D ilem m as in the Field

Inevitably, a study o f this kind involves the researcher in certain decisions and dilem m as during the course o f the study. Some such decisions regarding design and sampling have already been outlined in the previous discussion and this section briefly details som e others that cam e about during the study.

One concerned the am ount o f inform ation provided to colleagues. W hether they should be ‘fully inform ed’ or w hether such full information could ‘contam inate’ the study (Silverman, 2000). A lthough colleagues were told o f the broad research purpose o f the study, i.e. to discover how non-traditional students are seen and whether diversity in the student population influences practice, any fuller account o f the research was avoided in order to minim ise discussion o f the study itself. This broad outline appeared to satisfy colleagues’ interest and they showed no unwillingness to discuss the topic further, know ing o f the research interest.

Another issue concerned the availability o f inform ation. Being in the institution all day inevitably led to conversations being overheard which had relevance to the research topic. Given the potential for m isunderstanding and the lack o f negotiation with those making com m ent it w as decided not to use any data that came from something overheard by chance. This is not to say that no naturally occurring conversations were used. If personally involved in conversation, and thus having the opportunity to explore understanding and the opportunity to inform or remind others o f my research interest, such conversations were seen as appropriate for data collection purposes. For exam ple, during one meeting a manager began an im passioned speech on w idening access. It was quite inappropriate to interrupt and remind everyone o f m y research but I spoke to the individual concerned after the

m eeting, rem inding him o f m y research and the relevance o f his com ments and thus gave him the opportunity to voice any concern. He then elaborated on his previous com m ents w ith the clear understanding that I was researching this area.

In all cases, the identity o f those involved in meetings, discussions and conversations have been safeguarded in the presentation o f findings. This assurance o f anonymity was given in order to m inim ise any concerns that individuals may have held.

6.10 Analysis

In ethnography... y o u learn something ( “collect some d a ta ”), then you try to make sense out o f it ( ‘‘a n a ly sis”), then yo u go hack to see i f the interpretation m akes sense in light o f new experience ( “collect more d a ta ”), then y o u refine yo u r interpretation ( “more analysis”) and so on. The process is dialectic, not linear. (Agar, 1980:9)

The general process described by A gar was followed insofar as analytic notes were made on docum ents and field notes throughout the study to allow progressive focusing and help direct further inquiry. In this sense, analysis was something that took place throughout the study and was not a separate self-contained phase. This involved using the key research questions (see page 69) as a framework together with a provisional, broad set o f categories concerning these questions, drawn from the literature, to analyse the selected docum ents and observations. However, when the total primary record w as assem bled and final interviews completed, an analysis that explicitly drew on the theoretical fram eworks discussed in Chapter 4 was undertaken.

To reiterate, the study w as principally concerned to explore the ways in which non- traditional students, and the prom otion o f their participation in higher education, was conceived by lecturers and m anagers within the context o f a post-92 university setting. The key research questions revolved around the way non-traditional students

were understood, the challenges and constraint on managing a more diverse student population, the perceived integration and perceived needs o f non-traditional students and any actions taken or proposed in relation to these.

Initially docum ents and field notes were repeatedly read in relation to these questions in order to identify key them es. This reading and categorising was done manually. Consideration w as given to using Com puter-Assisted Qualitative Data A nalysis (CAQDAS) to aid the coding process as I was already very fam iliar with one application (N U D .IST) and also had some acquaintance with ATLASti. However I decided to sift and code m anually on this occasion in order to rem ain close to the data and to avoid getting seduced by the technical proficiency o f such systems, which although delivering some efficiencies I felt could lead to valuable tim e being spent on technicalities not directly related to the study.

There were some additional questions asked o f the docum ents studied, namely, how were they authored, transm itted and received, w hat was their intended purpose and who was their intended audience? K eeping these questions to the forefront o f my mind whilst reading the docum ents allow ed the analysis to take full account o f the social context in w hich the docum ents w ere produced and conveyed.

Using the research question fram e the identification o f themes in individual docum ents and field-notes later led to the identification o f patterns across documents field-notes and interview transcriptions. These were considered in relation to the theoretical standpoints outlined and this analysis is presented in Chapter 7 which also provides a description o f the case-study institution. Throughout this discussion the case study institution is referred to as Tnter-U ’.