The data collection process

When I began this PhD I had received a grant to fund the data collection, analysis and dissemination of this research, which enabled me to carry out a relatively large-scale project.23 Six research assistants (2 per state) were appointed to help with data collection, which had the advantage of enabling a larger sample, and also avoiding having to rely on language interpreters which interrupts the flow of conversation, since I am not fluent in all three state languages. Research assistants were selected who were fluent in each state language, had a background in education and qualitative research methods, and a good understanding of and interest in the research topic. At the same time, working with a large research team poses certain limitations, such as variation in the way the research tools are administered or in which data is recorded (particularly interviews and classroom observations), or variation in the nature of rapport established with different research participants. Moreover, working with research assistants raises questions regarding the other researchers’ positionality: their own understanding of and views towards LCE may have been different from mine, which may potentially have subtly affected the data collection process. While some of the above limitations may have been unavoidable, I attempted to offset some of these challenges by personally training each of the research assistants, where possible at an actual government school, to ensure consistency in the data collection. I developed a detailed orientation manual to help them understand the thinking behind this research, specific instructions for administering each tool, and research ethics protocol.

I was also involved in school visits in all 3 states, to ensure consistency of data collection. Since I am most comfortable with Hindi and have least knowledge of Marathi and Malayalam, I was most involved in the Bihar data collection, where I visited all four schools, observed all twenty teachers, and interviewed several of the teachers and trainers myself. In Maharashtra and Kerala the language constraint forced me to rely more on research assistants, though I personally visited several schools in each state and observed or interacted with many of the teachers and trainers. Where I conducted interviews this was done with the help of a language interpreter. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed directly in English, and the English transcriptions checked against original recordings. However the language barrier does limit my ability to glean certain nuanced insights into teachers’ beliefs that might have been possible had I been able to conduct all interviews myself in teachers’ local language.

The research was begun with prior consent from both the funding agency and my university. The project funding was terminated unexpectedly soon after completion of data collection. Thereafter I proceeded to analyse the data solely as part of my PhD.

93

Draft research tools were refined based on feedback from several educationists. Thereafter the survey was piloted with 100 teachers in Maharashtra with the help of research assistants, and finalised after determining their reliability through statistical analysis. Item analysis yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93 for the overall scale, and inter-scale correlations were significantly positive for all the scales, although four survey items were found to significantly reduce the alpha coefficient and were thus deleted from the survey. The interview and classroom observation tools were also piloted with 10 teachers, with the help of several of the research assistants to ensure inter-rater reliability. This process yielded several insights into ways to refine the tools, to rephrase certain questions to facilitate understanding by participants, and ways to ensure consistency across the research team. The tools were then translated into the 3 regional languages (Hindi, Marathi, Malayalam) by a native speaker and teacher of that language. Each was then re-translated back into English by another person fluent in that language, to verify accuracy of translation. Unfortunately these measures to improve accuracy did not prove sufficient, since after data collection I discovered some inaccuracies in translation in a few of the survey items, which later had to be deleted.

Access to schools was facilitated through SSA ‘State Pedagogy Coordinators’ (in charge of pedagogical improvement in each state), who I knew from my previous work with SSA. I submitted request letters describing the research objectives and process to the state educational authorities, who were supportive of the research aimed at benefiting their training programmes, and granted me permission letters to access schools. The State Coordinators introduced me to local BRC Coordinators, in charge of training teachers and monitoring schools within the Block, who in turn helped identify schools and facilitated visits. Each visit was begun by discussing the research with the HM, who in all cases were quite agreeable to allowing us to observe and interview teachers freely. In many ways this is a reflection of the hierarchical culture that operates in the education system, where schools are used to acquiescing to authorities who periodically visit (often unannounced) to collect information or ‘inspect’ quality, expecting full cooperation. While this hierarchical and submissive attitude to authority figures facilitated my access to schools, it also likely skews the data since there is an eagerness to please and impress to obtain a ‘favourable’ report. It was important to distance myself from being perceived as a typical authority figure, which was perhaps helped by my female gender, young age, and friendly attitude. Repeated attempts were made to reassure teachers that this was not an ‘evaluation’ visit, they did not need to act differently from their everyday practice, all data would remain anonymous, and would not reach any of their superiors or have any professional consequences for them.

Each school visit lasted one to two weeks (excluding school holidays/ closures). The first day was spent building rapport with teachers, selecting 5 teachers for the study, and chalking out plans for the visit. Thereafter classroom observations were initiated. An attempt was made to be as unobtrusive as possible, by sitting at the back of the classroom, and constantly reminding teachers to ignore us and that we just wanted to observe their normal

94

everyday activities. While the observer’s presence was bound to affect teachers’ performance, teachers for the most part complied, though at times some would refer to us or address us directly during the lesson. Sometimes students would get distracted and curious about our presence, and we tried to either ignore them or smile and motion for them to face the teacher. After the observations, a few teachers asked for feedback on how well they did compared to teachers in other schools/ states in the study. We clarified that we were only recording observations and not passing judgments on their performance, and that we would only have a complete picture for sharing after the final report was collated.

Next were the semi-structured interviews with each of the teachers observed. Each took about 40-60 minutes, and was conducted during lunch breaks, spare periods, or after school, usually in an empty classroom or library. All the interviews were audio-recorded with the teacher’s permission, after explaining that this was so that the interviewer could participate more fully without taking notes, that recordings would not be shared with anyone, and that their responses would remain completely anonymous. We tried to create an atmosphere of ease for the interview, beginning with some informal chatting, maintaining a casual and friendly tone, and assuring teachers that there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer and they could just relax and be honest. We attempted to ask non-leading questions to avoid giving an indication of what is the ‘desirable’ answer. Though the presence of the recorder may have affected teachers’ comfort-level, most appeared at ease and spoke quite at length, except in a few cases. We also had a chance to interact with teachers informally during breaks, before and after school, which supplemented richer insights into teachers’ lives, routines and views. The nine life-narrative interviews were originally planned to be conducted in teachers’ homes to gain more insight into their daily lives and contexts, but this was not always possible logistically. Thus several were conducted within the school premises itself where teachers felt most at ease, either after school or on a holiday so they were not pressured to return to their work.

The surveys were administered last so that they would not influence teachers’ classroom behaviour or interview responses. They took about 30-40 minutes, and were completed by all teachers in the school as well as the HM where possible, in the researcher’s presence in case clarification was needed. Once again, teachers were reassured that there is no right or wrong answer and that we wanted them to record their first gut-level response. The wide range of responses obtained for many of the questions indicates that most teachers were relatively honest, or could not guess what the ‘desirable’ response was. Along with the above data, in each school I took photographs and a few videos, not as a primary data source but more as a means to jog my memory during analysis.

Once the school visits were completed, the BRC coordinator arranged a visit to the nearest BRC where all the interviews with BRC/CRC trainers took place. After completion of data collection, all data was typed into Word or Excel documents with the help of research assistants. Thereafter I spent considerable time personally checking and cleaning up all the

95

data, since various errors were found in typing, translation, or inconsistencies in scoring across different research assistants. All the qualitative data was formatted for use in NVIVO, while Excel sheets were formatted for use in SPSS.