Gathering my Data
Semi-structured Interviews with Students
Although the approach to this research has evolved since the original intention of using phenomenography, the data collection method of semi-structured interviews indicated in phenomenographic literature has been implemented. Whilst interviews are utilised frequently in the qualitative paradigm, the instructions provided in terms of conducting a phenomenographic interview have specifically been referred to. Booth (1997) suggests that the phenomenographic interview should be deep with no particular structure. His reference to ‘deep’ requires that the interview continue along one line of enquiry until it is exhausted and whilst there may be an interview schedule, the intention is that it is flexible enough to encourage the participant to narrate their own story in their own way. Orgill (2007) indicates that the interview should continue along one particular line of enquiry whilst the participant continues to reflect about his experiences. Once the researcher and the participant feel they have come to a mutual understanding of the experience of the participant they can move on. The interviewer, meanwhile, must not attempt to judge the answers to be right or wrong, but should allow the participant to express himself or herself clearly and as fully as possible (Sjostrom and Dahlgren, 2002). The intention is not to understand the phenomenon itself, but to understand the participant’s individual insight into the phenomenon (Hasselgren & Beach, 1997).
I chose to use a conversational approach during the interviews, although I did have a formalised interview schedule with questions that required answers in order to elicit information to formalise the research outcomes. The conversation I attempted to initiate with the research participants was in an effort to allow the participant to provide an illustration of their personal experience and provide space to elaborate on their answers. If I perceived that there was a need to include further questions that would prompt the participant in providing a fuller explanation of their experience, I did so. At times this worked well, allowing me to gather a full and rich narrative of their story, but at other times, participants were reluctant to elaborate further.
My attempts at conversational interviews was a strategy to widen the discussion to include personal experiences and elicit information in a wider context than the original questions and answers would yield. If I attempt to relate this to the bricolage approach, Berry (2006:p.106) suggests that: - ‘Bricoleurs frame their questions not just to evoke conversation but to push the topic under scrutiny beyond the immediate context and link the responses to other contexts which visibly or invisibly shaped or influenced the interviewee’s knowledge, beliefs and actions.’
Ashworth and Lucas (1998) discuss the need for bracketing or the époché, which Husserl (1991) posits as the ability to set aside research theories, preconceptions and ready-made interpretations of data in order that the real-life lived experience is revealed. Ashworth and Lucas (1998) debate that it is imperative that effort is made by the researcher to bracket earlier research experience, theories and findings although they simultaneously recognise that often such experience becomes part of the ‘researcher’s taken for granted world’ (p.420). A failure to bracket off one’s own experience may result in the participant’s data being veiled by the researcher’s attention to previously acquired knowledge. It seems there is a tension between knowing the prior literature in the area of research and potential problems this may create for the researcher when conducting, interpreting and analysing the research.
However, whilst the use of bracketing is deemed necessary in both phenomenographic and phenomenological research approaches, the bricolage approach suggests that the researcher’s experience and prior knowledge inform the research process, and that the researcher should demonstrate reflexivity when discussing their own position within the research in the thesis. This has been a difficult process for me, in terms of my own training as a homeopath. The homeopath is trained to become an ‘unprejudiced observer’ (Hahnemann, 1999), and as such must bracket off all their prior experience of conditions and diseases, as well as any patient’s experiences which are recounted which may seem synchronous with their own experiences. Although reflection and reflexivity are also widely utilised in the homeopathic profession, the actual act of ‘positioning’ myself within the research and acknowledging that the
difficult and at times uncomfortable. I was completely unaware of the associated labels of being a mature, first generation student. Whilst this label is unavoidable in educational terms, I still resist it being attributed to me, as I have always thought of my educational experiences as merely a part of my personal life journey, rather than something to be categorised.
Semi-Structured Interviews with Staff Members
This research also included interviews with staff participants from programmes on which I teach as a fractional lecturer. Similar to when I was conducting student participant interviews, I was conscious of the impact of my experience of teaching at this establishment. Initially I conducted the interviews with a carefully constructed schedule. However, during transcription, an obvious omission in the data provided by staff participants became evident in terms of their own educational experiences and how that may impact on their provision of academic and pastoral support to the students. This omission was not immediately apparent but developed within my consciousness over a period of weeks. I began to reflect on how the student participant stories had provided insight into how my education had impacted on the direction of this doctoral research. An increasing focus had been placed on the subjectivity of me, the qualitative researcher, and the importance of ‘who I am, who I have been, who I think I am, and how I feel affect data collection and analysis’ (Pillow, 2003: p.176). Perhaps, I thought, the staff participants’ own education could have some influence on how they viewed the needs of the students, and if this was so, could there be any correlation between the amount or type of support they provided the students with and whether they understood the potential academic needs of the ‘non-traditional’ student. Pillow (2003) suggests that being reflexive ‘becomes important to demonstrate one’s awareness of the research problematics and is often used to potentially validate and legitimize the research precisely by raising questions about the research process’ (p. 179). The outcome of this was a revision of the interview schedule, and a further interview with those staff participants who had impacted on my thought processes in order to request information regarding their own educational journey.
Documentary Analysis
Documentary analysis sought to provide the perspective of the institution and how they view and potentially support students labelled as ‘non-traditional’. Documents which were analysed included the College Access Agreement (16/17), Teaching, Learning and Assessment Strategy (2015-2016), and the Single Equality Policy (2014- 2017).