In designing my methodology I took into account my empirical setting and four key considerations:
My theoretical approach
What were the data collection techniques I would or could use?
Where were the right sources for the data to address my research questions? The selection of my sample and the importance of justifying this selection
(Brown and Dowling, 1997)
Interpretivist/constructivist approaches to research have the intention of “understanding the world of human experience” (Cohen and Manion, 1994) and the researcher tends to focus on “participants’ views of the situation being studied” (Creswell, 2003, p.8). It is thus common for the researcher to rely on qualitative data collection methods using ethnographical approaches including interviews, long term observation and textual analysis (Leonard, 2005). However s/he may opt for a mixed or multi-methods approach (McKenzie and Snipe, 2006).
There has been much debate within philosophical and methodological literature about the use of mixed methods (e.g. Creswell, 2010) and what actually constitutes a mixed method design (e.g. Johnson and Turner, 2003; Morse, 2010) which I cannot fully explore here. There is also different terminology used to describe the different permutations of qualitative and quantitative mixes.
I found the rationale provided by Johnson and Turner (2003) helpful whereby they defined mixed methods research as falling into two categories of intermethod and intramethod. Intermethod mixing or “method triangulation” is where two or more methods are used, for example questionnaires and observations are mixed in a single study. The approaches can be either quantitative only or qualitative only approaches or a combination of both. Intramethod mixing happens where a single method includes both
closed-ended questionnaire.
Ultimately I took a pragmatic stance in choosing a mixed methods approach (e.g. Greene and Caracelli, 2003; Green and Hall, 2010; and Biesta, 2010). Like Greene and Caracelli (2003), I believe that many paradigms are social constructions and so not necessarily “intrinsically bound to a particular set of methods and techniques” (p.95). Biesta (2010) talked of this approach as “everyday pragmatism” and of the “utility of research means for research ends” (p.96).
The pragmatic reasons were due to the nature of the empirical field which placed some limitations on research design. Firstly, the availability of the key players in PCK/SKfT delivery and development from whom much of the data was collected: GTs, school mentors, EBITT subject tutors and senior EBITT staff. All participants were constrained by time because of the work-based nature of the training and the demands on EBITT staff. Secondly, EBITTs have traditionally found it difficult to make the best use of their data (e.g. Ofsted 2007). So from my experience of the empirical field it was important to also have access to documentary data such as EBITT handbooks to
supplement data gained from interviews. Given these considerations I decided to use a combination of methods which would allow me to answer my research questions (e.g. Greene and Caracelli, 2003; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Biesta, 2010).
The guiding principle of a mixed methods research approach is that methods should be mixed to complement their strengths and avoid non-overlap of weaknesses
(e.g.Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, Johnson and Turner 2003). Johnson and Turner also stress that it is not a weakness or a limitation of any qualitative study that numerical generalisations cannot be drawn or that samples are not statistically representative just as it is not a weakness or limitation of a quantitative study that case-bound
generalisations cannot be deduced or that the data is not information rich. It is rather the researcher that is weak or limited in choosing inquiry approaches for the wrong reasons or executes them in the wrong way.
In this research I used the intermethod approach collecting data using three methods: semi-structured interviews, document analysis and observation (attending EBITT
34
training sessions and regional meetings). The main method of data collection was via the interviews but using, document analysis and observation to:
Gain information about provision rather than take up valuable interview time with EBITT staff to obtain it
Provide data triangulation particularly in respect of attainment and central training provision
I also considered the use of focus groups with GTs and mentors to help refine the interview questions but decided not to for two reasons. Firstly they have some weaknesses: they can be dominated by some participants; data analysis can be time- consuming and there are possible ‘reactive and investigator effects’ because participants feel they are being watched (Johnson and Turner, 2003): Another disadvantage is that participants might find it difficult to share their views with a group. I also discounted the use of questionnaires as GTs and mentors are frequently asked to complete programme evaluations and I did not want this process to be another programme type ‘demand’. Also questionnaires would not encourage the type of full and qualitative responses I was seeking.
Semi-structured style interviews were chosen to gain an understanding of how EBITTs developed their programmes, PCK/SKfT input and how GTs and mentors experienced the training process. Furthermore they have been used in similar studies for example: Foster (2001) who looked at the GTP’s early development and Brookes (2003, 2005) who explored the adequacy of GTP training, mentor training and quality assurance. Griffiths (2007, 2011) also used this approach when looking at GTs’ experiences of training and GTP career changers’ early professional development. This method is ideal for face-to-face interviewing as it allows the interviewer to have flexibility in the order and wording of questions and time given to different areas (e.g. Spencer and Ritchie, 1994, Robson, 2001, Johnson and Turner 2003) but at the same time allows her/him to have a “shopping list” of topics s/he wants to address (Robson, 2001 p. 237). Using a topic list ensures that all interviewees were asked the same questions but also allows clarification and more in-depth exploration of particularly interesting themes. It also gives space to interviewees to expand on areas and introduce related topics they wish to refer to.
I decided to look at the PCK/SKfT provision of three EBITTs within two secondary shortage subjects because they have always been a major focus for the GTP. Although the aim of this research was not to evaluate or compare I knew it was important to explore different approaches to PCK/SKfT input. I also wanted to see whether the academic profile of GTs had any bearing on how well PCK/SKfT was developed.
I chose three EBITTs to gain sufficient data and reflect a range of provision. No two EBITTs operated in the same way and varied considerably in size: some school-led EBITTs had as few as four or five GTs whereas other university or consortia led providers trained as many as 200 in a year (Smithers et al., 2012). Also EBITTs tended to have strong geographical connections serving the needs of local schools which also had an impact on programme delivery. Data collection also took into account guidance that it should be both representative and manageable (e.g. Brown and Dowling, 1997; Robson, 2001) and reflect my own experience of the field. As a result my criteria for selecting the EBITTs were that they should:
be representative of the GTP within the empirical field;
reflect effective provision and so the providers would have to be Ofsted graded ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’;
reflect the differing approaches EBITTs used to address and develop PCK/SKfT;
include a provider which was more selective in recruiting trainees and one that had a more ‘open access’ policy;
have sufficient potential data to draw on in terms of numbers of GTs and mentors.
Using these criteria I selected EBITTs with different origins and missions, of similar size in terms of secondary mathematics and science GT numbers and within a
manageable geographical distance of each other. Having a longstanding connection with the GTP I was familiar with many EBITTs and knew the Programme Leaders. This facilitated my choice and the initial approach to be involved in my research. As Chapter Four provides the profile of the EBITTs based on the data only a brief outline is
36
EBITT 1 – ‘Kingsview’: attached to a post 1992 university. It was recently graded ‘good’ with ‘outstanding’ features by Ofsted and had a more ‘open access’ policy in terms of entry requirements.
EBITT 2 – ‘Central College’: attached to a large high research profile
university. It was graded ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted in 2011 and usually expected candidates to have at least a 2:1 degree.
EBITT 3 – ‘NineSG’ (Nine Schools Group): a school led EBITT and SCITT. The NineSG EBITT was graded overall ‘good’ with ‘outstanding’ features at its latest Ofsted.