82 frequency at which words are used by making the most frequent words appear larger than the others (wordle.net, 2013). Here is an example from the pilot study:
Figure 5- Pilot Study Wordle.
Sadly, in spite of this work, during the actual study the reflective stories proved difficult to obtain and consequently to analyse. Interestingly, the staff at the Catalan settings returned theirs promptly and gave well-considered answers, seeming to reflect on the implications of the incidents they described. The English practitioners, however, appeared disinclined to fill these in Setting A only produced one out of ten, in spite of the best efforts of this researcher, and Setting B fared slightly better in producing three out of six. The content of these English documents varied hugely - from one sentence to three pages - a phenomenon that did not appear to correlate to training and experience levels, thus suggesting disinclination on the part of several of the respondents once again.
Perhaps this disinclination is cultural: there is a well-documented dislike of bureaucracy in the United Kingdom (Williams, 1983) that is manifested in the revised EYFS which insists that 'Paperwork should be limited to that which is absolutely necessary to promote children’s successful learning and development.' (DfE, 2012a: 10). It is possible that this particular task was rather too close to paperwork for the English participants or maybe my status as a foreigner in Catalonia played upon the national character as a terra d’acolliment (land of welcome) (Eaude, 2007), improving response rates. Whatever the reasons for this difference might be, it was decided that these reflective stories could not be considered a valid method as they had not fully achieved their aims (Robson, 1993), therefore they were removed from
83 the presentation and discussion of the final results. For curiosity, typed copies of the stories and their Wordle™ forms may be found in Appendices E and F.
The separation between my own expectations and what actually happened during the implementation of the methods during the pilot study was a recurring issue. The tours varied greatly from child to child, from how they communicated, to the length of the tours and the extent of the setting that was covered. The fieldwork for the pilot study and the analysis of its findings was a salutary lesson in focusing on what was actually happening as opposed to what it had been imagined would happen. Using the methods based on Clark & Moss’s (2001) Mosaic Approach required a real change in mindset in order to truly listen to children. What I might construe as the tour not being conducted properly according to my parameters was in fact a strong message from the child regarding their interests, feelings and engagement. The complexities of the content supplied by both tours and map-making also led to the resolution to keep clear notes about each activity to reinforce the recorded material. The sheer amount of data that were produced by these methods also led to a revision in the proposed number of settings that would be visited. These were all valuable lessons that contributed to both the execution of the methods, but also the organization and analysis of the data collected.
Analysing the full range of data outlined in this section naturally required different approaches according to the method, as has already been touched on. While varied methods and their consequent approaches to analysis are quite standard for research projects that are largely qualitative in nature (Bazeley, 2013), it was important that though the data should draw out the separate elements of the story, it should also be able to form a coherent whole. If it is an aim of narrative research to provide a 'nuanced view of reality' (Bathmaker, 2010) then it is important to take in the whole of said reality, as opposed to focusing purely on the nuances within it. Indeed, Bazeley (2013) highlights that concerns may be raised about methodological approaches that are more catholic in their choice of methods regarding their structural integrity and firmly suggests that it is vital to draw connections between the data sets just as much as to explore, code and refine each area. Consequently, an overarching analytic strategy for this study would need to be provided. So how might this be accomplished within the complex framework of this project? It has been suggested that such a process requires a simultaneous consideration of both the individual aims of each set alongside the over-arching aims of the project (Bazeley, 2013). This particular project generated four research questions at the end of the previous chapter, which could be used as themes to link the different data sets together:
84 - What are the two national cultural perspectives regarding creativity in education? - What are the prevailing policy approaches to early years education and creativity in
each country?
- How do these cultural and policy approaches translate to impact on the fostering of creativity in the early years setting?
- What degrees of difference are there in the actual fostering of creativity in early years settings between the two countries?
Consequently, a version of Bazeley's (2013) Describe, Compare, Relate sequence for analytic writing could be used for each method: describing the results, comparing the results from each country and then relating them to these research questions. By following this strategy, it should be apparent how each element of the story addresses the research questions whilst enabling conclusions to be clearly drawn.
Figure 6 - Overarching analytic strategy.
This section has enumerated the methods that were used to explore each layer of the
ecosystem in order to unpick the narrative around the cultivation of creativity within the early years: documentary analysis, interviews, observations, walking tours and map-making. While the diagram above clearly delineates what methods will be used to address each layer of the ecosystem and how they will be analysed, it is important to remember that an ecosystem is a model of interconnectivity, therefore there will be a degree of crossover in the types of data
Chronosystem Documentary Analysis Grounded Theory
Describe, Compare, Relate
Macrosystem Documentary Analysis Grounded Theory Compare, Describe, Relate
Exosystem Documentary Analysis Grounded Theory Compare, Describe, Relate
Mesosystem Documentary Analysis Grounded Theory
Describe, Compare, Relate
Microsystem Observations Interviews &
Thematic Content Analysis Describe, Compare, Relate
Individual Tours & Map-Walking making Thematic Content Analysis Describe, Compare, Relate
85 that apply to each layer. This means that it may be necessary to bring in data from the
interviews to corroborate information in the exosystem, for example.
This section will conclude with a final word on subjectivity. It is important to recognise that just as the narrative is said to be constructed in collaboration along with the researcher
(Bathmaker, 2010), analysis of qualitative data often bears the fingerprints of the researcher's own experiences too (Bazeley, 2013). Accordingly, it must be acknowledged that data are not only likely to have been collected via my own subjective filter, but also to have been analysed correspondingly: other researchers may not read things in quite the same way. This, however, is the nature of stories: they are unavoidably shaped by their author. All this project can aim to do is to present the narrative, acknowledge my role as author and invite a critical reading of said story.