Methodological approach

It is important to acknowledge from the start, that all researchers come with an inherent set of assumptions and beliefs (Crotty, 1998). Through my previous research and life experiences it is clear that I see the individual not as a passive recipient but an active and reflective participant in meaning construction (Burr, 2003). Meaning making, listening to voices, creating opportunities for multiple perspectives to be heard is an inherent part of my working practice as an educator, but also my own personal beliefs of the importance of listening to and valuing others. As a result, the themes I wished to explore were best suited by qualitative approaches on a small and in depth scale. Qualitative approaches enabled me to convey rich stories, rather than mute them through the use of statistics (Silverman, 2006), or through processes that did not enable me to fully explore the intensity and breadth of individual experiences (McRae, 2003).

This qualitative approach aligns with the epistemological position of social constructionism as there are many parallels between this paradigm and my research stance. Social constructionism understands the world from a social perspective, acknowledging that the world is constructed from our own perceptions and viewpoints, based on our interactions with others. Similarly, for women, studying at HE level is often not a solitary activity but can impact heavily on all areas of their lives (see Schuller et al., 2004; Biesta et al., 2011). Therefore, although the meanings

56

that they construct about their experiences are individual, there may also be commonalities across the data.

My theoretical perspective of an interpretive paradigm flows from this epistemological stance and allows me to interpret and describe meaning from the experiences that the women will share and construct. Through an interpretivist approach the ‘culturally derived and historically

situated interpretations of the social life world’ can be considered (Crotty,1998:67). Critiques of this theoretical perspective surround the dominant power of the researcher to shape and

influence behaviour and the temptation to focus on the micro environment so that wider influences or structures are not considered (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011). In this study, wider structural forces of gender constructions, the structure and impact of HE and societal concepts of motherhood are considered so that the micro environment is not just seen in isolation of the women’s HE and family experiences alone. I also considered the possible impact of my role as the women’s tutor and selected a methodology and methods that favoured participation and open dialogue. Through the participants using their own chosen research methods (see Appendix 8) they were active rather than passive participants in the research process (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011).

A narrative inquiry approach is a way of ‘understanding experience’, (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000:20). This was a fitting methodology for my research as it allowed me to build detailed stories of a few thus interpreting their social world. It is a medium used to explore an

individual’s meanings so that others can understand how they experience life (Gibbs, 2007). In addition, ‘…it enables researchers to explore experiences of voice that are unique to each participant, thus ensuring that, plural rather than single, interpretations of voice are presented by participants’, (Cassell, 2006:250). As the women were revealing rich stories of their family lives the narrative inquiry approach resonated with my thinking as narratives also allow meaning to be conveyed through individual, emotions beliefs and values (Dodge, 2007). This is dependent on the skills of the researcher to firstly facilitate the retelling of these stories and secondly present them in a coherent way. I chose this as a methodology as there is a link for narrative

57

inquirers between their own personal interest and the social concerns and lives of others (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000).

I have drawn on feminist methodology values (Crotty, 1998; Letherby, 2003) regarding researcher involvement, collaboration and accepting personal experience of the researcher (Cohen, Marion and Morrison, 2011) in order to reveal ‘what is going on in women’s lives’ (Letherby, 2003:6). Although it is recognised that there are many different constructions of feminist values and perspectives (Hammersley, 1995; Hussain and Asad, 2012), it is the aspect of illuminating women’s experiences that I wish to draw attention to. I recognise that women’s experiences and subject positions may be different to men (Merrill, 1999; Tong, 2009), and accept that these values or perspectives have permeated into my chosen methodologies. I am aware that viewing men and women as having distinctive and diverse experiences is a stereotypical viewpoint, yet society often views men and women as different (Jones, 2003). Therefore there is the danger of being strongly influenced by society’s view of ‘discourses of masculinity embedded in traditions which are strongly heterosexual and orientated around nuclear families and primary female carers’, (Jones, 2003:572). This is a theme I can explore through making ‘gender visible’ (David et al., 1993:208), by way of elucidating women’s experiences of studying and balancing family life. In support of Ribbens and Edwards (1998) research findings, I agree that women’s experiences as mothers in social life have not been well documented and continue to be underrepresented.

Hammersley (1995) argues against the construct of a distinctly feminist methodology stating that it is not that different to non feminist methodology and has the danger of creating further divisions and gender bias. However, I believe its uniqueness lies in its focus on gender and emphasis on personal experiences and narratives (Hussian and Asad, 2012). I have drawn on these principles as I wish to illuminate women’s experiences using methods advocated by feminist research but in a way that is applicable to this study and my skills as an emerging researcher. However there are some aspects of my approach that are outside of feminist methodology. The rejection of non hierarchy in the research relationship (Hussain and Asad, 2012) and participants shaping the research at every stage (De Laine, 2000) are aspects that I

58

cannot claim. Through my lecturer/student relationship I cannot achieve equality in the

relationship as my knowledge of research methods and the literature surrounding the topic area would be construed as being superior (De Laine, 2000). Within an educational environment removing hierarchy from the relationship would be impossible as although I have tried to avoid being dominant as the researcher and their lecturer the women hold constructions of an unequal relationship between us centred on marking and assessment. I also recognise that my methods are not fully participatory nor participant led as the participants have not been involved in defining the problem or contributing to the data analysis (De Laine, 2000).

4.1.1 My position

In this narrative methodology, it is important to acknowledge my role and impact as a researcher in the constructing and retelling of these stories. Hence my own standpoint and experiences have affected my interpretation (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000) and have influenced my own understanding of a situation (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2011).

There are two positions that needed consideration here. Firstly, as laid out in my biographical account (see Appendix 1), I come to this piece of research acknowledging my own ontological position and background as a mature woman student and mother. Secondly, acknowledging that my position as lecturer has had an impact on this research, as I was ultimately in a position of dominance, in terms of the students’ perception of their lecturer as knowledge-giver and thus in a position of authority.

When considering my methodological approach I recognised that I am both an insider and an outsider in terms of the research topic. As stated by Mercer (2007), the concept of an insider versus outsider dichotomy can be misleading as dependent on the context; there can be a shift between being an insider and outsider. For example, I could share insider knowledge as I am a mature student and have knowledge of studying and balancing family life. However, I was aware that the topics of the pressures of college assignment deadlines could have created larger elements of outsiderness, due to my lecturer status. Through drawing on my insider viewpoint (Farnsworth, 1997), my chosen methodology was designed to encourage and draw out the

59

stories of the participants through empathy and knowledge based on my own similar but

individual experiences of being a mature female student. To overcome the limitation of allowing my own experiences and emotions to impact on my ability to be critical (Drake, 2010) I began a research journal (see Appendix 4). This enabled me to reflexively record my own emotions and perspectives (Drake, 2010), thus limiting my own experiences surfacing and overwhelming the study (Farnsworth, 1997). I struggled with my own position as mother, wife and woman during the course of this study and used my journal as a platform to consider my own identity

reconstruction. For different aspects of the research I was aware that I could be at differing ends of the insider-outsider continuum but through the adoption of this approach I was able to reflect on my shifting position (Hellawell, 2006).

Reflecting (May, 2011) and using a research journal was an integral part of the research process but particularly in helping me to mould and map my methodological journey. Through

reassessing my values and identity (Bolton, 2005), my position in the research process was shaped, defined and reinforced. I used it to justify my approaches and to suggest ways forward (see Appendix 4) when I came against any barriers or difficulties (Larrivee, 2000). Through the process of reflective writing, I located gaps in my proposed methods (see Appendix 4) and drew out any issues or complexities (Bolton, 2005). This was not written in any formalised or

prescribed way and the uninhibited and spontaneous aspect of this allowed me to use different mediums such as pictures and text to explore my feelings and emotions. Accordingly, reflection has been a key part of this research for both myself as researcher but also for the women who discussed their stories. Some of the women reflexively repositioned themselves in the interviews as there was a shift of how they portrayed their stories or their understandings of these stories (see Appendix 13). For example Marie began by stating that she felt guilt towards her children because of her studies taking up so much time. However, by the end of the

interview she had reflected that her HE studies had transformed her parenting style which gave her children many more opportunities (e.g. horse riding, outdoor play) that she had not

60

and movement as it is retold and new experiences and meanings are assimilated. Therefore through reflection and retelling of their stories meaning was constructed.

Through reading the subsequent methods section it may appear as a linear straightforward process but in actual fact it was a journey of changes and developments. Through the

compilation of this section it is clear to see where my chosen methods have originated from in terms of my research stance, personal beliefs and individual style of learning and of being.