3.1. Research Concerns 59
3.1.2. Questions prompted by Research Goals
3.1.2.1. Insecurity and Lack of Knowledge 61
The constant questioning created a state of constant acute agony (Alexander, 1990: 102) and insecurity. As a novice researcher, uncertain of broaching a task correctly, I hated being solo, or being the 'Lone Ranger' as Bogdan and Biklen (1992:78) would label this state. I took solace in the statements expressed by them that "feeling uncomfortable" was part of research. Indeed, not knowing was not seen as a wholly negative concept, because as Francis Bacon (Alexander
1990: 102) reports, "those who start with certainties will end in doubt, those who start with doubts will end with certainties."
3.1.2.2. Literary Explorations
I discovered that reading literature on how to conduct research, as well as other appropriate literature to enlighten and support my ideas, was vital. I must, however warn novice researchers of a snare that I fell into, which was reading too broadly and in too much detail about areas that were merely tangential to my study. The benefits of broad-based reading, though, exceeded the negative aspects thereof, as is demonstrated by the fact, that once finding the study by Chundra (1997) I realised its significance, as it was so closely linked to what I had in mind for my study, namely examining difficulties teachers experience, within the currently changing education system. Bogdan& Biklen (1992) mention that it is to a study's credit to
~have a model on which to base its ideas. I used Chundra's study in similar fashion. Chundra's study was however not replicated in whole or in part for this thesis, although both these studies used qualitative methods (e.g. interviewing), as I came across the author and her work, after having completed the collection of data (for instance, the interviews) for this study. Chundra's study presented many opposing results to mine, for instance the positivity of teachers in her sample, when compared to the negativity of the teachers in this study. Both her study and that of Penny, Appel, Gultig, Harley & Muir, (1992) were amongst the first few local research ventures to examine problems within education, after recent policy changes, from the perspective of the staff involved at schools. Mine was a follow-on in that it examined the perspectives of teachers (like Chundra, but unlike Penny et al. who interviewed principals) and compared findings as seen throughout this thesis with that of Chundra's findings.
3.1.3. Reasons for employing Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research
It would be said by some that qualitative research is "mushy, fuzzy and weak" (Denzin &
Lincoln, 1998:327) and that it is a method engendered by "soft scientists" (ibid.:lO). However, as I was interested in the reality of teachers' experiences and wanted to hear about the frustrations and tears, as well as the joys and laughter caused by the current changing education situation. I did not want to follow the traditional interviewing approach, which
0:v
ens (in Carter & Delamont, 1996: 56) explains as having "taken a restrictive view of therole of emotions". Nor did I want to quantify their experience and lose the depth of meaning that a more phenomenological approach would no doubt render.
Qualitative research differed from quantitative in that:
• It is undertaken in a natural setting (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992), i.e. the school. If I had not been successful in gaining access to this venue, I would have been happy to interview the teachers in another natural setting, mainly their homes, if limited hours during the school day necessitated it.
• Itis descriptive (Boulton & Hammersley in Sapsford& Jupp, 1996; Kvale, 1996). I found this to be true as is evident in my descriptions of the schools, the areas in which they were located, the descriptions of teachers - all of which contributed to a fuller picture of the phenomena being studied. The term 'descriptive' also implies that the researcher is able to quote responses (Bogdan & Biklen, 1990; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998).
• Meaning(Bogdan& Biklen, 1992) is an essential concern in this type of research. Meaning comes from the perspective of the participant, but also from the interpretations of the researcher e.g. meaning in gestures, nervous giggling. Some researchers (e.g. Taylor &
Bogdan, 1984, in Chundra, 1995; Denzin& Lincoln, 1998) feel that one way to ensure that the 'meanings' of both the respondent and the researcher coincide is if the researcher shows the respondent a near finished written product, or is able to return to teachers to verify their meanings. I, however, was not able to verify meaning to this extent, though I did verify meaning by enquiries during the actual interviews.
• It is inductive, which means that one does not have to prove or disprove a hypothesis (Bogdan& Biklen, 1992). This was another advantage, as I was uncertain of the intricacies that the data would be reveal. On the other hand, with quantitative research, I would have needed a detailed plan of operation (which for myself asa novice was unnecessary with qualitative research, especially as the themes tended to unfold during the course of data collection).
• It is concerned with process (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). According to Denzin & Lincoln (1998), being able to expound on one's experiences during research is a relatively new
phenomenon, and one which is enjoyed by many researchers. I found that elucidating on the steps engaged in during research created greater insight and I think that this aspect of qualitative research will prove beneficial to future researchers.
• Chundra (1997) also stated that qualitative research reports create fewer barriers to the reader who has little research experience.
There were three disadvantages I found with qualitative research. The first detracting quality about qualitative research was its time consuming nature e.g. the conducting of interviews, transcribing of data, as well as the data analysis (Bogdan& Biklen, 1992). The second feature was succinctly encapsulated by Cohen & Manion (1998) when they stated that qualitative research, unlike quantitative research does not have a unified theoretical and methodological base. LeCompte & Preissle (1993) highlighted another disadvantage, which may be more important for fellow researchers:
The personal tailoring of the interaction between ethnographer and infonnant is simultaneously strength and a weakness ... Itis a strength because it promotes the collection of data that more richly represents the experiences of the participant, - its is a weakness because it makes comparison and replication more difficult.
This difficulty with replication was a concern, as I greatly desired to see other studies addressing issues that I had merely touched on.
Quantitative research techniques would not have given me the same level of interaction with the respondents that I desired, nor would I have been able to interact with the data as I have done. This is because quantitative data, in comparison, is empirical and hence distant. Denzin
& Lincoln (1998:10) call quantitative data a science that "silences too many voices". Although
quantitative techniques for the large part was not quite suitable for this study, they have as a whole have not been totally shunned and are included to some extent. Cohen & Manion, (1989) make mention that the utilisation of both qualitative and quantitative research methods is not unheard of· Quantitative techniques were employed during data analysis when I attempted to discover the significance of a theme. I used a method of counting (Denzin &
Lincoln, 1998; Sapsford& Jupp, 1996) in which a theme was given one point for each time it was mentioned by a respondent, and counted as significant if more than half the respondents mentioned it (Gaganakis, 1992).
Although this study otherwise eschews quantitative data, I was concerned about two aspects associated with this type of research, i.e. the validity and reliability of qualitative data, which, according to Flick (1998) has been under the spotlight since the 1980's and is difficult to guarantee in qualitative research. Reliability is defined as "...whether the researcher sees what he or she thinks he or she sees. Is his version grounded in the versions in the field?" (Flick, 1998:225). According to Powney & Watts (1987) there are different ways to examine reliability. One form that they mention is interviewer reliability. In this study I was the only interviewer, which solved this potential research hazard. They add that inconsistency in asking questions does decrease reliability.
In this study altering the shape of the original questions was the norm and is permitted in qualitative research and did occur in this study - though some reliability was maintained as I was the sole interviewer. With less formal interviews, the interviewer is free to alter the sequence of questions, to rephrase questions, to explain and add to them (Cohen & Manion, 1989). In essence the framing of questions also depended on the respondent, e.g. whether or not they understood the question and needed further clarification. In some instances scheduled questions were not asked as they were discussed spontaneously by the respondent.
Validity in qualitative research according to Flick (1998) has received more attention than reliability and can be defined as correctness of content i.e. an accurate representation of what was actually said and a sincerity in terms of self-presentation of speaker. One way to confirm content has been termed "communicative validity" (Flick, 1998:3) and can be guaranteed if a second meeting is arranged after the first with clarification, for instance of meaning, on the agenda. Internal validity is another form of validity whereby different people confirm one thing (Flick, 1998:36). This was indicated in some instances where the majority of the sample felt similarly or perceived a particular aspect of teaching from a similar stance. Kitwood (in Cohen & Manion, 1989:319) state that the 'distinctively human element' validates qualitative data. This self-same human aspect may contribute to the invalidity of a study if subjects are tempted to present a misleading picture of themselves and their situations (Flick, 1998). I believe that the respondents presented as honest a picture as possible, albeit a subjective one.
Bias may also affect validity. Cohen& Manion (1989 :318) explain how this is possible:
The sources of bias are the characteristics of the interviewer, the characteristics of the respondent, and the substantive content of the questions. More particularly, this will include:
the attitudes and opinions of the interviewer; a tendency for the interviewer to seek answers to support his prejudgments.
In support of this quote, I must admit to finding that each of the interviews differed, depending on who the respondent was and our ability to relate to each other. (See impact on each other in Section 3.2.2).
A trend which post-modem researchers support is that assessing the validity and reliability of qualitative data is antithetical to the very nature of this type of research (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). Whilst I hope that the measures I followed have resulted in data which is verifiable and an honest record of the interactions, the data will have been influenced by my interests or what Powney & Watts, (1987: 11) would call "my filter", the participants' own agendas and our interactions. This is acceptable in qualitative research since each person's contribution is valued as relevant. Admittedly this makes generalisability of this sort of research difficult (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993).