and contrasted these ‘open-ended’ analysis with the document created for each collage which was explained earlier in the section. This comparing and contrasting was done to justify certain views of learners regarding their collages.
It is important to note that the collages at this point were analysed individually because each collage-maker seemed to have a unique view of history. However, at this stage it is important to mention that prior to analysing the collages individually I had attempted to analyse the collages according to schools. This meant that I examined the collages per school and started looking for common patterns and themes across the collages. This effort did not work so well, hence with the assistance of my supervisor, I decided that the most suitable way was to analyse the collages individually and then to look at the common patterns and themes that emerged per school.
The process of open coding as my first level of analysis was very beneficial to my study. It helped me to open up the collages and make meaning of the views of school history which were depicted by the participants in their collages. Furthermore, data analysis for this study did not stop at this first level. I engaged in a second level of analysis which will be explained in detail below.
A second level of analysis was needed for my study because of the nature of my topic which is related to how history learners view school history. Thus, the second level of analysis of the collages was done using an instrument that I devised using a set of historical concepts. An instrument in general terms refers to a tool or device used for a particular purpose. In other words, for the purposes of my study I designed a specific instrument to help me further analyse
142
the collages and related methods. This means that the first level of analysis which was explained and discussed in detail above was not sufficient, since it was based on opening up the collages by mainly interpreting the fragments placed in the collages with a few justifications from the presentation and discussion sessions. Hence, I needed a second level of analysis, which was the reason why I designed an instrument to further analyse my data. Due to the nature and uniqueness of my study I had to specifically design an instrument that would suit my study to help answer my research questions. Furthermore, I was able to analyse my data in a more structured way and get a better understanding of how learners view history as a school subject.
The instrument was made up of six benchmarks as well as criteria linked to each benchmark (Appendix A). The benchmarks that form part of my instrument are: historical significance;
historical time; nature of historical knowledge and understanding; historical empathy; cause and consequence and change and continuity. These benchmarks were derived from the works by (Davies, 2011; Department of Education, 2011; Haydn, Arthur, Hunt & Stephen, 2008;
Stearns et al, 2000; Timmins et al, 2005; Wineburg, 2001;) and were gleaned from my literature review section on the nature of school history. The reason why I chose to use these specific benchmarks is that they are pertinent in the teaching and learning of the subject history at school level. Furthermore, the analysis of the collages would not focus primarily on substantive historical content as discussed in Chapter 2. Hence, since my research topic is based on learners’ views of school history I felt that these benchmarks would assist me to further analyse my data and therefore understand how learners view the subject history at school level. More detail on my instrument and how it was used to analyse data is provided in the next section.
Historical Significance as my 1st benchmark is the process used to evaluate what is significant about selected events, people and developments in the past. As such this benchmark and the criteria attached to it assisted me to analyse who and what learners depicted as being historically significant in their collages. The 2nd benchmark and its criteria was related to
‘historical time’. Historical time is the distinctive marker of history and is central in the development of learners’ historical thinking. Therefore, this benchmark helped me to analyse how learners identify and understand the concept of time through their collages.
143
The 3rd benchmark in my instrument was the ‘Nature of historical knowledge and understanding’ which was linked to different criteria. This benchmark relates to the nature of history as a school subject being such that it has the capacity to help learners understand something of the past so that they can assess and judge the present. Furthermore, it assists learners to understand not only who they are and where they come from but also helps them to make informed decisions about present issues and further developments. Therefore, this benchmark was important in the sense that it guided me to analyse whether learners demonstrated evidence of thinking critically about past events, how history has affected people’s opinions and human behaviour as well as the idea of identity. I also used the presentations and discussion session transcriptions to justify certain aspects depicted in the collages to assist me with the analysis of my data.
‘Historical empathy’ as my 4th benchmark entailed a process of understanding people in the past by contextualising their actions. In fact, historical empathy is necessary to understand school history and appreciate current events. Thus, this benchmark and criteria proved to be important and assisted me in analysing how learners understood circumstances and concepts surrounding an event. Furthermore, I was able to analyse whether there was evidence of learners understanding why people from the past behave in a particular manner and if they had an awareness/respect/appreciation/sensitivity to complex human actions/achievements.
The 5th benchmark in my instrument was ‘Cause and Consequence’. These concepts address who or what influenced events to occur and what the repercussions of those events were.
Through this benchmark and its criteria I was able to analyse whether learners were able to recognise reasons for events and results of them as well as if there was an indication of how consequences can drive future events. The 6th benchmark was ‘Change and Continuity’. This benchmark is based on the idea that history is a complex mix of change and continuity. As such there were many things happening in the past simultaneously, some changed quickly while others remain relatively continuous. Therefore, this benchmark helped me to analyse whether learners identified what changed and what has remained the same over a period of time as well as if there was representation of change and continuity in certain political/social/economic spheres.
144
This second level of analysis was done differently to the first level of analysis in the sense that my instrument was not applied to individual collages but across all collages so as to seek understanding for each of the benchmarks. At the same time I blended with my listener- observer notes all 17 previous data sets into a single document to which I also applied the benchmark instrument. Hence, the instrument was applied to the collages as well as the data sets made up of other methods as it related to the collages. In light of this, level 1 and level 2 analysis had to be described separately.
Marshall and Rossman (1995) regard qualitative data analysis as the search for general statements about relationships among categories of data. Thus, the process embodied in the research programme was one of moving between data already gathered, relevant existing theory and further data generation and analysis (Van Wyk, 1996).