The approach to the analysis of data

It was clear that the Facet Methodology approach would generate a considerable quantity of data in a variety of formats, reflecting my epistemological assumptions that new knowledge could be generated from multi-dimensional data collected through interactions in complex social situations (James 2013). As Mason (2011) recommends, I used different modes of analysis in response to the lines of investigation both in and between facets which had involved interrogation along the question-driven and insight-driven routes across and between the facets. This necessitated the selection of particular comments and incidents to illuminate aspects of the phenomenon under consideration, reflecting its multi-dimensional nature, retaining the complexity and yet providing clear threads of thinking for my arguments.

4.5.1 Critical Discourse Analysis

Given that the over-riding approach of the study is critical theory (as indicated on p23), I used critical discourse analysis in the generation and analysis of the data. I considered who was saying/writing what, what their authority was and the intended audience (Punch, 2009). I looked to see which discourses about international study visits were emerging in different contexts, in what ways they might be related to each other and how they were being operationalised (Fairclough, 2005), for example, in the pedagogy

123

of the visits themselves. I also sought to identify the interrelationships between the different accounts that I was hearing and to explore why some discourses were being privileged and taken for granted while others were being marginalised (Bryman 2012).This exploration was located in a critique of the neoliberal agenda within Higher Education, considering how this enables or limits opportunities for students

(Fairclough 2013). I consciously looked for what was not being said, listening to silences and identifying avoidances, as what is said can be a way of not saying something else (Billig 1991).

With this critical stance, I examined the discourses in relation to the social structures in which they were formed, with an awareness of how they were being shaped by

cultural, political, economic, social and personal realities (Gee et al 1992). I recognised my own position in this process. My own understandings of the views of others about international study visits are inevitably filtered through my own views. These are essential to my understanding but at the same time may be a source of potential bias (Hammersley 2013). The other element of critical discourse analysis, that of looking for possibilities for alternative approaches and even transformations (Fairclough 2013), is also relevant to this research project. A criticism of researchers using critical discourse analysis is that they rarely acknowledge that texts can be interpreted in different ways by different audiences (Widdowson 1995). I had to be constantly mindful that my arguments were partial, coming as they did from my viewpoints and understandings, but I endeavoured to undertake a critical questioning of these as well as the discourses I encountered. Throughout these processes I used ‘critical’ in the sense given by Paulo Friere - being critical of the status quo in order to promote change (Breeze 2011)

124

rather than undertaking a critique for its own sake. This is my justification for offering in Appendix 7 specific recommendations for improving approaches to international study visits.

In line with Bazely (2013) I decided to use NVivo for the initial content analysis and coding of the data from the University documentation, tutor interview transcripts and student questionnaires in order to identify links and patterns between them. From my Review of Literature I had gained some ideas for the nodes to use for analysis, such as the perceived benefits of participating in an international study visit, and using NVivo I was able to identify these from the perspectives of the University, the Faculty, the School and the students themselves. As Cohen et al. (2011) suggest, having done so I could refine any node and break it down into sub-categories, such as personal and professional benefits, to look for patterns in the discourses. I followed Richards’ (2009) advice to keep in mind three key questions while I was coding: what is interesting; why is it interesting and why am I interested in that? These helped me to take the coding to a more conceptual level (Bazely 2013) and also ensured that I maintained a clear focus on my research questions.

NVivo was a useful tool, both in revealing insights into the particular facets that I was investigating and in shedding light onto other facets. As Seale (2010) acknowledges, such a counting and coding method was helpful in quickly coding the large amount of data I had generated in different formats and in identifying links and patterns across them. It enabled a fine-grained, line-by-line analysis (Punch 2009) and helped the reliability of the analysis in the way that it retrieved all the data without losing the

125

contextual factors (Cohen et al. 2011). The speed of coding enabled me to analyse data as I gathered it at different times and through different methods, and this was valuable within a Facet Methodology since it often quickly alerted me to new areas or new questions worthy of investigation, allowing an iterative process.

But coding is first and foremost a thinking process and there is danger of an over- mechanistic use of NVivo (Bazely 2013). It can lead one into coding and patterning at the expense of a more complex interrogation of the texts; important contextual data can be stripped away, and limited conclusions drawn, if the data are just assembled by the nodes and coding process (Cohen et al. 2011). It became clear that I should

supplement initial NVivo coding with further analysis. The assigning of meaning, the identification of subtler similarities and patterns and the establishing of the

relationships between different facets had to be morea manual exercise. Given my methodological and epistemological stance, it was vital to consider the stories that people told; how they made sense of and constructed their experiences in a social context as part of their identity portrayal and their sense of agency. I therefore read and reread the interviews and transcripts, and listened again to the audio tapes, making notes on a writing frame (Appendix 2.11) to give consistency to my analysis. This process involved a double hermeneutic as I tried to make sense of the participants making sense of what was happening by considering the purposes they served for the narrator (Bazely 2013). I also considered the cultural influences underlying any

assumptions and generalisations that underpinned the discourses and interactions between the participants, as well as trying to identify any things not said that I had

126

anticipated would be, something impossible in NVivo. All this led to a much more detailed and richer thematic analysis.

At times I gained insights from relatively few fragments, but as James (2013) notes, this can be confirmation of the theoretical and epistemological illumination that Facet Methodology offers. I had to be mindful neither to give too much emphasis to

fragments that particularly intrigued me nor to arbitrarily discard fragments that did not seem to contribute to the coherence of my argument. However, the data presented are inevitably partial and subjective. I do not aim to provide a comprehensive overview through my analysis, but to offer insights into this

127