Data collection and analysis: advantages and limitations

Advantages

The data was taken from most of the cohort of CCTs based at one CPTC and of all mentors recruited by VSO on behalf of UNICEF. Using data analysis software allowed for early preliminary analysis of responses. Moving from the software to manual methods of organising the data meant that the early close focus on the detail of the data was retained and drawn upon. When I decided to recode against Dawson’s framework (2014; 2010) it was practical to draw on the already uploaded and saved data. Collecting the data over eighteen months was a strength. It increased the participation levels. I could review interview data over a longer term keeping in mind the changing context over the period which might have affected participants’

reactions. Being able to observe participants in action while carrying out my role in the placement provided an addition to the contextual richness of the dataset.

As the impetus for the research had been my confusion in being identified as a mentor, a title and role that I would not have given myself nor have claimed, I was not

confident that the job that I would do in the placement would be good enough. I believed that I had taken a risk in deciding to include this group of CCTs in the dataset because I was not to know in advance whether their data would make clear the weaknesses in my work within the initiative. In practice, I found that data analysis of CCTs’ responses presented a different challenge due to the high number of positive comments about my work. I aimed to work with the CCTs’ data as objectively as I could. In the absence of other mentors CCT cohorts, it may be that the CCTs’

123 | P a g e

comments from my placement might be non-representative of CCTs overall, but they are nearly the full cohort from my college and sit well in the context of a case study of aspects of an initiative.

Limitations

The data sets were extensive and required a good amount of winnowing. This presented the possibility of focussing on the volume of responses instead of on the relative significance of individual responses. I addressed this by identifying themes as well as mapping framework elements. Working with a data set in which most of the participants were working in their second or subsequent language meant that few presumptions could be made about the use of specific words and phrases or the incidence of experiences. This required me to check meanings more than I might have done had all the participants first language been English. This was a positive discipline for me.

As any unfolding activity, the initiative had episodes and developments which might have influenced the responses which mentors gave. Collecting the data over an extended period magnified this as a challenge. In addition, mentors had begun their placements at different points in the programme. Dealing with these factors required carefully checking through checking meanings. Confining the interviews to the CCTs who were attached to my own college raised the possibility that their responses were unduly affected by their professional and personal relationships with me. This had to be balanced against the accessibility of CCTs at other colleges and the range of

124 | P a g e

When the CCTs were talking about the mentoring initiative they were usually talking about my work with them.

Being a mentor myself, I had to protect the data which I had gathered during the research and not use it to affect the work that I was doing in the mentoring initiative. The necessity to keep the day to day activity of my own mentoring initiative work distinct from the mentoring initiative work of colleague mentors could have

represented a challenge to the integrity of the research and could have altered the research direction, changing it into action research which would have to have been managed differently. In addition, my judgement was that the nature of the placement mitigated against a commitment to action research. This was because of the

operational reality of the placement and because of short term and temporary nature of the placement. The placement was a full-time job for all mentors with obligations during college vacation times for developing and leading significant training.

Communication quality and availability and access to mutually accessible locations required changes to the way in which the research undertaken. The fieldwork for the research began in September 2012 but, by that time I had begun negotiations with UNICEF to transfer to another college. Arrangements were well underway when I withdrew the request. Following this there was a considerable upheaval in the autumn 2012/spring 2013 which required formal resolution with the college, led by UNICEF and VSO. Addressing these issues had an impact on the availability of time to focus on the college-centred aspects of the research. In summary, the period of data collection was extended due to the challenges to securing the interview data in

125 | P a g e

of the placement from an early point. The research methods adopted had to take this into account.

Conclusion to methodology

In summary, the methodology and methods used for this study were determined to be appropriate for the type of research which was being undertaken. Appropriate

permissions were given for the work to go forward in an ethical context. Pseudonyms are used in the reporting of participants’ responses or other reporting which might jeopardise their anonymity. The data collection process resulted in useful and considerable information being gathered. The full data set has been kept securely as per the HREC requirements, is anonymised and can be made available for legitimate further study.

126 | P a g e