Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) categorised research as either more focused towards theory testing or towards theory building. While more rigid and defined theoretical/conceptual models are better suited for testing or modification in quantitative approaches (Bowen 2006; Coffey & Atkinson 1996; Patton 2002), a more flexible, conceptual frame of reference is recommended as more appropriate in qualitative research. Bowen (2006) proposed that frameworks of sensitising concepts provide points of reference and guidance in approaching empirical data, as well as acting as interpretive devices. Hence, they are both conceptual frameworks, and components of the analysis. For Cousin (2009), a framework of sensitising concepts effectively accommodates emergent patterns in data and progressive theory building, which are pivotal to many qualitative methodological approaches. These contentions are in line with Hennink, Hutter and Bailey’s (2011) argument that a flexible approach supports and enhances theory building through a dynamic, cyclical interplay between theory, and data collection and analysis. This section explains the nature and selection of the initial conceptual framework, the research context and the participant sampling strategy.
In this study, a conceptual framework, comprised of four sensitising concepts, along with matching research sub-questions, were devised from the literature reviewed in Chapters
92
One and Two. Concepts one and two were chiefly concerned with clarifying participants’ general notions about academic work and quality, which also assisted in orienting participants towards the central research topic, and acting as a checkpoint that each participant’s characteristics fell within specified study parameters. They were designated as contextual environment concepts. In essence, they functioned as foundation concepts, or a platform, for in-depth investigation of concepts three and four, which focused on characteristics of , extrinsic factors (curriculum, student, and institution) and intrinsic factors (academic) of offshore quality academic work.
The sensitising concepts which make up the conceptual framework, along with the research sub-questions, are summarised in Figure 3.1. The initial framework was developed progressively throughout the study, from logically connected concepts and themes identified in patterns in the data (Birks & Mills 2011). The culmination of this theory building is demonstrated in Chapter Six, and its implications in Chapter Seven.
93
As the focus of this study was on individual academics, the characteristics and behaviours of participants were labelled as their intrinsic factors, while the influences surrounding the participants were labelled as three types of extrinsic factors, namely, curriculum, student and institutional factors. As explained in Chapter Two, these factors were adapted from Schwab’s (1973) four commonplaces of education.
The context chosen to investigate the central research question was Australian higher education institutions’ offshore business programs conducted in Hong Kong. There were several reasons for this choice of setting. Firstly, numerous institutions run offshore programs in the Asian region, with Hong Kong being a well-established and economically significant example of this market (Australian Government, Department of Education and Training 2018). It was anticipated, therefore, that outcomes would be of interest to educational and other stakeholders. In addition, the Hong Kong context provided a wide variety of programs, and a substantial pool of information-rich participants. These conditions had the advantage that any individual institution, program, course or participant was easily de-identified and their confidentiality protected, both of which were ethical requirements of this research.
A further selection consideration was the greater likelihood of finding homogeneity in cultural backgrounds and educational experiences amongst students studying Australian programs in Hong Kong compared to other Asian offshore locations. The targeted Hong Kong programs consisted of, largely, local students, who shared a Chinese ‘Confucian- Heritage Culture’ and educational background (Watkins & Biggs 2001; Wong & Wen 2001). As found in Chapter Two, this common background was linked to certain student preferences, including expectations of teaching practices, favoured learning styles, and classroom interactions (Chan 1999; Wang 2007). In this current study, homogeneity acts, not as a quantitative control variable for objective examination of variation, but as a ‘stabilisation’ of selected concepts. This technique is consistent with the assumptions and practices of qualitative research, as it allows not only in depth scrutiny of readily identifiable concepts, but also facilitates detection of less obvious, or emergent ones. (Lincoln & Guba 1985). Thus, explicit acknowledgement that student cohorts in Hong Kong were likely to share a range of culturally-influenced characteristics was conducive
94
to both identifying their impacts on participants’ conceptualisations, and to unmasking less overt characteristics.
In terms of sampling strategies and selection of participants for research studies, Patton (2002) recommended first deciding upon the appropriate unit of analysis. In keeping with the central research question, the parameters of the research context, and scope of the study, the participant profile was ‘lecturer level academic or equivalent, who taught in the same business degree course in their Australian institution and in Hong Kong’. This grouping was chosen for two reasons. Offshore academic work was mainly concerned with classroom learning and teaching activities, and, secondly, this type of academic was relatively neglected in higher education research compared to, for example, early career academics, or senior academics in research, specialist or management roles.
The condition of teaching the same business degree course, onshore and offshore, was intended as a point of comparison from which to unpick any features that impacted exclusively on offshore quality. The selection of business courses had three pragmatic elements. Firstly, they were prevalent in Hong Kong, so they provided numerous suitable potential institutions and participants, which increased options and aided in confidentiality. Secondly, the variety of business disciplines provided opportunities to compare impacts of their accompanying educational approaches and learning perspectives. Finally, my extensive academic experience in these settings and courses meant I had relevant background knowledge and an insider perspective to enhance sense making, and developing (re) constructions of participants’ conceptualisations of offshore quality academic work. This is akin to Glaser (1978) and Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) concept of theoretical sensitivity, whereby researchers, through their professional and personal experiences, engagement with professional literature, and robust approach to analysis, can offer particular awareness and insight into the nuances of meaning in, and the pertinence of, the data.
The sampling strategy employed in this study followed Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) assertion that qualitative inquiries typically focus in depth on relatively small samples that are selected ‘purposefully’ (or purposively), rather than the ‘representative’ sampling
95
approach frequently used in quantitative research. For Sandelowski (1995), purposeful sampling was the selection of participants with shared knowledge or experience of specific phenomena. Similarly, Engel and Schutt (2014) claimed that purposive sampling targeted individuals who are especially knowledgeable about the issues under investigation. In addition to possessing relevant knowledge, Rubin and Rubin (2005) identified a willingness to participate, as a valuable and practical characteristic.
According to Patton (2002), the logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in its adherence to the principles of selecting information-rich cases, in order to learn in detail about issues of central importance to the research purpose. Typical selection bases include: theoretical constructs from previous studies, conventional practices, researcher intuition, and recommendations of ‘knowledgeable others’ by existing participants. In this study, the selection of the purposeful sampling strategy was determined by a combination of sources, namely: the conceptual framework developed from the literature review; examination of the methodological literature; suggestions from existing participants; and insights from my insider knowledge and experience. To foreshadow the detailed discussion of the categories of participants in the ‘Selecting the Participants and Collecting the Data’ section later in this chapter, a total of 16 participants from three institutions were interviewed in four stages.
The above section demonstrates the interconnections and the consistency in the alignment of the central research question with the research context and the participant selection strategy. The following section identifies issues related to preparing, designing and conducting semi-structured interviews, including suitable interviewer skills, as these aspects were pivotal to the success of the interview method of data collection.