Bracketing 69

Within any phenomenographical study it is very important for the researcher to consider bracketing to ensure that the participant’s view rather than the researcher’s view of the phenomenon is to be understood (Bruce, 1994a; Ashworth & Lucas, 2000). In this respect, Ashworth & Lucas (2000) have argued that if the researcher intentionally brackets their perceptions, experiences and knowledge of

the phenomenon then the potential to understand the participant’s interpretation of the phenomenon is greatly increased. Further the researcher also needs to empathise with the student’s lived experience within the interview context (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000). To illustrate how this may operate in a research context, Ashworth & Lucas (2000) identify certain elements that the researcher must bracket; pre-given theoretical structures or interpretations, previous research findings, the researcher‘s personal knowledge and beliefs, specific research techniques and a desire to explain the cause of certain experience. Central to this bracketing process is the separation between the researcher’s conventions and those of the students. However one must explain that the researcher’s previous knowledge and experience does not have to be completely suppressed. Rather the very fact that I am a practitioner in this field as well as a researcher investigating the phenomenon implies a level of knowledge and experience which would be quantifiably impossible for me to fully suppress. Implicit within this is therefore the notion that my previous experience is utilised in order to foster the emergence of understanding of the student’s lived experience of the phenomenon. Indeed the literature supports this contention as Åkerlind (2002) has argued:

“the more common view is that the greater the researcher‘s knowledge and varied experience of the phenomenon, the better their ability to constitute a logical and meaningful structure to the outcome space”‖ (p. 11).

It therefore follows that through my knowledge and experience, as a university lecturer, experienced in assessment and giving feedback, I can accurately reflect the student’s experiences in the outcome space.

In the present thesis therefore my previous experience within higher education was an important consideration for bracketing. I have worked in higher education for ten years. In this time, I have gained experience of writing and administering feedback. I have also had further experience of students presenting themselves as stressed, emotional and angry. I bracketed knowledge and experience that related

to this aspect of the phenomenon by firstly identifying it and then ensuring that such experience was kept separate from the student’s responses in both the drawing exercise and the interview. Further intentional bracketing relating to assessment and feedback theory alongside that of students emotional processing experiences was also carried out. Although a difficult task to achieve I intentionally remained as impartial as possible towards students’ reporting of their experiences of the phenomenon. This was achieved by directing the focus of the interview at all times towards discussing their experience of the phenomenon and not my own interpretation of their experiences. The key aspect here was therefore not to lead the students towards the same conclusive thoughts that I had previously experienced. However it is important to note here that although my own previous knowledge and experience was appropriately bracketed this was a clear advantage in terms of understanding the phenomenon under discussion and ensuring that I was empathetic towards the students in the data collection. As such I was able to ask the students searching questions in the interview which enabled them to express their experience of the phenomenon in a more in-depth manner.

In the data analysis process bracketing continued in a similar manner. Again I intentionally remained impartial towards students reporting of their experiences of the phenomenon. Within the data analysis bracketing constituted not analysing the data with my previous experiences in mind. Rather meanings were generated from the data and not coupled or combined with my previous experience of the phenomenon. This is perhaps the most difficult element of phenomenography due to the inherent experience of the researcher. I attempted to overcome this by constant checking, through re-reading of the interview transcripts to ensure that the themes that were emerging stayed consistent to the student’s experiences and not those of my own. This approach seems to be congruent with phenomenographic research within the literature (Marton & Booth, 1997; Trigwell, 1994, 2000). However what is clear here, is that although such authors agree that researcher’s experience of the phenomenon helps to ensure that accurate reporting of the students’ experience of the phenomenon occurs, implicit within this is a

suggestion that bracketing can never be fully achieved. In practice during the analysis phases I must concede that bracketing was very difficult to achieve. Due to my experience within the field it was impossible for me to 100% bracket my experience. Human nature decrees that one cannot suppress one’s thoughts feelings and experience all of the time. My involvement and clear vested interest in the PhD process was therefore a dominant cognition. Further, my positionality as a practicing lecturer as well as a researcher also needs to be acknowledged here too.

The outcome space within chapter five depicts the area of analysis which reflects the least amount of bracketing within the thesis. It was impossible for me to fully bracket my knowledge and experience here. Arguably if I had done so then the nuanced student experiences of the phenomenon would not have been so neatly stitched together to depict what was occurring. In this case the purest form of phenomenography was not operationalised; rather I took the decision to adapt the methodological approach in order to present a richer, more holistic representation of the interactional nature of the student’s experiences. In so doing I acknowledge the subjective interpretation I have made, but throughout the thesis I have sought to make the subjective transparent.