Issues with data collection

The main issues were to do with undertaking the research in an intercultural setting where the communication modes differed from what I had been used to and where

98 | P a g e

English was the language of the research. There were other minor issues. I was in Uganda on a two-year volunteer educator placement, which was extended to thirty months (which was agreed in October 2013). I was recruited in England. I was based in eastern Uganda, linked with a CPTC and living about 7 kilometres off campus in a dwelling which would usually have housed one of the CCTs. I had had no previous first-hand experience of Uganda before coming to take up the placement, nor had I undertaken mentor work before. In contrast to all the CCTs and most of the mentors, I operated in only one language, English. The differences in language and background between me and most of the participants in the research were set alongside some apparent similarities: experience in education and at a relatively senior level within our own systems. While gender and ethnicity or nationality were not the focus of the research, it is possible that they may have had an impact on the research context. Uganda is a largely patriarchal and communal society and because I came to the research as a lone female it had implications for negotiating space, access and professional working relationships (Crossley & Vulliamy, 2010; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; Storey & Scheyvens, 2003). Most of the CCTs were male as were all my college’s senior administrators16 _{and most senior district and municipal education officials. In}

contrast, the mentor cohort included two men (one of whom took the place of another when his placement ended) and a pool of thirteen women. Within the mentor group there was no organizational hierarchy, the mentor structure was a flat structure whereas there was a hierarchy within the CCT group.17

16 _{Senior leadership and management staff} 17 _{Tutor, senior tutor, principal tutor, CCT chair}

99 | P a g e

The researched and the researcher

There are often differences between the researched and the researcher because of a concomitant lack of familiarity with each other’s contexts. The several differences in this research suggest that intercultural considerations are unavoidable and are an element in the interpretative activity of the research. The intercultural context of the research leads to a ‘moderate nominalist’ position (Neuman, 2011, p. 92)

understanding that ‘subjective-cultural factors greatly shape all of our experiences with the social world, and we can never remove such factors’ (Neuman, 2011, p. 93). Bryman’s observation that social research findings ‘are often, if not invariably,

culturally specific’ (Bryman, 2012, p. 74) is echoed by Bassey (Crossley & Vulliamy, 2010, p. 14) who takes cultural specificity to be present when the academic researcher develops research from their own academic standpoints or disciplines. This was noted to not be in line with the needs of teachers for whom research needed to be practical and able to be put into place in the classroom. This difference in research need and application requires a different approach, a practice-based and increasingly reflective mode of researching education (Crossley & Vulliamy, 2010).

The initial study: signposting understandings and misunderstandings

The initial study took place in term 3 of 2012 and included semi-structured interviews with two mentors and three CCTs. One participant observation was undertaken of a termly review meeting. This allowed for the research tools to be tested. The interview schedules were mainly accessible to participants: one question in the CCTs’

100 | P a g e

schedule needed to be rephrased as it was not clear enough. I became more aware of the possible misunderstandings and parallel meanings which arose from being a

monolingual English speaker who was working with people who were mainly operating in a second or subsequent language. Early information showed that there was a difference in interpretation of the mentor role between mentors and CCTs, and that this, and expectations of success, were necessary areas to pursue. The interview questions were re-calibrated as a result. The initial study vindicated the flexible approach to data collection as the realities of travel distances, workloads and available time affected timetabling. I revised the data collection timetable to reflect this and to take into account the changes to the timings of mentors coming into placement.

The participant observation emphasised for me that naturalistic and narrative elements in the study design might offer an opportunity for participants to speak for themselves (Angrosino & Mays de Perez, 2003) which adds to the storytelling. I videoed work presentations as a participant observer and transcribed the narrative. This allowed for background data on other mentors to be within the data set. It also proved a long process to transcribe video material and precluded planning to collect data in this way in the full study. I noted that the information which was disclosed through these early interviews had to be separate from what I learned from my day-to- day mentor work. As a result of the initial study, as well as the changes referred to above, I changed my literature review framework to include a greater focus on the detail of the Ugandan education system and the recruitment of mentors. The data collected in the initial study are included in the full dataset.

101 | P a g e

Interview schedule amendments: writing, speaking and listening

The modifications to the interview schedules were relatively minor: changing the time frame in one question in the CCTs’ semi-structured interview and changing the

terminology in the mentor interview to include national mentors. The oral

modifications have been greater and subtler. They have involved checking meanings - like the word ‘post’ to mean ‘placement’ or ‘job’ when interviewing a Dutch mentor or clarifying what ‘average’ or ‘fair’ means when a CCT is assessing their own

performance.

Necessary separations

I considered that information which was gathered during CCT interviews might have the potential to affect the way in which I fulfilled my mentor role. This would result in the study moving towards action research. It was not my intent to undertake the placement as action research and I sought to ensure that this did not happen. Separation of my daily work from the research was necessary to stop the research from being an entirely auto-ethnographic tract. The detail of the mentor placement work was decided according to local needs. The projected timetabling of placement activities left little time for other than the work at hand (see Appendix 16).

Communication was a concern. There was considerable unreliability of many

communication modes in rural Uganda (Appendix 15). I found that full note taking and videoing resulted in my actively participating less in the meetings.

102 | P a g e