Discussion groups and qualitative analysis

Selecting research locations

The aim in identifying research locations was to maximise diversity, particularly in relation to the countries’ positions in the world economy and their geographical location. It is the correspondence between economic position and attitudes towards inequalities that is the research focus. This is of interest because one’s position in society influences what other parts of society one is aware of (Reis and Moore, 2005b). Diversity of geographical location, the countries being in different continents, was important to me because of the cultural and sometimes linguistic affiliations that come with this (see Anderson, 1991; see section 1.5). Supposedly a wider variety of attitudes can be found using a wider sample and this logic of maximising diversity extends to the selection of teachers with varying teaching experience, who taught at schools attended by students from various backgrounds, and in cities and the countryside. It was also necessary that research countries feature in the Pew Survey to facilitate the integration of quantitative and qualitative data.

Given the importance of practical considerations of support and gatekeepers, identifying key people to assist me with my research guided country selection. In the UK contacting teachers was facilitated by colleagues at the University of Sheffield and the Geographical Association (GA), a UK-based professional association for Geography Teachers. Due to ease of contact, fewer logistical concerns and lower costs, the UK was selected for my sample. I was greatly assisted by the GA in contacting people abroad; an intern emailed all non-UK members which resulted in many offers of participation.

I was offered considerable assistance from two fellow geographers: Martin Ortiz and Kevin Cook who, with their friends and families, were able to help me in Mexico and Kenya respectively. I was also offered assistance from an Indian Head Mistress working in Kerala, but was unable to work in India due to time and money limitations. Kenya and Mexico were chosen because, with the UK, they fit the criteria of diverse economic situations and geographical locations. Martin Ortiz and Kevin Cook introduced me to schools, helped with logistics like

accommodation and involved me in their social lives. This made for a very rewarding and efficient research. This research benefited from the prioritisation of practicalities and significant preparation. A final practical consideration was personal safety, which limited me from working in some of the most disrupted countries.

Language

Learning languages for fieldwork can deepen understandings of different perspectives and increase cultural sensitivity (Watson, 2004, p.60). It is also considerate given that people usually prefer to speak in their own language (Hennick, 2007, p.30), and of practical value where English is not spoken. I studied Spanish for 18 months before going to Mexico. It was recommended that someone assist me with running discussion groups, so in my first Kenyan and Mexican groups a friend from that country accompanied me. However I preferred to run discussion groups myself, which kept things practically and financially simpler as I did not need to train or pay someone else. Thus I was closely involved in data production and could ask my own supplementary questions. Whilst my listening in Spanish caught most of the discussion, I could not follow some segments of speech. I have since checked with Mexican friends to translate some words and phrases. I was glad to facilitate the discussion groups myself and knowing some Spanish reduces the hermeneutical gap15 between participants and myself.

I spent 3 months learning Kiswahili prior to undertaking fieldwork in Kenya. The language of secondary education in Kenya is English, and Kiswahili is the other national language. These are spoken alongside tribal languages and Sheng, which mixes Kiswahili and English. The Kenyan groups were conducted in English, although some comments were in other languages and Kiswahili words

15 _{A hermeneutical gap is the space between a message and its interpretation,}

or the sign and the signified. Such gaps may be exaggerated through communication across cultures as ways of interpreting signs differ. The etymology of the term comes from the Greek messenger God, Hermes.

were often used in mainly English sentences. As such learning Kiswahili assisted my comprehension and gave me insight into East Africa before starting my research. It was also entertaining for others when I spoke Kiswahili, and symbolic that I learned an East African language, at times adopting the role of the one who had difficulty talking rather than always obliging others to use English which positions me as the British English expert. The appreciation of foreigners learning one’s own language was expressed in my first day at the Institute of Kiswahili and Modern Languages, where the Director said: “finally, the British want to learn something from us!”

As well as wanting to learn something from Kenyan and Mexican people, learning some Spanish and Kiswahili gave me an insight into the constructions used and the difficulties of mapping the meaning from one language onto another (Twyman et al., 1999, p.320). In the case of Mexican Spanish I translated into British English. Kenyan participants put their meaning into English for me, which contrasts with the easiest way of communicating, talking in a shared tribal language described in English as ‘short-waving’. The discussion guides were translated into Spanish, with assistance, so that when moderating I did not need to translate and question simultaneously (after advice of Hennick, 2007, p.30; see Appendix 3).

Pilot study

The initial research design involved roughly 40 interviews amongst teachers in Kenya, India, Mexico and the United Kingdom. The rationale for this was that interviews would allow me to explore people’s understandings and feelings towards inequality in depth. To pilot this research I contacted 8 recently qualified Geography teachers working near to Sheffield, 4 of whom were interviewed. Overall I found that interviews were not suitable for my research questions. Whilst I had hoped interviewees would choose their terms of discussion it came across that neither of us was precisely sure what to talk about, so interaction was sometimes awkward and vague. Part of this awkwardness could be because interviewees were not accustomed to talking about inequalities. Similarly I asked the interviewees to peruse the maps and

graphs and then comment, which was also too undirected for a one-to-one interaction.

As a result of the limited success of these interviews, discussion groups were piloted and selected as a more appropriate method. I performed two pilot discussion groups with trainee maths teachers. By chance one group was all female and the other all male. The female group were all British and the male group included mainly British people but also an East Asian man and two African men, which allowed some sort of piloting in a cross-cultural context. These pilot groups convinced me of the suitability of discussion groups because discussion quickly developed from my open-ended questions; participants were ready to challenge one another so many ideas, opinions and experiences were shared. An energetic group dynamic maintained the momentum of discussion.

Discussion groups

Discussion groups proved to be a valuable research method compared to the interviews, suiting my research interest in how inequalities are framed socially. The group setting invites discussion in contrast to the more researcher directed question-answer format of an interview. Secondly, discussion groups accommodate the broad nature of my questions, intended to reduce the researcher influence and encourage people to talk in their own terms. This made the group more interesting for me as new ideas readily arose and the group dynamic was enjoyable. This method also emphasises a sense of locality (Holbrook and Jackson, 1996, p.139), which is particularly interesting for geographical fieldwork concerned with spatial variation.

Discussion groups are closer to natural social situations than interviews, with the benefit of being directed around researcher defined topics. This method generates group-level information in a way that individual-focused interviews cannot (Hennick, 2007, p.12), which is argued to “better reflect the social nature of human knowledge than a summation of individual narratives extracted in interviews” (Goss and Leinbach, 1996, p.115). This discussion also allows for a freer definition of important topics and reduces the researcher’s influence because discussion is more easily sustained (Goss and Leinbach, 1996, p.117).

A discussion group was a one-off meeting with teachers, lasting roughly 90 minutes. This contrasts with intensive groups, which involve longer sessions or multiple meetings. For example Jacqueline Burgess’ research into fear combined discussion groups with participant observation, which took 3-6 hours (Burgess, 1996, p.132; for another example see Kneale, 2001, p.136-8). A 90 minute time commitment allowed me to run more groups and reduced the participants’ commitment, which made recruitment easier. Whilst one-off groups may not cover a topic in great depth or record opinions altering over time (Holbrook and Jackson, 1996, p.141), they do provide a view of how that group of people at that time collectively reflect on the question of inequality. I now describe the discussion group format. In my introduction it was only necessary to gloss what the research is about, confidentiality, audio recording and what it will be used for as the informed consent form covered these issues (Appendix 4). This was useful given that groups were often squeezed between participants’ other commitments. As such checking an appropriate duration of the group before starting and punctuality were necessary (Bedford and Burgess, 2001, p.128; Hennick, 2007). This precludes unexpected early departures, allows the researcher to manage the time and cover all the questions, and shows a respect for participants’ other commitments. I also stated some guidelines for the discussion before starting (Hennick, 2007), as it is easier to ask people to talk one at a time from the outset, and asking after the conversation has split can sound like a reprimand.

I constructed a discussion guide of 7 questions, observing advice about running ‘international’ discussion groups (Hennick, 2007). Conversation followed a particular order, starting with what inequality means, in order to begin the discussion simply and develop a working definition. There was often a moment of quiet after this first question as people gathered their thoughts. Next I asked whether they were aware of inequalities at the world scale, in a partially successful attempt to broaden discussion from a local focus. This was followed by asking about the causes of inequality, then enquiring as to the importance of inequality as an issue. I introduced some maps and graphs to the discussion (see below), and asked about the good and bad aspects of inequality. To round

up the discussion and retreat from more serious themes, participants were asked to comment on how frequently they discuss inequality, hopefully ending the group on a positive note (Bedford and Burgess, 2001, p.128). This final question gave a sense of how much the discourses that arose in the groups extend into their daily lives. The discussion guides, in English and Spanish, are in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.

I ran these groups alone, although others suggest that researchers should work with a discussion facilitator (Goss and Leinbach, 1996, p.119), or that a facilitator manages the discussion whilst a participant observer talks and make notes (Bedford and Burgess, 2001, p.130). For reasons of cost, logistics, and minimising total group sizes I facilitated these groups myself. This reduced the distance between the participants and researcher, particularly when I could answer questions about the U.K. and my opinions. This reinforced the informality of the group and established rapport. At times it was hard to avoid male dominance of conversations, yet mixed groups better reflect the society from where they come (Goss and Leinbach, 1996, p.119), and so fit my aim of documenting social articulations of inequalities.

A debrief immediately after the group is recommended (Bedford and Burgess, 2001, p.130); in the absence of a co-researcher I settled for making notes about the group dynamic, themes that arose, and details about the school context. I also evaluated the method and used this time for general reflection on the wider project. Often it was impossible to make notes immediately due to the logistics of transport and not wishing to further impose on the school.

Halfway through the group two maps are briefly explained and then discussed amongst the group. Following that, two graphs are introduced and discussed in the same manner. The analysis in this thesis focuses on the maps rather than graphs. The images are intended to have a dual role: (i) to analyse their legibility and legitimacy i.e. potential for information communication, and (ii) as a visual vignette, prompting conversation as a reaction to the image. The images were explained, then A3 laminated copies were handed around the group accompanied by the question “Please can you comment on how useful you think these maps are as communication tools?” and “what works and what

doesn’t work about these maps?” The images were presented in pairs, firstly maps of ‘people earning below $2 a day’ (Figure 6) and ‘people earning over $200 a day’ (Figure 7) that were integrated into posters containing supplementary information (see: Appendix 5); followed by graphs of ‘income of the world population’ (Figure 8) and ‘trade flows’ between world regions (Figure 9).

Figure 6: People living on under PPP US$ 2 a day (2002)

Source: www.worldmapper.org. Data source: United Nations Development Programme, 2004.

Figure 7: People living on over PPP US$ 200 a day (2002) For source information see Figure 6.

Figure 8: World income distribution by nation and deciles Source: Sutcliffe, 2005, image 17. Data source: World Bank 1999.

Figure 9: The directions of world trade

Source: Sutcliffe, 2005, image 71. Data source: International Monetary Fund, 1996.

These images show inequality in different ways. The maps, or cartograms, are resized so that area represents variables other than land area. In Figure 6 the countries with the most people earning over $200 a day are largest, those with very few people earning over $200 shrink accordingly. The reverse occurs in Figure 7, where countries expand if many people live on under US$ a day. Thus the maps contrast where very high and very low earners live. This is done using a density-equalising algorithm (Dorling et al., 2006), explained as follows:

“To create a cartogram the population or other density function of interest is treated as a diffusing fluid, which spreads out from the areas where it is initially most dense into areas of lower density. As a simple analogy, imagine a bottle of ink emptied into a swimming pool: the ink is initially densest at the point where it is added to the water but over time will spread out until ultimately it is distributed uniformly throughout the pool.” (Dorling et al., 2006, p.4)

The graphs were sourced from Bob Sutcliffe’s ‘100 ways of seeing an unequal world’, of which I used the English and Spanish versions (Sutcliffe, 1998, 2005). Given their different publication dates the English and Spanish graphs used

data from different years, Figure 8 presents data published in 1999 and 2003 respectively, Figure 9 shows 1996 and 2003. These images were included primarily to complement the maps as other visualisations of world data. Comparisons between these images could be used to reveal preferences for particular visual conventions. Figure 8 presents a break down of earnings within and between countries (the maps just allow comparison between countries). This presents the entire world population, sizing the width of bars according to country population. Figure 9 shows flows of money to represent world trade, (movement is not captured by static cartograms). The graphs and maps visualise different information in different ways, but all pertaining to issues of income and wealth distributions at the world level.

Recruitment and setting

Teachers were identified as being an interesting group to study for three main reasons. Firstly they are responsible for educating children, so have some influence on pupils’ sensitivities and awareness. One teacher referred specifically to her role of teaching children to be responsible citizens (see below). Choosing geography and social science teachers, mainly from secondary schools because that is where teachers specialise, meant participants’ teaching touches on global issues and inequality. Whilst this research is not concerned with the education process, teachers are interesting participants because of their wider roles in society. Educational institutions play “a critical role in the reproduction of the distribution of cultural capital and thus in the reproduction of the structure of social space, … [so have] become a central stake in the struggle for the monopoly on dominant positions” (Bourdieu, 1996, p.5).

Secondly, teachers are selected as citizens who interact with a range of people and deal with inequalities between their students on a daily basis. Thus teachers are citizens with a heightened awareness of national inequalities, and the variety between groups allows reports of differing lifestyles. Whilst the ‘global social dialogues’ of social movements and international institutions are well documented (Yeates, 2009, p.48), it is revealing to consider the views of

those who have not been identified because of their pre-existing active role in international decision making. Nevertheless, teachers are also active citizens: 70,000 teachers on strike brought Oaxaca, Mexico, to a standstill in 2006 (Almeyra, 2007 p.54).

Thirdly, participants having occupation as a basic similarity, a control variable, renders findings more comparable between countries. Some ways that teachers might differ from others is that some systems of formal education have a tendency to make people more economically conservative and morally liberal (Weakliem, 2002, p.153). Selecting teachers also controls for interest and motivation to some extent, as suggested when selecting students for other research (Uzzell, 2000, p.311). Another control is that most people who agree to participate do so altruistically (Skelton, 2001, p.91), so are a self-selecting group. One teacher reflected:

“… ultimately you are teaching for exams and grades, but you’re also teaching them for a wider world in which that inequality will exist, and it will change if they have a different mindset, and maybe that’s the beginning of that, so I always like it when they say that, because I think right, I suppose that’s the act of a responsible citizen.”

(UK 5, urban private school)

Teachers are a heterogeneous group, yet they share certain characteristics so the discourses they use may be somehow distinctive from those of others. There is considerable variation in teachers’ professional experiences. At the national level in Kenya 7% of the GDP is spent on education, in Mexico it is 4.8% and in the UK it is 5.6%. The expected number of years to be spent in education for each country are: 10 in Kenya, 14 in Mexico, and 16 in the UK (Central Intelligence Agency, 2010). The social backgrounds of those who become teachers influences the image of the profession, as does the standpoint of the viewer. In the former Soviet Union for example, rural female school leavers of the Novosibirsk region, unlike their male and urban female counterparts, ranked teaching very highly (Hoyle, 1987, p.614-5). Similarly, in Mexico I was told that rural teachers are more respected than urban teachers. Many UK teachers have recently been undermined by Prime Minister David Cameron’s suggestion that those with third class degrees should not receive funding for their teacher training (Watt, 2010), which implies that they are not