Data Collection

5.4.3.1 Case Study Data Collection

The opportunity to use multiple sources of evidence is regarded as a major strength of case study data collection (Yin, 2003: 97). Yin (2003: 85) has identified six types of evidence that are most commonly used in a case study: documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation, and physical artefacts. This research also used questionnaires, which can also be used for qualitative data collection (Gray, 2004: 320).

A case study approach fosters the use of multiple sources of data, which promotes the validation of data through triangulation (Denscombe, 1998: 40). The use of multiple sources of data for the aim of triangulation is often emphasised in literature. For example, Yin (2003:

98-9) considers the most important advantage of using multiple sources of evidence in case studies to be ‘the development of converging lines of inquiry, a process of triangulation’, including the triangulation of data sources (data triangulation), among different evaluators (investigator triangulation), of perspectives of the same data set (theory triangulation), and of methods (methodological triangulation). As a result of triangulation, findings or conclusions in a case study can be more convincing and accurate since they are ‘based on several different sources of information’ (Yin, 2003: 98). Therefore, triangulation is considered particularly important for qualitative data collection, improving the reliability (the stability of findings) of the research, although this is not guaranteed (Gray, 2004: 344). Considering this advantage of triangulation, this research used different methods (methodological triangulation) and a variety of data sources (data triangulation) to study one organisation and its project.

One advantage of using a range of methods is that these different methods can contribute to the ability to ‘explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human behaviour by studying it from more than one standpoint’ (Cohen and Manion, 1989: 269). With data triangulation, one source of information can be tested against other sources. If the same information is found from two sources, the data can be cross-validated (Robson, 1993: 383).

If there is a difference between two sources of information, its examination can help explain the phenomenon. Therefore, findings from different sources of evidence can be more convincing than from a single source. As this idea was applied to the present research, the information gathered through documents, questionnaires and interviews were cross-examined against what was found from observation of the actual project.

However, Silverman (2005: 121) argues that data collected from different sources does not necessarily prove validity, since different methods are often based on different theories, and different data is gathered in different contexts. Silverman (2005: 121-2) notes that triangulation should at least operate based on ground rules suggested by Fielding and Fielding (1986): always begin from a theoretical perspective or model; choose methods and data which will give a researcher an account of structure and meaning from within that perspective.

In accordance with these suggestions, this research is based on a perspective of symbolic interactionism, which considers that the world is socially constructed and subjective as people act upon their interpretations of the meanings of the world in the process of social interaction, and these interpretations are revised on the basis of experience (Gray, 2004: 21). Within this perspective, the research chose semi-structured interviews and participant observation to study peace education in the context of the interaction between the people involved.

These different methods were also used to examine a peace education project from different aspects, since the use of multiple methods can be beneficial not only to ‘the reduction of inappropriate certainty’ in findings but also to ‘the complementary purposes model’ in which different methods are used for alternative tasks (Robson, 1993: 290). According to this model, the purpose of conducting questionnaires and interviews was to find answers in people’s views on peace education, while the purpose of observation was to find how these views are reflected in actual projects in practice (see Robson, 1993: 189). Furthermore, the information gained through questionnaires and interviews also helped the researcher to understand the meaning of activities and interaction of participants during the observation of the project.

As a result, the use of different sources of data and methods in this research helped to reduce uncertainty in findings (e.g. Robson, 1993: 290), while also contributing to greater understanding of the cases and building detailed explanations from different aspects of peace education, and from various viewpoints of the people involved.

5.4.3.2 Data Collection Methods and Instruments used in the Research

As stated previously, for the purpose of gaining insight into the reality of peace education, this research examined the principles and practice of a peace education organisation and its project in a school as two units of data collection and analysis within a single case study. Since particular methods are more appropriate to collect certain kinds of data than other methods, it is important to give careful consideration to the links between research questions and methods (Mason, 1996: 19). A summary of the main methods used for data collection and their objectives is as follows:

 Questionnaires and interviews with WMQPEP were used to identify the principles and stated practices of peace education carried out by the organisation.

 Participant observation was conducted by the researcher to learn how the principles are actually practised in the project and to investigate pupils’ learning processes and possible changes in their behaviour, abilities and confidence in the project. The criteria for the observation were established in the light of the aims, principles and practice of WMQPEP, expected impact and issues concerning the project, which were identified in the interviews and documents prior to the observation. Thus, the observation focused on interpersonal skills and relationships based on ‘education for peace,’ not on other aspects of peace education (e.g. critical thinking, ‘education about peace’ to promote knowledge about peace, conflict, war or injustice in society). For example, some indicators used were:

- Communication: Are children encouraged to speak? Do they listen to each other?

- Co-operation: Do the children help each other? Do the children share tasks?

- Affirmation: Do the children make positive comments about each other?

Do the children encourage each other?

- Problem-solving: Do the children identify problems and possible solutions?

Do the children discuss and prioritise the possible solutions?

 Questionnaires and interviews with participants of the project (pupils and teachers) and school staff were used to examine the effects of the project in the light of the aims of the project and the needs of the school. Special attention was given to pupils’ own views on their learning in the project since they are the centre of the subject of education.

(For further details of the methods used in the research and their objectives, see Appendix C)

A table of the participants in the questionnaires and interviews is given below (see Table 1.1).

Table 1.1 The Structure of the Sample

Cases Methods Contents of Questions Participants/ the number

1.Organisation:

WMQPEP

Questionnaire Backgrounds of workers and key elements of the work