Chapter 3. Methodology: Contexts, Concepts, and Methodological Processes 3.1 Introduction and Overview of 1 Introduction and Overview of Chapter
3.5 Research Design and Process
3.5.6 Integrating quantitative and qualitative data: Drawing on activity theory
Attempts to integrate a theoretical analysis across the quantitative and qualitative forms of data were made by drawing on relevant principles and constructs from cultural-historical activity theory. Although activity theory does not seem to offer detailed accounts for data analysis, it does facilitate a particular understanding of human behaviour that can be of use for analysis. This understanding of human behaviour was discussed in detail in Chapter 2 (subsection 2.3.2) and above (see section 3.2). Specifically, although collective and socially meaningful human activity would be prioritised as a unit of analysis, there would still be an awareness of the individual engaged in this activity. Therefore, individual (academic) behaviour was understood to exist, but only within a collective and socially meaningful trajectory. In developing this understanding of human behaviour analytically, most research grounded in activity theory has applied the
components of Engeström’s (1987) activity system triangle46 as a heuristic device. Research that
46 In Chapter 2 (subsection 2.3.2), Figure 2-5 was included to reflect current conceptions of such an activity system triangle.
has drawn on this conception has tended to organise data around the a priori components of the activity system triangle, these including subject, object, mediating artefacts, rules, community, and division of labour (Akhurst & Evans, 2007; Akhurst & Liebenberg, 2009; Hardman, 2007;
Leadbetter, 2005; Pearson & Ralph, 2007). In her research on behaviour change in relation to HIV and AIDS, Van der Riet (2009) describes the constructive and analytic process she undertook in applying Engeström’s (1987) a priori components. This process resulted in the construction and analysis of several sexual activity systems, which in turn provided a multi- dimensional and historic perspective on (the lack of) behaviour change in relation to HIV and AIDS.
Drawing on Engeström’s (1987) activity system as a heuristic device, the textual and photographic data produced for this study was then revisited. This involved reworking the original themes and codes that were inductively derived during the initial qualitative data analysis steps (see subsection 3.5.5.2) into the components of several activity system triangles.
During this stage of analysis, I also began to draw in the numeric data47 generated in Phase 1 of the study. While re-coding the data, it became useful to experiment with various representations of academic activity systems in higher education. Van der Riet (2009) clarifies, “the analyst constructs the activity system as if looking at it from above. At the same time, the analyst selects a subject, a member of the local activity, through whose eyes and interpretations the activity is constructed” (p. 118).
In this way, I was aware of looking at the systems from both a subject perspective, as well as a system perspective. The experimentation involved several academic activity system
permutations, this being recognised as part of the process, as well as reflective of the dialecticism inherent in the mixed methodology and grounding frameworks of socioculturalism and activity theory. The first “semi-activity” system that emerged could be characterised as the “mid-section”
of an institutional system of (exceptional) academic activity. This mid-section involved the components of subject, object, and outcome of a system of academic activity, where the subject
47 The process of drawing in the numeric data was informed by Yanchar’s (2011) articulation of how Engeström has employed numbers as part of the practical discourse of contextual inquiry.
was identifiable as all UKZN students who completed undergraduate degrees between the years 2006 and 2010. The subject–object dialectic was represented by academic activity, and an outcome of either exceptional academic achievement or academic achievement was noted. This mid-section drew predominantly on the logistic regression model developed in Phase 1 of the study. I then used the qualitative data produced from the focus group discussions to construct the remaining “outer” system components of mediating artefacts, rules, community, and division of labour. In this way, the construction of an institutional system of (exceptional) academic activity enabled me to engage in a dialogue between quantitative and qualitative forms of data. Two additional activity systems were constructed, these eventually taking the form of an evolving system of exceptional academic activity, and a historical system of exceptional academic activity. The evolving and historical systems of exceptional academic activity were constructed in response to the analytic dialogue I engaged in with the eight auto-photographical compilations and photo-elicitation interviews in relation to these compilations. Although the construction of the evolving system of exceptional academic activity arose naturally, the construction and analysis of a historical activity system was deemed essential, especially considering the
sociocultural and activity theory perspective. Social and cultural phenomena and processes are inherently historical. They are historically formed and situated, and operate in dialectical tension across past, present and future (Stetsenko & Arievitch, 2004). As described in section 2.3, sociocultural and activity theory frameworks are grounded in the assumption that human processes are intimately connected to society and social processes, which in turn locate these historically. As a result, the historical activity system was deemed to be an essential aspect of the construction and analysis, providing a historical basis to the thesis. Constructing and analysing activity systems from multiple forms of data are suggested to enable the exposition of the individual–social dialectic (Van der Riet, 2009). These three activity systems are presented, described and analysed in Chapters 6, 7, and 8.
However, the construction and analysis of the three systems was not sufficient to account for how the systems had the potential to change and be transformed. As described in section 2.3.4, an activity theory and system perspective also emphasise the notion of contradictions and tensions. In addition, particular importance is placed on these contradictions and tensions
because they are theorised to generate energy that could enable change and transformation in the systems (Engeström, 1987). Attempts to operationalise the contradictions and tensions within and between the activity systems did not happen sequentially to the process of constructing and analysing the systems. In fact, the qualitative data production processes I engaged in were partly responsible for how these contradictions and tensions were operationalised. Strategies for identifying contradictions and tensions in activity systems are evident in Engeström’s (1987, 1999a, 1999b, 2001) work, and these imply a dialogue between researcher and research participants, where apparent contradictions are discussed and interpreted. For this study, two types of dialogue around contradiction took place between the researcher and the research participants. The first was evident during the focus group discussions. Here, the qualitative research participants were purposively recruited to embody contradiction to the quantitative data generated in Phase 1 of the study. The participants were all African students who were in the process of excelling, yet according to the logistic regression model, their odds of exceptional academic achievement were highly unlikely. In this way, the data production process invited participants to offer interpretations pertaining to the contradiction evident between themselves and a logistic regression model.
Second, the participants also engaged in a dialogue with the researcher around their auto- photographical compilations. I intentionally prompted the participants to take photographs that reflected both their current and historical academic activity, then engaging them in a discussion around the contradictions between past and present academic activity. In addition, the
photographs provided a rich platform to discuss the contradiction between what was visually present in the photographs, and what was visually excluded. In retrospect, these two types of dialogue facilitated “strong personal involvement, often including emotional encounters with and tense discussions on the data” (Engeström, 1999b, p. 68). These emotional encounters informed the construction and analysis of the activity systems, and in particular the emotional reflections of the activity systems that were constructed.
The rigour with which the analytic integration for this study was undertaken is graphically represented as a matrix in Figure 3-3. In this matrix, the various data types (i.e., quantitative and
qualitative) are presented in columns, while the various data analysis strategies are presented in rows. The bi-directional arrows signify the backwards and forwards analytic movements across the various data types, while a uni-directional arrow implies a one-way application of an analytic technique. For example, the logistic regression methodology was applied in the quantitative phase of the study. However, the analysis and interpretation of this method were interrogated in the focus group discussions, this becoming manifest in the form of transcripts. The bottom row includes a bi-directional arrow, and this signifies the forwards and backwards movement across all types of data through the use of activity theory as an analytic framework.
↓ Data analysis strategy ↓
Data type Quantitative
Qualitative Focus group
discussion transcripts
Photographs
Photo-elicitation interview transcripts Logistic regression
methodology Familiarisation and
immersion Data-driven coding and analysis A priori coding, constructing and analysing activity systems
Figure 3-3. Integration of data analysis across data types