Because the field of drama therapy is relatively small, with only a handful of education programs internationally, and because I hoped that respondents would feel comfortable sharing their lived experience, confidentiality was an important part of the study’s methodology. In order for students to talk freely about their experience without potentially negative ramifications from their faculty members and in order for faculty to speak freely without fear of retribution or judgment from students and peers, complete confidentiality was a condition of participation. As such, the presentation of results will be given with as little identifying information as possible. In some ways this limits the amount of insight that can be given on the phenomenon as many direct quotes will not be usable due to potential disclosure. However, I believed the honesty that the promise of confidentiality afforded the process was worth the tradeoff. Where possible, direct quotes will be used, but where quotes might compromise confidentiality themes and ideas will be summarized. Research participants gave explicit permission to use each of the included quotations. In the interest of confidentiality, descriptive information about the respondents will also be limited.
At three different graduate level drama therapy programs 90-minute focus groups were conducted with students. Each focus group consisted of five individuals (n=15). One group was comprised of all individuals from the same cohort while the other two had mixed representation with two or three cohorts represented. Respondents ranged anywhere from their second semester
in the program to having graduated within the previous months. Ages ranged from early twenties to early fifties with four men and eleven women. Each focus group was conducted on location at the institution with audio and visual recordings being made in order to facilitate transcription and analysis.
A total of six (n=6) 60-minute semi-structured interviews were conducted with faculty members at the same institutions, with two individuals representing each institution. Faculty respondents had anywhere from five to over thirty years experience educating drama therapists with three men and three women. Additionally, forty-seven documents were collected. These included student handbooks, course outlines, program webpages and written directions for specific assignments.
Upon completion of the data collection, all interviews and focus groups were transcribed with the transcriptions then being checked for accuracy and where necessary being corrected to match the audio recording (Braun & Clarke, 2006). On a limited basis the video recordings were used to identify speakers, ascertain non-verbal communication during moments of silence and clarify content when multiple speakers were talking. The transcripts, along with other program materials, were then entered into qualitative data analysis software, MAXQDA 11 for coding.
For the first cycle of coding a combination of descriptive and emotion coding was used in analyzing the interview and focus group data. Saldaña (2012) suggests that emotion and
descriptive coding can be effectively used together to help explore a phenomenon and to help put an emotional experience in context. As the transcripts were analyzed, any segments that stood out as describing the phenomenon or the emotional experience of the students within the
phenomenon were coded. In the initial coding, no attempt was made to identify themes or broad categories, but instead to find and name the various small components that might contribute to an understanding of the phenomenon. Each transcript was reviewed multiple times in this first phase. Program documents were also examined and coded in relationship to their possible impact on the students’ experience of the phenomenon. The initial cycle of coding yielded 113 codes pointing to data segments describing the students’ experience.
Once I achieved a sense of thoroughness, the initial 113 codes were examined and analyzed for possible relationships, patterns and themes. A working model of the phenomenon was created which included nine categories: Experiential Learning, Emotional Expectation, Strong Response, Consequences, Learning, Dilemma, Faculty and Students. As these categories
were identified and initial codes were collected together in groups, a second cycle of coding began, further reviewing the transcripts for indicators and clarifiers of the identified categories. This second cycle of coding yielded 40 more codes. Most of these new codes were descriptive codes that further clarified initial codes. For example, in initial coding, any reference to specific experiential learning activities were coded with the code EXPERIENTIAL (all code names are noted in capital letters). In second cycle coding, multiple sub-codes were added to this category to indicate the type of activity being used, for example MYTH WORK, DVT, MASKS,
SCULPTURE, etc. Similarly, segments under the code EMOTIONAL EXPECTATION were broken down into PEER EXPECT and FACULTY EXPECT. During this second cycle of coding, I consulted with peers and colleagues, describing the data and outlining the model. These consultations developed new questions which led to further clarification of the model and the responses.
At this point, it was noted that there were some holes in the information. For example, very little mention had been made in focus groups about personal journaling as class
assignments. As it was a concept that was mentioned frequently in faculty interviews as well as course outlines, I decided student feedback on the topic would be helpful to defining the
phenomenon. Another example of holes was that in initial interviews, faculty members had not been asked about whether or not they had formal education in pedagogy or curriculum design, which could impact their decision making process. These follow-up questions were determined and emailed to respondents along with some follow-up requests for documents. In the initial interviews and focus groups respondents had agreed to answer follow-up questions that might be sent to them. Of the 15 students emailed follow-up questions, nine students responded for a 60% rate of response. Six faculty respondents were sent follow-up emails with four responding to the questions for a 67% rate of response. These responses were then entered into MAXQDA and coded. The final coding system can be seen in Appendix C.
After the second cycle of coding and the integration of the new information from follow- up emails, over arching themes were revisited and a final model was created to describe the phenomenon. This model included the categories of Experiential Learning, Expectations, Strong Response, Consequences, Education versus Therapy and Navigation. The former category Dilemma was renamed Education versus Therapy in order to more accurately describe the category. The categories of Student, Faculty and Learning were removed, as they seemed to be
present in multiple categories and not separate themes. Following the creation of the model, a final category outside of the model was created called Language to specifically look at the language used in relationship to the phenomenon. While language is present in most categories and consistently contributes to the phenomenon, in order to specifically address the subsidiary question “How is personal material discussed in relation to drama therapy education?” the new category was created.