Methodological Issues

In this study, the authority and 'lived experience' (Van Manen, 1990) of my own practice as a professional educational therapist should not be dismissed as merely 'participative'. Instead, it was an integral part of sharing thoughtful, critical reflections on that experience, as a way of developing a shared body of knowledge. To avoid bias caused by reliance on the 'human instrument', this study chose to adopt several strategies. Sanger (1996) recommended "qualitative research defends itself by invoking justificatory processes, such as triangulation...trustworthiness" (p. 178). Hence, the information and data collected by using different types of theoretical approaches and disciplines were triangulated to enrich evidence and reinforce validity. The validity is derived from the five-phase design, which is supported by various methods and tools and triangulation of multiple sources of evidence such as different points of view (the semi-structured interviews, the visual data, and the diaries) addressing personal and professional development dimensions (Mason, 1996) while using the same research questions.

Another strategy for enhancing 'credibility' and 'transferability' was the choice of the case study framework design for this study. The sampling of the cases requires in-depth data collection, involving multiple sources of information, which were rich in context (Creswell, 1998). Regarding the need for justifying strategies of sampling and choosing case studies, Patton (1980) argues that

…the validity, meaningfulness and the insights generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do with the information-richness of the cases selected and the observational/analytical capabilities of the researcher, than with sample size... (p. 185).

Furthermore, Patton (1980) contends that the researcher needs to exercise caution "not to over-generalise from purposeful samples, while maximising to the full the advantages of in-depth, purposeful sampling..." (p. 186).

4.9.1. Validity

The traditional paradigm perceives validation as a process of building a scientific argument that is theoretically and empirically based, supports the conclusions of the study and negates possible alternative explanations (Birnbaum, 1997). Conversely, according to Lincoln & Guba (2000), one method or a collection of methods is not the highway to ultimate knowledge. Validity in a qualitative study involves the question of "whether the researcher sees what he thinks he sees" (Kirk & Miller, 1986, in: Shkedi, 2003, p. 71). A valid explanation of an occurrence in question in a quantitative study is one that can be defended both empirically and theoretically (Dey, 1993).

Thus, the issue of empirical validity involves measurement tools that perform the measurement in a certain way during the research process and may change or be adjusted during the analysis. The findings are valid if they are properly based on the declared perspective of the researcher. The question of theoretical validity involves matching the empirical aspect. In qualitative research, the theoretical aspect develops throughout the research process until the final report is written. In this manner, validation means going back and forth between the theoretical perspective of the study and the data, the findings, and the conclusions (Dey, 1993).

With regard to the concept of validity, researchers distinguish between internal validity and external validity, also called generalisability. Lincoln & Guba (1985) suggested the term 'trustworthiness' instead of internal validity as a criterion for assessing the quality of the design and execution of a qualitative study. The issue of trust deals with the way researchers relate to data, its collection, analysis, and reporting; in other words, the extent to which one can rely on the reports of a study and its results. Validity is based on the researcher's awareness of the research processes and their transparency vis-à-vis outside readers. Hence, the researcher must strictly adhere to a process of several phases of analysis and keep all the documentation (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). In this study, the issue of validity was dealt with through a careful five-phase analysis, leading to a reconstruction of the research process.

4.9.2. Reliability

Reliability in the meaning of the traditional paradigm is the extent to which the research process achieves the same results when the study is repeated. In other words, reliability relates to the accuracy of the research results (Birnbaum, 1997). On the other hand, in qualitative research, it is not possible to refer to reliability in traditional terms since researchers in similar or even identical situations cannot be expected to obtain exactly the same results (Dey, 1993) since it is context-dependent and greatly grounded in the researcher's talents (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Consequently, Lincoln & Guba (1985) coined the term 'dependability'. This concept expresses the meaning of reliability in qualitative research.

Since qualitative research focuses on the researcher as the preferred research tool, it should be related to the reliability aspect in ways that are appropriate for this paradigm. The literature suggests several main ways: (1) creating a bank of research data that can be presented when necessary and which is available to researchers, enabling them to check the information sources for themselves (Shkedi, 2003, 2013); (2) preserving analysis of documents for each phase so that researchers can reconstruct the analysis processes and examine the investigation process in light of the methodological problems known to them (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994); (3) documenting the examination of other researchers' analysis (Yin, 1989); (4) checking the degree of consistency in the research (Miles & Huberman, 1994); (5) writing the final research report in such a way that it contains a sufficient number of quotations pertaining to the relevant issues, noting the circumstances of their collection and the context of the data for the research questions (Shkedi, 2003); and explaining in detail the processes of constructing the research (Peshkin, 2000). I have followed these precautions.

4.9.3. Generalisability

The significance of generalisability prevalent in traditional quantitative research is the ability to apply the results of the research to other contexts and other people (Birnbaum, 1997). Generalisability of this kind is not possible in qualitative research. Stake (1995) claims that the real essence of a case study is its particularity and not its generalisability. Researchers take a particular case and get to know it well, not how it is different from

other cases but rather what are its features and meanings. Stake (1995) talks about "naturalist generalisability" as opposed to formalistic generalisability. He uses this term to signify that readers should judge whether the findings of one case study can be applied to another group of people in whom they are interested—the issue of 'relatability'.

The meaning of this generalisability is not necessarily that the reader seeks to transfer the case to other situations, but rather that it is possible to relate to certain aspects of the case as having potential implications for other cases. At the same time, the researcher is obliged to support this process by providing a thick description of the background and of the occurrence investigated in the case study report. Thus, readers have enough information to assess the accord between the situation studied and the situation to which they are relating.

"Researchers can supply, at best, only the information about the participants. This could be the basis for judging generalisability of transfer to another context by future readers" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 217).

Generalisability is difficult to achieve in qualitative research. Nonetheless, this study used several strategies for increasing its generalisability (Shkedi, 2012), notably triangulation.

This study is concerned with a deep exploration of personal and professional development based on both dimensions. Therefore, the semi-structured interviews, visual data, and diaries focused on both dimensions. Corroborating the data collected using all the tools mentioned, strengthened the findings that emerged from previous phases. Furthermore, it can be concluded that the different angles by which the personal and professional dimensions were addressed, yielded an accurate, even multi-faceted picture, enhancing the validity and reliability of this study (Mason, 1996). The triangulation used in this study resulted in a rich and expansive description of the personal and professional dimension within professional development. Consequently, it can be said that the expansive description greatly supports the findings of triangulation. Another claim for increasing the generalisability of this study is the rigour of the data analysis. The data was analysed according to the best theories of analysis and the interpretation of the findings was supported by extant knowledge of the personal and professional dimension in education in general and inclusion in particular. In

conclusion, this study does not claim full replicability because of the limitations of a qualitative research in this regard. However, if a similar setting is found, the study can be easily repeated.

Finally, the study was conducted within an Israeli informal educational framework and was rooted in the Israeli reality; therefore, it is true to this specific context. This implies that there is a gap between the formal declarative approach concerning professional education of teachers and the existing practice in Israel. More precisely, there is lack of enhancement and development of innovative educational approaches that integrate the personal dimension. However, the interpretation of the findings and the conclusions that emerged on its basis, offer possibilities to learn from this experience, basing further research on the theories that were constructed here. This might serve as scaffolding for further enhancement of integrating personal and professional dimension and, hence, widening the perception of professional development towards a more holistic and integrative nature. Although the research was conducted in an Israeli context, its universal contribution pertains to similar programmes to be implemented in other countries and other cultures.

Whilst generalisability is difficult to achieve in qualitative research, in accordance with the suggestions of the literature and according to the research approach presented here, reading this study might possibly lead to potential transferability for the readers to other possible contexts such as social studies and health.

This section of Chapter 4 critically discusses the qualitative features of the research and the considerations used to reinforce them against a background of relevant theoretical perspectives. This section also discusses the ethical issues that arose during the research and the way of coping with them as shown in the literature and in practice in this study.