Existing Power Relations in the Different Stages of the Research

As per the stages identified in Karnielli-Miller et al. (2009) the existing power relations between the participants and me can be demonstrated in Figure 3.3 and are clarified in the sections that follow.

Figure 3.3: The Flow of Power Relations in Qualitative Research Source: Karnielli-Miller et al. (2009, p.284)

Participant Recruitment

At the initial phase of the research, during the identification of participants of the study, I had full control of the research in terms of disclosing information on the research goals, the importance of their contribution and my affiliation with the University of Sussex. My source of authority or power was also due to the official role I played at the Ministry of Education. Although there was a strong hierarchical relationship between the participants and myself, which required their actual participation (Peel et al., 2006), I still wanted them to willingly and voluntarily contribute to the research. Mainly, I wanted to persuade participants to take part in the research and voluntarily share their experiences. I chose to be very transparent and inform them of my dual intentions;

creating a professional development scheme for teachers in the UAE, in addition to formalising the project through official research as part of my research requirements at the University of Sussex. This was to maintain clarity from the beginning to make my research ethically acceptable and in line with the code of ethics suggested by BERA (p. 3, 2004).

As a researcher I provided participants with details on the aims and nature of the research in addition to the possible consequences of the research, which would be the establishment of an official professional development scheme that the ministry may decide to adopt and follow in similar situations. Participants were also advised that they would be informed of the initial findings of the needs assessment, which would be carried out through multiple forms of data collection (questionnaires, lesson observations, interviews and the presentation of official documents). This was done in order to justify the rationale behind the concluded interventions to be implemented. It also demonstrated that their input and feedback was seriously taken into consideration when taking decisions in relation to the construction of interventions.

On the other hand, with my experience with the first group of participants in Jordan, where I performed as a researcher only, participants had stronger authority in the research which was expressed by their indirect refusal to take part and contribute to my research regardless of the clarifications I provided. It was therefore concluded that, in order to be able to implement such a project, I would need to have a more powerful and influential role to gain access to active participants who would be willing to take part in such research.

Data Collection

During the collection of data, participants had a stronger and more active role in the research. Although participants appeared to be rather in control of the data they provided in some settings (questionnaires and interviews), my authority and official role raised a more obligatory setting to the data participants should be willing to provide. I also chose to use additional methods in collecting data, such as informal meals and showing care to participants, to gain access to data that was genuine and not just as part of their obligations (Kvale, 1996).

Triangulation of data collection was another method used to ensure the validity of collected data that was not made clearly available in certain settings. Additional rapport building tactics used were sharing meals (Dickson Swift et al., 2006) and developing friendships with participants (Duncombe and Jessop, 2002). On the other hand, in order to maintain ethical values in relation to the data collected through different tactics and informal settings as suggested by Dickson Swift et al. (2006), I did not take notes of any irrelevant data disclosed.

Data Analysis and Reporting

Having worked with the participants in collecting and identifying required data, the formal control of the research returned to me as the researcher. In reporting the findings of the data collection tools and their interpretations, I had control over the nature of reported data and how it would be reported. As described by Brinkmann and Kvale (2005) my control was absolute. My responsibility was now to deliver data that was of substantial educational value to all involved parties; the participants, the Ministry of Education, the community of educational researchers and the University of Sussex. Assessing and Validating the Effectiveness of Developed Interventions

To limit the risk of misinterpreting participant experiences and shared contributions, validating collected findings and feedback on developed interventions was done by allowing participants to discuss and share their views regarding interventions. Data shared with participants was on the findings of the needs assessment conducted through the questionnaires, interviews, and lesson observations. This was also to justify the decision towards selecting topics and areas of interests addressed in interventions. It also provided participants with the rationale behind the type of interventions employed (workshops, demonstration lessons, discussion forums). In addition to participant feedback, my field observations as a researcher were essential in order to assess the effectiveness of interventions. Sharing particular data on the findings was necessary to show participants my commitment to involving them in the decisions taken about recommended practices (Karnielli-Miller, 2009) in addition to confirming my understanding about the collected data (Enosh and Buchbinder, 2005).

Publishing Research Findings

At the early phase of the project, and in order to maintain clarity in the dual objective of the research, all involved parties (the Ministry of Education, participants, University of Sussex), were informed of my intentions to create a professional development scheme that served the needs and interests of the UAE Ministry of Education in addition to implementing the project as part of my research requirements as a DPhil candidate at the University of Sussex. My role as a researcher was classified as being a detective investigating and discovering what others in the same field, including teachers, have not observed or understood until today. Although participants worked with me in different parts of the research, the relationship remained highly hierarchical given that the participants were not actual experts in the field of professional development (Mason, 1996), and were rather responding to prompts and interventions developed by the researcher.

Given that all data collected and used in the research were in line with the original research objectives, the publication of the findings can be seen as the responsibility of the researcher. After having the data transferred from the field and into the realm of research, it became research property; nevertheless it was still used under the condition that I committed myself to comply with following ethical guidelines as specified by Karnieli-Miller (2009, p. 285). These conditions are as follows:

1. Participants fully understood (at the level known to the researcher) the meaning of the research and voluntarily agreed to take part in it.

2. Messages conveyed through participants were not distorted. 3. Participant anonymity was protected.

4. Benefits, where possible, were made available to participants, which were balanced against risks.

5. As a researcher I had an obligation to non-malfeasance that required doing no harm to participants.

The relationship between the participants and the researcher was seen as a continuum; a high level of partnership on one side, during the data collection and the validation of the finding of the study, and an asymmetric one on the other end, where I had full authority

and power over the reporting and analysis of data, as will be clarified in the following chapter. Participants served as respondents to research prompts. I served as a researcher setting to further investigate (Mason, 1996). To ensure credibility for the research, it was necessary for me to maintain critical adherence through the followed methodology and researcher transparency.