Chapter 4 : Research Design and Methods
4.4 Procedures for data collection, management and analysis
4.4.4 Case-centred analysis
The interview process allowed participants to reflect on, interpret and tell stories to exemplify the diversity and individuality of the ROSETE experience. As a method of condensing and highlighting, the data collected from individuals were extracted from transcripts, and cleaned to eliminate repetition. In the data cleaning process, inaccuracies of English grammar were retained to preserve the authenticity of the language use. The sequence and flow were then rechecked against the original transcript to ensure the integrity of data. These ‘condensed data profiles’ were organised using structural codes as sub-headings and provided extended excerpts of language from each participant’s interview responses. By way of illustrationAppendix 8 includes Guang’s condensed data profile (R2).
Ongoing consideration of individuals’ condensed data profiles inspired a deeper level of analysis that focused on the language individual participants used to interpret and describe their experiences. Participants’ language provided the data for this case- centred analysis, which complemented and extended on the category-centred method described in Section 4.4.3. Data for case-centred analysis were selected to illustrate the variety of I-positions enacted by individuals, the nature of their experiences and the insights the excerpts of data provided into participants’ experiences of teacher identity construction. Consideration was also given to selecting excerpts of data from different ROSETE cohorts and excerpts which provided a sufficient level of detail to enable a depth of analysis.
Themes emerging from data categories were exemplified and deeper insights into individuals’ interpretations of their experience of teacher identity were obtained. These insights contributed to a richer understanding of the collective ROSETE experience and the potential of the Model to effect identity change. The analysis of ROSETE participants’ language use was informed by Gee’s (2011, 2014a) guidance on discourse analysis, the application of which is elaborated in the following
Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology
106 discussion.
Discourse analysis
Before discussing the interpretation and use of discourse analysis in this study, it is important to briefly acknowledge the various interpretations of, and approaches to, discourse analysis used in the literature, as influenced by the theoretical positions of the users. Within linguistics, discourse analysis may refer to the analysis of language use in an extended segment of text beyond the sentence level, or the context of occurrence of a certain utterance, for example the discourse of religion. Social psychologists and Critical Discourse analysts combine linguistics and cultural theory, and focus on how power relations shape texts and utterances, resulting in, for example, discourses of racism (Mills, 2004). Paltridge (2012) argues that linguistic and social orientations to discourse analysis are not incompatible as segments of language “studied under a textually oriented view of discourse are still socially situated and need to be interpreted in terms of their social meanings and functions” (p. 6). Paltridge (2012) summarises discourse analysis broadly as the examination of:
… patterns of language across texts and the relationship between language and the social and cultural contexts in which it is used. Discourse analysis also considers the ways that language presents different views of the world and different understandings. It examines how the use of language is influenced by relationships between participants as well as the effects the use of language has upon social identities and relations. It also considers how views of the world, and identities, are constructed through the use of discourse. (p. 2)
The role of language in constructing and construing social and cultural realities and identities is emphasised by Gee (2011, 2014b). Gee describes discourse analysis as the study of language-in-use and defines discourse (with a lower case d) as “stretches of language” (Gee, 2011, p. 34). In contrast, Gee defines Discourse (with an upper case D) as a distinctive way of using language “coupled with distinctive ways of acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, dressing, thinking and believing” (Gee, 2014a, p. 183). Gee’s (2011, 2014a) convention in the use of lower case d and upper case D were employed in this studyto distinguish between discourse and Discourses referred to in later chapters.
Further discussion of the interpretation and use of discourse analysis in this study needs to be framed within a broader discussion of the interconnected informative,
Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology
107 performative and identity functions of language-in-use. Through language humans enact certain socially recognised practices and engage in, and recognise, different identity positions. A particular segment of language enables the speaker/writer to simultaneously ‘say’ (provide information), ‘do’ (perform an action) and ‘be’ (enact an identity position) (Gee, 2011). For example, ‘Today we are going to start new work on reptiles’, spoken by a teacher to a class in a primary school, simultaneously serves the interconnected functions of informing the class they are going to learn about reptiles, commencing a new unit within the teacher’s program and enacting the identity of a teacher. Concurrently this segment of language enables the speaker to engage in instruction, the socially recognised practice of a teacher. The same segment of language spoken in a different context, such as a veterinary clinic in a zoo, would have different informative, performative and identity functions. As illustrated in this example, the social contexts within which language is produced are key to using and understanding language-in-use.
In this study, the social contexts of participants’ language production are the research interview and the ROSETE Model, with an emphasis on the school experience component. Gee refers to the reflexivity between language and context: “language simultaneously reflects context (what is out there in the world) and constructs (construes) it to be a certain way” (Gee, 2011, p. 101). Considering language-in-use within social contexts gives rise to what Gee refers to as “building tasks”, areas of reality which language “builds” or enacts in the world. Gee identifies these areas as: significance, practices, identities, relationships, politics, connections, and sign systems and knowledge (Gee, 2011, pp. 17-19). Applied to the previous example of a teacher’s language, one could say that the teacher is using language to build the significance of reptiles in the students’ future class work, her instructional relationship with students and her identity as a teacher.
By following Gee’s (2014a) guidance in discourse analysis, the researcher was able to gain deeper insight into participants’ identities, as enacted through their language, and to consider these within the broader lens of teacher identity. Consistent with this purpose, the focus of analysis was on four areas of reality, namely identities, relationships, practices and significance.
Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology
108 Gee offers 28 “tools of inquiry” which can be used to reflect on the operation of areas of reality within specific stretches of language (Gee, 2011, p. 28), of which 11 informed the analysis of ROSETE participants’ discourse in this study. Appendix 9 provides an explanation of these 11 tools of inquiry from Gee’s (2014a) repertoire, and includes illustration of each tool using excerpts from interview data. The focus areas of reality enacted through language and their relevance to this case study are summarised in Table 4.4.4.
Table 4.4.4 Areas of reality and relevance to this study Areas of reality
enacted through language
Relevance to this case study
Identities: use of language to position oneself and be recognised as a particular identity.
As the object of this study was ROSETE participants’ experience of teacher identity, the identities enacted through participants’ language use were a central focus of analysis.
Relationships: use of language to signal the kinds of relationships one has or wants to have with the listener and others about whom one is communicating.
Research outlined in Chapter 3 indicates that supportive relationships are influential in teachers’ experiences of professional identity. Relationships are also of interest due to particular contexts within which language use is set. Consideration of the ROSETE Model as a context gave rise to the analysis of relationships with teachers, mentors, supervisors and peers, and how these influenced participants’ construction and enactment of teacher identity. The research interview as context gave rise to the analysis of the influence of institutional allegiances or researcher effect on relationships.
Practices: use of language to enact socially recognised, institutionally or culturally supported activities in specific ways.
Analysis of social, institutional and cultural practices enacted through ROSETE participants’ language provided insight into the interrelationship between practices and identities. Significance: use of language to communicate the significance or changing significance of things.
Like relationships and practices, analysis of significance related to participants’ experience of teacher identity. Specifically, their enactment of significance related to their interpretation of their development as beginning teachers and the influence of background knowledge skills and experiences in the decision to apply for the Ningbo Student Volunteer Program.
Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology
109 Thus, discourse analysis, a case-centred method, enabled in-depth interrogation of participants’ language-in-use. This approach complemented and illuminated the themes identified through category-centred methods of coding and the identification of categories and themes in the interview data.
4.5 Conclusion
This chapter presents an in-depth discussion of the research design and methods used in this study. Underpinned by an interpretivist paradigm, the design frame constituted a local knowledge case study of ROSETE, the subject or case. The object or analytical lens for the study was teacher identity, as interpreted in the experience of 15 ROSETE participants. The challenges and threats to reliability and validity of case study design were discussed and a claim made for the strength of this study in its depth of examination of individual experience. Discussion of participants and recruitment processes included acknowledgement of the researcher as an embodied participant with shared knowledge and understanding illuminated in interview transcripts. This aspect, and the particularity of the ROSETE case, highlighted considerations of research ethics. In the latter sections of this chapter data collection through semi- structured interviews, and data analysis drawing on category-centred and case-centred approaches were explained and justified.
The next chapter presents an analysis of data relating to the identity positions enacted in ROSETE participants’ discourse.
110
Chapter 5: Transitional Identities: ROSETE Participants’
Experience of Teacher Identity Enacted Through Discourse
5.0 Introduction
This, the first of three evidentiary chapters, presents an analysis of data to answer the contributory research question: What I-positions were enacted in ROSETE participants’ discourse? The chapter is organised in three sections. The first section, 5.1, presents an overview of the organisation of data analysis and describes characteristics of respondents. Section 5.2 presents case-centred analyses of extracts from interview transcripts, informed by discourse analysis and Dialogical Self Theory (DST) (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). The selection of data in this section illustrates the variety of I-positions experienced by individuals and the depth of individual experience. Section 5.3 presents category-centred analysis of data from all 15 participants in order to examine evidence and counter evidence of participants’ enactment of teacher identity, in relation to research on teacher identity. The conclusion provides a summary of the argument presented in this chapter and links it to the following chapter.
5.1 Overview of data analysis and characteristics of participants
This section provides an overview of the methods and theories which informed data analysis and summarises relevant attributes about the respondents. The purpose of this section is to briefly describe, explain and justify the systematic and careful application of the research methods.5.1.1 Organisation of data analysis
In this study, category-centred and case-centred methods were used to analyse data (Chapter 4, Section 4.4.2). The research question, which this chapter seeks to answer (see introduction above) was not an explicit focus of data collection but emerged and was consolidated through data analysis. Category-centred analysis identified self- development as a category and teacher identity as a theme in the data. Thus, teacher