Methodological reflexivity

Methodological reflexivity provides the researcher with the opportunity to consider how the design of the research project affected the type of data collected. Interviewing the participants as well as this reflection will be considered in relation to the creation of the project, and as these were key parts of the project design.

4.3.3.5.1 Creating project

The project was created as a consequence of the Researcher engaging in Doctoral study and wishing to answer some of her own questions about individual motivation and engagement in knowledge transfer between universities and small business. At

the end of the research project, when she was presented with the opportunity to engage in Doctoral research, she began to seek out how relationships worked when different individuals engaged in research projects. She had been given the scope to develop a project she was interested in within the context of university-business engagement, but at this stage had not sufficiently reflected on her experience as a research assistant to acknowledge that understanding individual motivation could answer some of her own questions and concerns.

Guided initially by an interest in methods for analysing academic and faculty participation in outreach activity, it was attendance on a study visit to universities in mid-West United States that prompted the question of what motivated academic engagement. It was a question which the methodologies appeared to neglect, but which the Researcher thought was important as interested and engaged academics demonstrated their commitment to projects they are engaged in. Research about knowledge transfer and individual motivation showed that much was focused on targets like publication rates, rather than individual motivation. Discussion with her KTP engaged Supervisor led to searching for relevant articles regarding KTP engagement and motivation and it was clear that this was an area of research as yet unearthed. For the Researcher there was also a degree of reassurance regarding the desire to find an original research project. Researching individual academic motivation in a KTP context presented an ideal opportunity for original research, especially when coupled it with SDT and critical realism.

The Researcher spent some time deliberating on the approaches to be used to determine individual academic motivation, but was clear that she wanted to conduct a qualitative study. This approach was representative of her previous studies and research skills, but also presented an opportunity to apply SDT in a unique way. SDT is usually positivist in its approach, favouring quantitative studies. The Researcher was keen for the responses of the participants to be properly represented and critical realism has, what Krauss (2005) calls “…a major epistemological advantage” (Krauss, 2005, p. 764) because it allows the researcher to grasp the point of view of the participants, particularly when the research represents their views in direct speech. Allowing the participants to use their own words means the researcher, participants and subsequent reader can engage in meaning making together (Krauss, 2005, p.

765).

4.3.3.5.2 Interviewing participants

Participants were interviewed at their workplaces in order that the Researcher become more knowledgeable about the context in which KTPs operate. Unfortunately the researcher did not have opportunity to visit the academics within the business environment and could be accused of not being fully immersed in the project environment. The Researcher was interested in individual academics and their motivations. As academics operate primarily within a university context, and spend only short periods of time in the business environment, it is argued that interviewing participants at their academic workplace was the most appropriate way of gaining knowledge of their reality and their perceptions of reality.

The Researcher chose to conduct semi-structured interviews because, like with the choice to conduct a qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were already part of her understanding and knowledge. Participants were asked to narrate their personal experiences, from being an academic to their engagement in KTP activity. These questions were designed to access participants’ understandings of their own reality, and to use their own language to reflect on these specific areas of discussion. A semi- structured interview approach was favoured because it gave structure to the interview process, and gave the Researcher a degree of security in terms of her gaining access to what she regarded as key areas of concern. In reality the interview became more free-form because participants were key to reflect on their experiences, in particular on the less successful aspects of their engagement. The interview sessions, for some, were an opportunity to air some grievances, and this aspect of the process came as a surprise to the Researcher, but she welcomed it because it seemed a more honest account of KTP engagement.

What the Researcher had perhaps also not appreciated was that it was impossible to remain “outside of” one’s subject matter (Longhofer et al., 2013, p. 141). As a novice researcher she was aware of the context in which she was operating but initially was not as “value cognizant” as a good critical realist should be (Krauss, 2005, p. 761). Value cognizant researchers are conscious of the values of human systems and the

values researchers bring to the contexts. Reflection on her practice, and a greater awareness of her own epistemological position and the effects her presence could have on the research participants and their responses to questions asked, led to a greater awareness of how the Researcher and participants could meaning make together.

Meanings, as linguistic categories, make up perceptions of reality (Krauss, 2005, p. 762)and the Researcher recognised there would be multiple perceptions about the reality of KTP engagement so chose to interview a range of participants in order to access their thoughts and words, which she represented in the data analysis with direct quotes. Like the Researcher, those committing to a realist epistemology and ontological realism

“….assert a belief that our knowledge of the world and self can be objective and that in some foundational way of sorting out trustworthy interpretations from untrustworthy ones can be established and things can be known which our words can correspond to”

(Smith & Sparkes, 2008, p. 9)

In other words the Researcher and the participants use language to establish their views, their culture, their perspectives and social reality. The critical realist does need to recognise that they will never know if or when they have accurately depicted the real world, but by directly quoting the research participants they enable to development of a new narrative.