Chapter 4: Presentation and Analysis of data
5.4 Problems with the research process
Many of the problems associated with this study have been noted in earlier chapters. What I present here is a summary of the most salient ones - those which, were I to do a similar piece of research again, might dictate that I do things differently.
The first of these concerns the use of the Case Study approach itself. The inherent
'boundedness' of a case study is very useful in so far as it 'legitimises' a limited and limiting context of research. Without the time and opportunity to engage with wider issues and longer, genuinely ethnographic studies, the Case Study is a good alternative. Certainly for my purposes in this context, I am satisfied it was the best approach to take. I am not convinced, however, that I would want to repeat a study where the database is so small that what emanates from it runs the risk of being considered irrelevant to any context beyond it. With the grievously fierce attitude to qualitative research held by so many academics, applauding the research process and findings of a single case study seems a remote likelihood - despite the very flexible way in which case studies can be defined. Their 'singularity' sits too uncomfortably with those
conditioned to a quantitative research orientation. Which is a pity in my view, but nevertheless a reality I have come to recognise as particularly powerful in the research 'community of practice'. Not withstanding this lobby, my experience with the case study approach prompts me to want to engage with a more 'collectivised' experience (as opposed to that of the discrete individual) the next time round, and over a longer period of time.
Secondly, and as indicated earlier, the use of Literate Life Histories as a data gathering tool should be used far more cautiously and sensitively than the way in which they were used in this study. Their use does not always have to be the same as, or even approximate to my first use of them in 1996, but given the often cathartic - and hence potentially painful and frightening _ effect they can have, they should always be handled with the utmost care. That they do provide
profound insights into individual experience is evident, and the reason they usually constitute such rich and valuable data. Respecting and protecting individual experience, however, should always dictate the way in which they are used.
Thirdly, that follow-up interviews with students should have been conducted is also now quite apparent. Many of the 'silences' and gaps in the transcripts ofthe interviews in this research, could have been 'filled' and explored through another round of interviews.
The fourth significant problem relates to the time frames which became the ultimate reality, and which posed a huge problem. I had not bargained for the unevenness of the process, the delays and the sheer complexity of the exercise, and the role these factors would play in the study as a whole. Though I would clearly recommend much more clearly defined deadlines for any study, they must be brutally realistic, and take into account not only the variables which may pertain to the subjects in the study, but those which pertain to the researcher as well. Either 'party' is equally capable of derailing the process.
Lastly, it is also quite apparent to me now that the data provided by the cyber conversations in this study, raised more questions than they answered, and that cyber conversations are possibly not very effective vehicles for extended, in-depth interrogations of the sort I tried to establish here. While they maybe useful for linking and/or sustaining 'research conversations', I realise that the energy and vibrancy of face-to-face interviews, and the scope these provide for immediate feedback and negotiation, make interviews a source of much richer and more substantial data. Email correspondence between colleagues who are also friends, often lends itself to frivolous comment. In the case of the emails quoted here, I hesitate to take everything that was said at face value. Were I to challenge some of the comments made, my guess is that positions might shift and change as debates continued. Which is why I have offered these reservations about the reliability of the data captured on the emails, and problematised the impact it has had on what this study has thrown up.
5.5 Possibilities for future research
As stated earlier, it is important for the discussion around future research options in relation to this study, to track some of the developments that have occurred in the REd Hons
programme since 1998. As the model of delivery which the subjects in this research enjoyed IS no longer the one in use, any recommendations relating to 'improving student performance' and/or 'developing academic literacy' must be framed by the current model of delivery. To do anything different would render the discussion meaningless.
Implicit in any recommendations is the subjective position of the 'recommendee', and while this may seem obvious to some, I believe it worth stating. In this instance therefore, the recommendations I make reflect my values, beliefs and experiences, and have their source in my habitus. That they may not suit, or honour the habitus of my students entirely (or at all), I recognise as an inevitable consequence of the different 'ways of being' which our respective 'historical' selves have given rise to. For the same reasons, they may also not resonate with my colleagues. Despite my belief that I am forwarding a well theorised, democratic and socially responsible position, I welcome the thought that it must remain open to contestation, debate and redefinition.
Itis not a simple task to unravel the knotted threads of factors linking literacy to student performance, as this study shows. What this research has evoked for me however, are a number of concerns and questions which relate to the students who participated in this study (in Year 1 in 1998), those currently on the programme (2001) and the changing context of the programme itself as described in the previous section. Each of the following five questions therefore, encapsulates an issue which could form the focus of further research, and concludes this thesis.
•
•
•
•
•
What has been the 'literacy trajectory' of the students who formed the subject group in this study, since their return to their professional contexts?
How would the students evaluate the value of the LILT module, and the REd Hons in general, three to four months after completing the course?
What impact would use of the primary language in assignment writing, in this case isiZulu, have on students' capacity to articulate conceptual understanding?
What areas of comparability exist between what constitutes academic discourse in isiZulu and that of English?
To what extent are the literacy competences of the changing student cohort impacting on the established 'deep rules' of the academic community of practice?
• lfthe four components of the NLG's Critical Pedagogical Framework informed the restructuring of the B.Ed Hons curriculum, how could the 'success' (or otherwise) of this approach be measured?