Data collection

Qualitative inquiries such as case studies may use a range of methodologies to explore the phenomenon of interest and may come from different ontological and epistemological standpoints. They all, however, share the objective of seeking to understand an experience from the perspective of those who have lived it (Harrison et al 2017). Typically, this objective is achieved through data collection methods such as document analysis, direct observations, and interviews, where the words spoken or written by the participants are analysed to provide a rich description of the phenomenon of study (Merriam 2009). This qualitative case study utilised mind maps and in-depth interviews as its key data collection methods. These methods are discussed in more detail in the following section of the chapter.

This case study used qualitative methods to collect data to address the research objectives. Yin (2014) contends that two or more sources of data are required for case study research, including, but not limited to, documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation and physical artefacts. A key principle of case study research is that data from multiple sources are converged, where each data source may be thought of as a piece of the ‘puzzle’ that as a whole facilitates a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of the study (Baxter & Jack 2008; Yin 2014). In this study, two sources of data were used:

1. mind maps drawn by the participants to chart their significant experiences

2. in-depth semi-structured interviews with the participants on how and why their study abroad experiences were significant

The choice of the two data sources was based on the research questions for the case study. The mind maps address the first research question, of what was significant about the participants’ international study experiences. The second and third research questions, around how and why the mind-mapped experiences were significant, were addressed in the interviews. This approach gave the researcher the opportunity to converge the mind map and interview data to provide a unified picture of what, how and why international study experiences were significant to participants. As noted in Section 4.3.1,

62

the 14 embedded units (i.e. each participant in the study abroad program) were also considered to be individual, distinct sources of data, providing 14 instances of the phenomenon in context. Note that the two data collection methods occurred at the same time (as a two-part interview involving generating the mind map then the interview questions), but they are being treated as two distinct data sets.

4.4.1 Mind maps of the participants’ significant experiences

The first research question – what is significant about the international study experience (RQ1) – needed a data-gathering tool to capture the significant elements of a multi-faceted, lengthy experience. Study abroad programs like the one in this research usually consists of one or two semesters (6-12 months) of study in an international host institution. Understanding and articulating the significance of an experience that covers a considerable period of time may be challenging, as participants may find meaning in many different parts of the overall experience. In this study, the mind map was employed as a “medium through which people come to understand more about an event and about themselves…[and] an opportunity to ‘re-see’ the significance of the experience” (Wilson, Mandich & Magalhaes 2016, p. 4). Moreover, it can be difficult for a researcher in an interview to quickly establish a conversation with the interviewees and negotiate meaning (Mojtahed et al 2014). The mind map facilitated the interview conversations and gave the participants an unstructured way to visualise the meaning of their international study experience (Davies 2011).

The rationale for using a mapping tool also came from the literature on employing different types of user-generated maps to frame experiences. A user-generated map is essentially a graphic metacognitive tool to stimulate thinking and trigger recognition (Rye & Rubba 1998). The mind maps in this study were used to “chart a way towards ‘new understanding’” (Heron, Kinchin & Medland 2018, p. 375) and encourage externalisation of the participants’ understandings of their experiences (White & Gunstone 1992). The researcher opted to take Wheeldon and Faubert’s (2009, p. 79) approach and use mapping in a broad sense as a “visual means for people to share their experiences and perspectives in new and unique ways” without challenging the participants’ mapping choices. This approach was especially important to this study, given the nature of the experience being investigated and the complexity of the process of making meaning from a life experience.

Wheeldon and Faubert (2009) note that there is definitional confusion in the research field around mapping and they argue for broader understandings and more flexible approaches to obtaining graphical representations of people’s experiences. The researcher’s intention was for the participants

63

to be free to conceptualise their experience in ways that made sense to them. This approach made it difficult to find a label for the type of map used in the study as nothing seemed to fit with traditionally- defined methods (see Brightman 2003). The tool used in this study has been labelled ‘mind map’ as this type of map aligns with Farrand, Hussain and Hennessy’s (2002) use of the term as a graphical representation of important key ideas associated with a topic (in this case, the topic is the significant aspects of the international experience). The researcher acknowledges, however, that the returned maps did not all adhere to traditional understandings of mind maps (i.e. a central concept with branches).

In practice, the mind map required the interviewee at the start of each interview to produce a visual representation of the significant aspects of their international study experience (on an A3 sheet paper provided by the researcher). The participants were asked to build a picture of their international study experience by placing on their maps the experiences, situations, happenings, or aspects of their overall experience that stood out to them as being valuable or significant. The researcher facilitated this exercise by explaining to the participants that the mind map would be used as a reference point for reflecting on the significance of their experiences during the interview. Mojtahed and colleagues (2014) used a similar approach in their work on the development of a decision-making map for research in the Business field, based on the original use of perceptual mapping in Marketing research. They asked the research participants to write down ideas and concepts which were then organised around the main theoretical perspectives in their study, to form a basis for discussion (Mojtahed et al 2014). In this study, the mind maps served as a starting point for the participants’ reflections on the significance of their international study experiences. This was the first step in interpreting their experiences into mental meanings that made the experience coherent (Jarvis 2006).

During the interviews, the mind maps provided an anchor for the reflective discussions which allowed the participants to focus their reflections on how and why their experiences were significant. The maps were used to construct knowledge of the significance of the experience and to elicit reflections. This was done not to measure knowledge but to create a co-construction of knowledge between the researcher and the research participants (Heron, Kinchin & Medland 2018). The mind maps were also important for the data analysis process as a product of the research process (Heron, Kinchin & Medland 2018). They allowed the researcher to identify and categorise the participants’ significant experiences to build a picture of the findings on what was significant about the experience. These identified experiences were then converged with the data on the how and why of significant learning (collected through the interviews) to gain deeper insight into the phenomenon. This approach aligns

64

with the ontological and epistemological assumptions that frame the research, around the multiple realities of the social world and the interaction between the researcher and the research participants in constructing knowledge (Kivunja & Kuyini 2017).

4.4.2 In-depth semi-structured interviews

Interviews are predominant in qualitative studies using the constructivist paradigm, as they presuppose that the construction of reality can only be achieved through an interaction between the researcher and the research participants (Mertens 2015). Furthermore, interviews are one of the most important sources of case study evidence (Yin 2014) given their capacity to provide the researcher with the perspectives of the people who have ‘lived the case’ using a series of interview questions and their responses (Motjahed eta al 2014). These perspectives come from “direct quotations from people about their experiences, opinions, feelings, and knowledge” (Patton 2002, p. 4). The use of this instrument in the study provided rich data on the significance of life experiences through the lens of international study.

The interviews allowed the participants to reflect on how and why the items on their mind maps were significant. This meant the researcher could explore the personal impact and subjective value dimensions of significance. The researcher used the set of reflective prompt questions (given in Table 4.2 later in this chapter) that were developed for this research as part of the new inquiry protocol for understanding and articulating the significance of a life experience that was developed for the study. The protocol includes the study’s framework (see Chapter 2), the mind map discussed above, and the reflective prompt questions. The mind map and prompt questions are the tools for putting the framework into practice. Development of the prompt questions occurred through reviewing the literature on significant learning and meaning-making (Boud & Walker 1990; Jarvis 2006; Merriam & Clark 1993; Mezirow 2000). These concepts addressed the ‘how’ and ‘why’ research questions (RQ2 and RQ3) that Yin (2014) suggests are used in a case study.

A pilot study was conducted (n=4) to develop and test the interview questions prior to the main data collection. The rationale for the pilot was to determine whether the question wording would elicit useful responses from participants. The pilot was also part of the iterative development of the study’s framework. As Merriam (1998, p. 75) suggests, “the key to getting good data from interviewing is to ask good questions...pilot interviews are crucial for trying your questions”. The process of developing and testing the interview questions through a small pilot and an analysis of findings from this study are outlined later in the chapter.

65

The study used semi-structured interviews which are a “mix of more or less structured questions”, where structured questions are used when specific information is required (Merriam 1998, p. 74). Structured questions were used in this instance to ascertain background information on the participants about their program of study, place of exchange, and reasons for choosing that place. The remainder of the interview questions were more open-ended; they were designed to draw out the participants’ perspectives on how and why their mind map items were significant and demonstrate what significance looks like in practice in a given experience. The interview questions were also designed to address the study’s propositions. Adams (2015) notes that semi-structured interviews are conversational in nature, using closed and open questions, where the researcher often asks ‘why’ or ‘how’ follow-up questions. This approach allowed the researcher to delve into the significance dimensions of personal impact and subjective value where needed, while still giving the participants the opportunity to reflect on their experiences as a narrative of what mattered to them and why. Adams (2015, p. 494) also suggests that semi-structured interviews are useful when the researcher is examining “unchartered territory with unknown but potential momentous issues” where there is latitude to pursue areas of interest (Adams 2015, p. 494). The researcher determined this interview approach to be appropriate for the study, given the complexity of the phenomenon and the new application of theories of significant learning to international study.

4.4.3 Sampling

To examine the significance of an experience like international study, we must gain insight into the perceptions, attitudes and meanings assigned to the experience by its participants (Patton 2002). These insights were captured through in-depth interviews with those who have lived the experience, where the researcher chose a sample “from which the most can be learned” (Merriam 2009, p. 77).

Typical purposeful sampling was used in this study because it “reflects the average person, situation,

or instance of the phenomenon of interest” (Merriam 2009, p. 62). Typical site sampling was also used, which Patton (2002, p. 236) notes is where “the site is specifically selected because it is not in any major way atypical, extreme, deviant, or intensely unusual” (Patton 2002, p. 236). The program that was selected for the case context represents a standard one or two semester international study program in Australian universities that is based on exchange partnerships with other universities.

As per the study’s ethics approval, an initial recruitment email (with project information sheet and consent form) was sent by the researcher to all semester 2, 2016 study abroad participants to their university email address, after permission had been granted by the Program Manager to contact the students. Once potential participants had responded to the recruitment email, an interview time and

66

date was agreed upon via email. Participants signed the consent form before the mind mapping exercise and interview commenced.

The first four respondents were recruited for the pilot study (discussed later in the chapter). A further five participants were recruited for the main study. After the initial email yielded no further participants, a second email was sent to students who had studied abroad in semester 1, 2017 to ensure an appropriate sample size. The second email targeted participants who had studied in regions of the world not yet represented in the sample. Snowball sampling (Merriam 2009) was also used to complete the sample size; a further four students were recruited via the researcher’s colleagues. These four students were contacted by the researcher’s colleagues by email to first ascertain their interest in the project. Following confirmation of interest by those students, the standard recruitment email was sent (with the information sheet and consent form) and interviews were arranged.

Note that it is standard practice to use small samples in qualitative, interview-based research although certainly there are no ‘rules’ for sample size (Patton 2002). Merriam (2002, p. 26) contends that it is also difficult to ascertain how many participants to sample ahead of time. Given the researcher’s aim to include a range of countries and programs of study in the sample, the original intention was for the sample to consist of 10-15 participants. This number was also based on the expected depth of the interviews and volume of data that they would generate. The final number of interviewees was 14, with an additional four students interviewed for the pilot study. The researcher reflected on the responses to the interview questions through the data collection process and began to identify themes from the interviews. While each research participant had their own story to tell, it was determined that the 14 embedded units adequately addressed the research questions in the study (Merriam 1998) and provided sufficient depth of insight into the phenomenon for the scope of a PhD study. Moreover, the embedded units study design meant that each participant was a distinct source of data. The 14 interviews generated thick data on the significance of international study – saturation was reached by asking the same questions of the 14 participants, creating a rich data set where the researcher determined that sampling more data would not be needed to address the research questions and provide a deep description of the phenomenon.