Data analysis

Just as the data collection took place in two stages, so did the data analysis. This inductive approach was necessitated by the logistics of my previous employment for TESSA and

subsequent PhD studentship ± as chapter 2 showed, a focus on capabilities emerged as a response to the initial data and literature review. However, analysis in both stages followed &KDVH¶V  JXLGHOLQHV IRU WKHPDWLFDOO\ FRGLQJ QDUUDWLYH GDWD , DOVR XVHG WKHVH techniques with the documents, field-notes, focus group transcripts and questionnaire responses ± treating these as narratives too. For the first stage I had no specific agenda against which the coding was aligned ± I was simply looking for emerging themes. In the second stage I returned to all of the data and re-coded it, focusing on values, agency, choices and achievements. These themes related to the evolving research questions and reflected how the capability approach was beginning to frame the study.

$VZHOODVZULWLQJLQIRUPDOµPHPRV¶LQWKHPDUJLQVRIGRFXPHQWVLQWHUYLHZWUDQVFULSWVDQG field-notes (Robson, 2002:478), I found wULWLQJµLQWHUSUHWDWLYHFRPPHQWV¶DV,DQDO\VHGWKH data particularly helpful (Chase 2003:80). Chase suggests, at each natural stopping point in the transcript, writing a paragraph aERXW µZKDW LV JRLQJ RQ¶ S XVLQJ the following questions as a guide:

x What is this person communicating?

x How does the interaction between you and the interviewee facilitate or hinder the story?

x What do you think is important or particularly interesting about this passage? x What social factors help you to understand what is going on here?

The themes, supported by these paragraphs formed the basis of categorising the data (Blaxter et al, 2006:210).

Through the analysis I tried to ally myself with the research participants DQGµVHHWKHZRUOG from [their] SDUWLFXODU SHUVSHFWLYH¶ (McVicker Clinchy 2003:32). The additional data from the field-notes assisted this. TKLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ ZDV µSULPDULO\ SHUVRQDO DQG HPSDWKHWLF rather than impersonal and detached¶ 7KLV SRVLWLRQ DOVR KHOSHG WR PLWLJDWH LVVXHV WKDW Holliday (2007) suggests can arise in qualitative research when verbatim data is awarded unquestionably high status. He argues that verbatim data ± like all data ± must be µPDQDJHGIRULWVVXEMHFWLYLW\¶S&RQWH[WXDOLVLQJWKHWHDFKHUV¶QDUUDWLYHV, and those in the official documents, by interpreting them in the personal, social and environmental contexts from which they were derived ± and my own interpretations of these contexts ± contributed towards this management. The themes were expanded into extended pieces of writing about what the documents and the teachers presented as valued functionings in WHDFKHUV¶ZRUN

Descriptions of what was valued helped answer the first two research questions and contributed much of the text for chapters 4 and 5. However, in order to position the data within a capabilities framework it was also important to extrapolate from these values lists of capabilities and functionings that represented each of the perspectives. By drawing on the perspectives of the literature, policy documents and participants the study was LQIRUPHG E\ 5REH\Q¶V SURFHGXUDO DSSURDFK WR selecting capabilities (2005), but more specifically by Alkire (2008:2) who proposes five methods oI GHFLGLQJ µZKDW PDWWHUV¶ in selecting functionings and capabilities. This study draws on her fifth suggestion of VHOHFWLQJ GLPHQVLRQV EDVHG RQ HPSLULFDO VWXGLHV RI SHRSOH¶V YDOXHV RU EHKDYLRXUV46_{, or}

more specifically, on the narratives of the documents, the narratives and actions of the teachers and the values discussed and agreed upon in the focus groups. In deciding which

46 _{The other four methods are: draw on existing data; make assumptions ± perhaps based on a theory; draw}

on an existing list that was generated by consensus; use an ongoing deliberative participatory process (Alkire, 2008).

values to include I drew on Walker (2006): a valued aspect of teaching was counted as a functioning if at least one person identified it and if it was considered important by the majority.

In total three lists were generated. From the documents and the interviews with the education officials a list of official functionings was constructed and these were clustered into capabilities that represented substantive freedoms related to the work of teachers. The official capability of µUHVSHFW¶IRUH[DPSOHUHSUHVHQWV(among other functionings) the anticipated freedom of teachers to be treated as dignified professionals. From the tHDFKHUV¶QDUUDWLYHVDQGDFWLRQVindividual lists of valued functionings were drawn up for each teacher47_{. By combining these individual lists with the data from field-notes,}

questionnaires and focus groups (therefore taking into consideration the views of a wider cohort of teachers) a teacher-generated list of functionings was constructed. As with the official functionings the teacher-generated functionings were grouped into capabilities through a process of exhaustion and non-reduction until no functionings were left out (Robeyns, 2005b). No ranking or weighting of capabilities was attempted (Walker, 2006).

A different type of analysis was necessary to answer the third research question which focuses on the extent to which the teachers are able to pursue and achieve functionings within the different lists of capabilities generated by the two perspectives. For each list ± the individual lists, the teacher-generated list and the official list ± professional capability was determined. To facilitate this, a method for determining HDFKWHDFKHU¶VFDSDELOLW\ZDV established.

47 _{While these conform to what Sen (2009) might call subjective accounts and therefore not sufficient grounds}

on which to conduct an analysis of capability, it was decided that they were an important empirical starting SRLQWIURPZKLFKWRXQGHUVWDQGWHDFKHUV¶YDOXHVPRUHJHQHUDOO\

The method was inspired by Anand et al (2009) who ± in a quantitative analysis of capabilities among 1000 people in the UK - extrapolated a list of questions and indicators IURP1XVVEDXP¶VOLVWRIKXPDQFDSDELOLWLHV,Qmy study questions were developed that mapped on to the list of teacher functionings that made up each list of professional capabilities. Two sets of questions, extrapolated from the official and teacher-generated lists of capabilities, were then µDVNHG RI¶ WKH TXDOLWDWLYH data. The first set (QA) was designed to determine agency freedom (the ability to pursue each functioning) and the second set (QC) was designed to determine the achievement of these functionings. An example is presented in table 3.3:

Official Capability (OC)

Functionings (F)

Questions for data ± agency

(QA)

Questions for data ± achievement

(QC)

1.Recognition Achieve the minimum qualification for teaching

Can they achieve the minimum qualification for teaching?

Have they achieved the minimum qualification for teaching?

Register as a

WHDFKHUDQG« Can they register as teachers? Have they registered as teachers?

«PDLQWDLQ registered status.

Can they maintain their registration?

Have they maintained their registration?

Table 3.3 Extract from the list of official capabilities

The total number of functionings for each capability (x) corresponds to x number of questions for agency and achievement.

OCa = Fx = QAx = QCx

For example, three functionings (F3) make up the official capability of recognition (OC1):

ii. Register as a teacher iii. Maintain registered status

These three functionings correspond to three questions (QA3) asked of the data to determine WHDFKHUV¶agency freedom in respect of this capability:

i. Can they achieve the minimum qualification for teaching?

ii. Can they officially register as teachers? iii. Can they maintain their registered status?

The three functionings also correspond to three questions (QC3) asked of the data to determine WHDFKHUV¶ agency achievement.

i. Have they achieved the minimum qualification for teaching?

ii. Have they officially registered as teachers? iii. Have they maintained their registered status?

Therefore:

OC1 = F3 = QA3 = QC3

The questions relating to agency (QA) were GHOLEHUDWHO\SKUDVHGDVµFDQWKHWHDFKHU«"¶ to emphasise that the capability approach is interested in the freedom to achieve functionings, as well as in these achieved functionings. Focussing solely on achieved IXQFWLRQLQJVµGRHVQRWQHFHVVDULO\LQFRUSRUDWHWKHIUHHGRPto decide which path to take or the freedom to bring about achievements one considers to bHYDOXDEOH¶$ONLUH

Considered in the answers to each question about agency was whether or not the teacher understands that this is a functioning that is expected of them. If, for example, they do not realise that they are supposed to be well-versed in the national constitution (a functioning within the capability of loyalty) it is argued that they do not have the freedom to pursue it.

This study is interested in what teachers do, but also why they do what they do. The questions about achievement (QC), therefore, sought to determine whether or not the teachers choose to pursue and achieve the functionings. If a teacher can pursue a certain IXQFWLRQLQJ EXW GRHVQ¶W WKH VSDFH EHWZHHQ DJHQF\ DQG DFKLHYHPHQW LV ZKHUH WHDFKHUV¶ choices can be explored and better understood. Clearly if the answer to the agency TXHVWLRQ 4$ LV µQR¶ WKHQ WKH WHDFKHU GRHV QRW KDYH WKH IUHHGRP WR SXUVXH WKDW functioning and responsibility for the resultant limitation on their capability set lies outside their control; there is no point asking QC and the area for exploration is the space between the functioning and agency ± i.e. what prohibits the pursuit of this functioning.

In the analysis, answers to the questions were deliberately limLWHGWRµ\HV¶RUµQR¶)RUHDFK µ\HV¶WKHWHDFKHUwas DOORFDWHGSRLQWIRUHDFKµQR¶WKHWHDFKHUwas allocated 0 points. A µJUH\ DUHD¶ FROXPQ ZDV LQFOXGHG for when it was not possible to ascertain a definite answer, for example when there was insufficient data to answer the question or when it was too difficult to distinguish between freedom and choice. The scores are expanded upon in detail but were designed to serve as a preliminary way of making visible each tHDFKHU¶VRYHUDOOprofessional capability.