CHAPTER II. METHODS AND DESIGN 61
II. METHODS FOR STUDY II (QUALITATIVE STUDY) 79
II.2 Data collection methods used for the qualitative study 84
Based on the experience with the pilot study, both direct home observations and semi-‐ structured interviews were used for collecting detailed data on the HLLE of these low SES preschoolers as well as to elicit caregivers’ educational and literacy experiences. Both of these data collection methods have several advantages and disadvantages, as discussed below.
II.2.1 Direct home observations
There are several advantages and disadvantages to using observations as a data collection tool. A first obvious advantage is the access to the child’s natural
environment, this is to say that observations permit the researcher to examine directly how the children interact with their caregivers and other family members, as well as with different language and literacy resources in their home environment. In this sense the researcher is the instrument in direct observations (see below for the issues associated with the researcher being the instrument).
A disadvantage that derives from this direct contact between the observer and the observed is that there are several distortions that need to be addressed so that their
effects are counteracted. Some ways in which the current research dealt with these biases were (i) by having a systematic way of capturing information as faithfully and fully as possible (the MP3 recording and the notes taken by the researcher on the spot which served to remind the researcher of what was happening in the home
environment during the observation); and (ii) by making a conscious effort during the observations to “distribute my attention widely and evenly” (Robson, p. 324).
One of the major issues or disadvantages when choosing to do direct observations is the extent to which the observer (as ‘the instrument’) affects the situation observed. This is especially an issue in the current research, which aims at exploring language and literacy in the home environment. One way in which studies try to overcome this is by ensuring that the observed is unaware of being observed (virtually impossible in the context of the home environment as well as ethically problematic). Another way in which studies try to overcome the effect of the observer on the observed situation is by ensuring that the observed is accustomed to the presence of the observer to such an extent that they do things as usual as if the observer was not there. Generally this latter way of dealing with this problem is done through repetitive observations performed over an extensive period of time. This was out of scope for the purpose of the current research, which was focused on three subgroups of families (high HLLE; mid HLLE and low HLLE) and had mixed methods. A third way of dealing with the effect of the
observer in the observed environment is to have a very detached role as an observer. However the focus of the present research is the Home Environment, therefore one of the main issues was to gain parents’ trust and a totally detached observer could have had a negative impact on this.
Adopting a very involved role as an observer could have compromised this researcher´s role distorting the findings. Thus, for the purpose of the current research the specific observational approach chosen was unobtrusive direct observation. The main
characteristics of the ‘unobtrusive observation approach’ are that the observer makes his role clear to the observed from the beginning and that the observer is “non-‐
participatory in the interests of being non-‐reactive” (Robson, 1993, p. 310). This observational approach was chosen for the present research because it lends itself to an exploratory purpose and also lends itself as a supplementary method within a mixed methods´ study. Moreover, it is a midway point between a totally detached and a totally involved approach of the observer during the observation. In order to minimize the effect of the observer on the observed, this researcher tried to engage in minimal interaction with the family members during the observations (for example, by choosing a spot in the home which was out of the way of the family members, by avoiding eye
contact and also by not reinforcing the family members´ attempts at interaction). These simple techniques proved to be helpful because in most of the homes, after some minutes of observation (normally 10 to 15 minutes) the caregivers seemed to accept the presence of the researcher and did not seek interaction. The target preschoolers, however, sometimes continued seeking interactions. When this happened a decision was made to respond in a friendly but brief way because avoiding any response seemed to be potentially more disturbing. The observer could have been perceived to be
antisocial which could have resulted in parents’ distrust and in them possibly reacting during the observations with their child in ways different to those in which they would normally react when not being observed.
The use of a mixed methods´ approach, according to which the data from the semi-‐ structured interviews complements and triangulates the data from the observations and the data from the parent questionnaire analysed in the quantitative study was also useful for understanding the extent of the observer effect problem.
Another disadvantage of using direct observations as a data collection tool is that it is time consuming. As pointed out by Robson “since classic anthropology observation studies demanded between 2 and 3 years of immersion in the community studied … There is a trend toward a more condensed field experience based on observation” (Stenhouse, 1982 in Robson 1993).
Since spending years in the field was beyond the scope of the current research, a more condensed field experience based on observation and complemented with other types of data-‐gathering methods was chosen. As such, the researcher spent approximately four months collecting the data in the field. Of these, the first month and a half (all of May and the first half of June 2010) was spent approaching school directors and other agents who were key in obtaining access to the families, and the last two and a half months (from the middle of June to the end of August 2010) were spent conducting observations and interviews in the homes of the 30 families that complied with the sampling criteria and who had agreed on participating in the study.
Regarding the degree of structure used during the observations, a decision was made to use an approach that was more informal than structured. Thus, although the researcher did not go into the field with a coding schedule, she went into the field with a specific recording device, and with a certain view of how to gather the data during the observation (through notes taken by the researcher and also through the use of a recording device which was placed near the places where the child was in the home
environment). The multidimensional theoretical framework derived from the literature guided the focus of the observations.
II.2.2 Semi-structured interviews
Semi-‐structured interviews are interviews in which the interviewer has a list of the topics they want to enquire about, but they also have a certain freedom in the sequencing of questions, in their exact wording, and in the amount of time and attention given to different topics (Robson, 1993, p.278).
The flexibility to modify the line of enquiry, to follow up on specific responses, and to explore in more depth underlying issues and views of the interviewee are a major advantage of using semi-‐structured questionnaires (in comparison, for example, to questionnaires). This flexibility was in tune with the exploratory purpose of the present research because it allowed for new issues to emerge during the interviews.
There are also, however, several disadvantages that needed to be considered with the use of semi-‐structured interviews. The following are some of these: 1) semi-‐structured interviewing is time-‐consuming (for example, one hour of recorded interviewing can take up to eight hours of transcription). 2) If the protocol has not been checked
properly, the questions can confuse the interviewee or lead the interviewee to answer a topic in a certain way (‘leading the witness’). In this sense, the semi-‐structured
interview protocol was checked to avoid long questions, to put questions in a straightforward, clear way and to eliminate cues which might lead the caregivers to respond in particular ways.
Finally, another typical disadvantage of interviews is that due to desirability or memory bias there might be discrepancies between what people do and what they say they do. This could potentially affect the reliability and validity of the gathered data. In the present research, however, this was in part counterbalanced by the mixed methods approach. Thus, the beliefs and practices reported by caregivers in their semi-‐ structured interviews were contrasted and complemented by those observed during the direct observations and by those they had reported in the parent questionnaire.
II.2.3 General procedures of the home visits
The home visits, during which the family interviews and observations were conducted, took place from the middle of June to the end of August of 2010. At the time of the home visit and until after the qualitative data had been analysed, the aim was for the
prevent, as much as possible, bias in making observations about what might indicate or confirm a higher or lower HLLE.
Most of these home visits were conducted on weekday mornings or afternoons depending on the child’s school schedule (some children attended school in the morning only and others in the afternoon only). However, in three cases, parents requested that the home visit take place on Saturday because they worked away from home from Monday to Friday.
The day before the home visit the researcher called each family to remind the parent of the time for the visit. Seven families changed their minds and no longer wanted to take part. Where they provided reasons for their change of mind, these mostly related to family events that the mother was stressed about hence was no longer available (for example, illness of other children or changes in their or their partners’ working schedules). In those cases, the researcher revisited the list of potential children for the qualitative study and revisited the schools in order to recruit new parents.
Each home visit included a three-‐hour observation of the child and his or her naturally occurring activities in the home environment, as well as a semi-‐structured interview that typically lasted between 45 minutes and one hour. During the home visit normally the observation took place before the interview. This was the preferred order because the objective was to observe a typical afternoon or morning of the child in his or her home environment and there was a danger that, if the interview took place first, both the caregiver and the researcher either consciously or subconsciously might react to the content of the interview during the observation, in particular as several of the interview questions enquired about the importance of literacy and shared literacy activities in the home. For example, the caregiver might consciously or subconsciously alter the ‘normal’ routine, creating a more literate home environment with a view to it being perceived to be more positive by the observer. Alternatively, the researcher might consciously or subconsciously look for confirmation or refutation of themes introduced in the interview. In some cases, when it was problematic to do the observation first, the visit had to start with the interview. In the two or three homes where this happened (i.e. this was rare), it did not seem to the researcher that the environment changed significantly from the period of the interview to that of the observation.
On arrival at the home the researcher focused on establishing a relaxed and friendly atmosphere and told the caregiver the procedure for the interviews and for the observation. The informed consent form was then read together, with the researcher
explaining it. The caregiver signed two copies (one to be retained by the caregiver and one by the researcher).
II.2.4 Home observations
During the three-‐hour observation the focus was on the child in their interaction with the home environment. Therefore, the researcher followed the child around the home with the MP3 recorder and took notes of salient aspects and of the general atmosphere of the home during the observation, the child´s interactions with the caregiver and their home environment and any print matter in the home. Following Purcell-‐Gates et al. (2007) the observations also focused on the reading and writing artefacts used in the home and the purposes children or their families had for using literacy. To ensure that the observed interactions reflected the child´s typical home environment during the observation the researcher asked the caregiver if what was going on was an example of a typical day for the child.
Most of the homes consisted of several small rooms and, since it was winter, children tended to spend most of their time inside. The spaces in which the observations normally took place were the main living space and in a couple of homes when the caregivers suggested so, the child´s bedroom (for further details see below). Typically the main living space was a room with a small dining table and chairs, some kind of heating appliance and a large sofa in front of a shelf which contained the music system, a large TV, several DVDs and CDs and some family photos; often the kitchen was also part of this living place. In a few homes, it also held some books. The principal reason for observation in the child’s bedroom, which was rare, was because the child went in there and the caregiver suggested the researcher accompany the child in order to be able to continue with a full observation. On other occasions, the caregiver needed the main living space and asked for the researcher to continue observing the child elsewhere in the home; for example, on one occasion, the grandfather of the child returned home drunk and the mother asked the researcher and child to continue the observation in the child´s bedroom where she had all her toys.
Throughout the observation the researcher tried to speak as little as possible to the child and/or other people in the home. However, if the child or the caregiver asked questions or initiated conversations the researcher answered, so that the child or caregiver would feel at ease and also to ensure any concerns they had about the study were addressed. In fact, sometimes speaking for a while about trivial things seemed necessary in order to put the family and the child at ease and create an atmosphere of trust. During the three months of the home visits the researcher was in the last
trimester of pregnancy so the participant families and children typically asked questions about this.
During the observations the researcher took hand-‐written notes because the pilot study experience had shown these notes to be extremely helpful during the analysis of the data. After leaving the child´s home, the researcher generally took further notes describing the general atmosphere of the home visit and the home environment.
II.2.5 A semi-structured interview protocol
For the interview, the researcher and the caregiver normally sat on the sofa or at the dining table in the living room space. Sometimes, when the TV or radio was too loud, the researcher had to ask for the volume to be turned down. In many cases, the child interrupted the interview and the researcher explained to the child that the caregiver and the researcher were in the middle of talking and offered the child a pencil and paper to draw something. As mentioned before, the semi-‐structured interview with the caregiver was also recorded on the MP3 device.
Following Heath’s (1983) and Lareau´s (2003) findings on the influence of habits and values on the place that a family and community give to language and literacy, the initial section of the semi-‐structured interview protocol focused on children´s routines and family habits in the home. In contrast, the second section enquired about
caregivers’ values, beliefs and expectations regarding language and literacy
development. Caregivers were asked about their beliefs regarding literacy development and the value of education, their confidence in their children´s academic abilities and their concepts of how intelligence develops and their beliefs about their own roles in promoting their children’s education and literacy growth. The interview protocol, which is included in Appendix A, also enquired about caregivers’ literacy practices and their recollections regarding the place that literacy had had in their upbringing.