Introduction
This chapter outlines the research approach and method selected to answer the two research questions explained in Chapter One, including the techniques for data collection and analysis. The chapter also provides a description and discussion of ethics, sampling, tools for gathering data, and issues of reliability and validity, including methodological constraints and how these were addressed. The selection of the case, the selection of participants, and the experiences and itineraries adopted during fieldwork in the districts in the Province of North Maluku are defined. Finally, the approach to data analysis and its interpretation are discussed. This study attempts to unravel the interplay of technical, political, and cultural aspects that make policy implementation in Indonesian primary schools a highly complex endeavour (House & McQuillan, 1998).
The questions as posed earlier, together with the diversity of the context, warrant the use of what is referred to as case study design (Yin, 2003). Using Stake‘s (2000) term ‗collective case studies‘, this investigation is an instrumental exercise providing insight into issues associated with decades of failed implementation of school reform in Indonesia.
To investigate how the reform policy is translated, at the class level, the unit of analysis is the teacher, and, at the school level, the principal. By observing what happens in the classroom, examining students‘ activities and their interaction, a judgment about implementation can be made. At this level, the main issue to address is the extent to
which teachers‘ and principals‘ stated beliefs and intentions align with the government policy on active learning, and the extent to which their behaviours align with their stated beliefs and intentions.
Since implementation does not take place in a vacuum, it is also critical to seek various contributing factors when judgments are made about it. The contributing factors in this study include: (1) technical factors such as knowledge, understanding, and skills required for the new practices; (2) the political aspects accompanying any reforms, often involving shifts in power, and emergence of equity issues; and (3) the cultural factors associated with beliefs about children and how they learn. All of these are factors in implementation that could provide explanations are identified and will be further discussed.
Whilst class and school are the main levels of analysis, there are other units for the study‘s findings. These other levels include: (1) at the school cluster and district levels – professional development agencies charged with assisting schools in the implementation stage; and (2) at the national level - the rationale or development of thinking that led to the adoption and implementation of the new curriculum. A multi-method approach (Patton, 1990), comprising both qualitative and quantitative methods, has been adopted for this study. Altogether four major research methods are used, namely: (1) document analysis; (2) survey questionnaire; (3) semi-structured interview and informal
These research methods were chosen on the basis that they best address the two research questions. The advantage that can be gained by using the above methods is the ability to collect data from a wide range of sources on different aspects of the study. This increases the internal validity of the study as it promotes triangulation (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). Both quantitative and qualitative methods are used to analyse the data gathered during the project.
Given various limitations on finance, time and resources associated with conducting a doctoral study, together with the need to limit the focus for methodological clarity and to enable an in-depth analysis, two schools were selected. The selection criteria and process for these schools are described later in this chapter.
Research approach
In this section the underpinning philosophy and the research approach taken are discussed, along with the researcher‘s experience during fieldwork in the district of Tidore and the neighbouring districts of South and West Halmahera. The approach aimed to support a study of how a centrally-mandated policy did or did not have impact on teachers‘ practices at remote schools in the country. The methodology enables an examination of how education, teaching and learning in schools, and in particular teachers‘ behaviours, are shaped by a host of complex factors, including economic and socio-cultural factors, such as religion, and politics. These factors at play in policy implementation in the local context are little understood and yet they have real impact on the success of education policy enactment.
This approach aligns with Heaton‘s (2004) description of the key features of qualitative research: (1) an emphasis on ‗seeing through the eyes of‘ the people being studied (Heaton, 2004 p. 55); (2) description of the social setting being investigated; (3) examination of social behaviour and events in their historical and social context; (4) examination of the process by which social life is accomplished (rather than the end products or outcomes of interaction); (5) adoption of a flexible and unstructured approach to social enquiry, allowing researchers to modify and adapt their approach as need be in the course of the research; and (6) reliance on theories and concepts that have been derived from the data (rather than defined in advanced) (Heaton, 2004, p. 55).
The choice of a predominately qualitative research design and, in particular, a case study methodology was determined by the nature of the research questions. The use of a qualitative approach rather than a quantitative approach, and specifically the use of a case study approach, has the advantage of providing a rich description of the realities as faced by practitioners and policy actors (Merriam, 1997).
The two questions and the approach were, to some extent, determined by the type of research conducted previously in the field in Indonesia. As mentioned in the previous chapters, independent research into the implementation of reforms in teaching practice in Indonesia has been limited. The research which does exist has generally adopted a survey approach in which participants are asked to complete a written questionnaire and results are collated to produce generalizable findings. Very little qualitative case study
research has been conducted in Indonesian education. Meanwhile, the more common quantitative survey-based approaches are unable to provide credible answers to the questions asked in this study. It is not possible to determine the extent to which active learning pedagogies have been adopted in Indonesian schools without actually taking the time to observe the practice. Similarly, using survey methodology, it is not possible to determine the complex sets of factors – political, cultural and technical - which may affect policy implementation, or the interplay between them. Only through a qualitative case study is it possible to provide plausible answers to these questions.
Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry. The political and value-laden nature of research is emphasized. Qualitative research seeks answers to questions that stress how social experience is created and given meaning (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Qualitative study is necessarily situated within a social and historical setting (Greene, 2000). Denzin and Lincoln (2000) argue that ―...qualitative researchers study things in natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.‖
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 3). The purpose of the approach is to produce what Geertz (1973) famously described as ‗thick description‘ of the multiplicity of complex
conceptual structures including unspoken and taken-for-granted assumptions about cultural life.
food, and even religion, with many of the respondents – particularly with those with whom, as researcher, I conducted extensive interviews and observations. To some other respondents, particularly those in the neighbouring districts of West and South
Halmahera, it was also clear that I did not live in their area and had come to visit them purely in order to conduct research. To a significant extent, it is this status afforded to me as both ‗one of their own‘ and one who has had professional experience as an
outsider that gave me the access required to conduct this study, to understand, to unearth and interpret the cultural and professional perspectives of respondents.
My strength as an insider-researcher lies in the critical perspective that the situation afforded me, in particular when discussions were held on problems the teacher respondents had in their in-service and teaching. To this extent, I was a participant- observer. As a result, entrée into my own locale was easier as compared to that of an outsider. As an insider researcher I was familiar with the meanings attached to words, acts and symbols of the researched community, the local language used and its
accompanying euphemisms.
On the other hand, all researchers are in a sense, outsiders, since they have an agenda that is additional to any participation which they have in the activities that are the subject of their research. The temporary status of the researcher as both insider and outsider needs to be recognized and accepted by the research subjects and respondents, if the activity is not to be compromised. Burgess (1991) states that many of the characteristics of the researcher such as age, sex,
social class and status, and ethnicity, can and do have an important impact on whether access is granted or withheld. During the research process it is
inevitable and important that the researcher will come to know some individuals better than others. Friendships made during the research project can significantly affect which avenues of access are opened and closed during the research
process.
It is important to clarify the role of the researcher in terms of ‗positionality‘ in this context. In addition to acting as a researcher in this study, I held a number of roles within the education system. When conducting the initial study of school clusters, I represented ‗Save the Children‘, an international non-government organization. I also presented myself as a teacher and a research student when conducting all of the data collection and field work. While acting as an ‗insider- outsider‘ as described above, I was able to maintain a degree of objectivity through the process of verifying key findings and interpretations as discussed in the section on Validty, Trustworthiness and Triangulation later in this chapter.
In a qualitative study the investigator is the primary instrument for gathering and analysing data and therefore the role of the researcher is critical to data interpretation (Merriam, 1997). The researcher‘s personal and professional background is discussed below, as the researcher‘s own philosophical orientations and underpinnings,
worldviews, sensibilities and theoretical interests helped to shape the approach to
views necessarily underpin the research. What is the nature of knowledge and knowing? It is important that these views are made explicit in order that the reader can evaluate the research. I believe that knowledge is socially and culturally constructed. People live in groups (nations, ethnic groups, local communities) and it is through these groups that, as individuals, we make meaning of our lives and experiences. This includes our
understandings of work, of education, of teaching and learning. My own view of knowledge as socially constructed is at variance with those of mainstream Indonesian society, where knowledge is typically viewed as absolute and external to the knower and to the society. In this view, knowledge is acquired by learning from a knowledgeable person. Ultimately knowledge is revealed, in a religious sense, rather than constructed.
To the extent that this research aims to expose the political and cultural dimensions of education reform as well as technical aspects, and ultimately to promote change, it may be regarded as ‗critical research‘ (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). As a critical researcher, I entered into this investigation with assumptions on the table, for example, that in the Indonesian education system, more often than not, teachers do get blamed when innovations at schools do not work as expected or, worse, fail.
At the same time, the notion of self-reflection is central to an understanding of the nature of critical qualitative research. It was not my intention to approach the collection and analysis of data with a pre-determined theoretical perspective or understanding of the various factors impacting on the success of policy
enactment in schools located in remote education districts in Indonesia. I had envisaged a study that would draw upon the views and perceptions of those people who were intimately involved in teaching and learning in these schools in the post-reform era. This approach honours the legitimacy of practitioner
knowledge and, particularly in this context, the culturally specific understandings of teachers.
Critical research can be best understood in the context of the empowerment of individuals and groups. Inquiry in critical research is an attempt to confront the injustices of a particular society or sphere within the society (Burton, 2000). Research in the critical tradition takes the form of self-conscious criticism, self- conscious in the sense that researchers try to become aware of ideological imperatives and epistemological presuppositions that inform their research as well as their own subjective, inter-subjective, and normative reference claims (Burton, 2000; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). Interpretation is political and subjective.
This raises the issue of subjectivity. There could of course be some elements of subjectivity in my observation as an insider, because no social activity is
completely value-free. Our cultural biases as researchers and the pre-occupations of our time and place are extended into our observations as so much prejudice. Most social research is political, value-laden, and researchers take sides in research (Giroux, 1983; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2000). According to Denzin and Lincoln
(1998), the era of value-free and neutral inquiry for the human disciplines is over. The process of interpretation, according to Habermas (1990), is inevitably tied to the horizons or value judgments of the interpreter.
In this study, it is the researcher‘s status as an insider, investigating the familiar system of her own professional community that enabled the treatment of familiar things as outstanding as opposed to normal. According to Denzin and Lincoln (1998) ―...every researcher speaks within a distinctive interpretive community, which configures, in its special way, the multicultural, gendered components of the research acts.‖ (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998, p. 23). It is the researcher‘s role in this context to give meaning to normal events, to put them in a larger political and theoretical perspective, as well as with the familiarity of the insider. For example, the politics of national policy and the dialogue around education quality in Indonesia have tended to run along familiar grooves. Attention is rarely given to the perspective of the practitioner and frequently teachers are blamed for the problem of low quality. ‗Mental guru‘ or ‗teacher mentality‘ is cited as the cause of implementation failure. This ‗blame the teacher game‘ is played by education authorities from the central ministry down to the level of the local
supervisor and school principal. It is also often implicit in the research approaches and findings of Indonesian studies, which take the perspective of the outsider, located outside and above the world of the teacher (e.g., Utomo, 2005; Yulaelawati, 1996).It is in this context that the ‗art and politics‘ of research and data interpretation come to the fore.
Ethics approval, protocols and entry to the field
An ethics approval with reference number H9258 (see Appendix 1) was obtained in 2007 after all the required forms were completed and submitted to the University of
Tasmania‘s Ethics Committee (Human Experimentation). This process addressed the important ethical and procedural issues around conducting research in general and, specifically, conducting social research in schools. This was followed by a series of letters including an invitation (see Appendix 2), information sheet about the study (see Appendix 3), and consent forms (see Appendix 4) all of which were translated into Indonesian before they were given to the teachers, principals, local education administrators, and education bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education and Culture.
Normal procedure in Indonesia requires the supervising institution, in this case the Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, to send a notification letter to the institution in which the research subjects work. This institution is the Ministry of
National Education of the Republic of Indonesia. Because of the change from centralized to decentralized government and to expedite the otherwise long-winded process, the same notification letter was sent to several directorates and units under the Ministry (see
Appendix 5).
To date, no formal requirement exists for ethics approval to conduct educational research in Indonesia and, accordingly, there is no office in Indonesia that gives ethics approval for the conduct of research in schools. However, although ‗formal‘ permission is not
required, this notification letter was sent to meet administrative requirements and as a matter of courtesy. Below are the offices to which the letter was sent:
1. Balai Penelitian dan Pengembangan-Balitbang (Office of Research and Development Centre),
2. Pusat Kurikulum (Curriculum Centre),
3. Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan-BNSP (Office of National education Standard),
4. Lembaga Penjamin Mutu Pendidikan (The Institute of Quality Assurance), 5. Direktorat Jenderal Manajemen Pendidikan Dasar(Directorate General of Basic
Education Management), and
6. Direktorat Jenderal Pembinaan Mutu dan Tenaga Kependidikan (Directorate General of Quality Improvement and Education Personnel).
The same letter was also submitted to the three district education offices. As a matter of courtesy, the researcher followed up the letters, by making visits to the designated offices. The next step was for the researcher to visit and approach the schools.
Approaches to teachers and students were conducted through the principal. In most cases, the principal spoke to teachers and arranged a meeting. The researcher attended the meeting and was introduced by the principal to the teaching staff.
Research method and design: case study
The qualitative case study allows a variety of methods to enable data to be gathered from an array of sources in a variety of ways (Wolcott, 1994). A research design was adopted,
based on that suggested by Yin (1989; 2003) for case study research, although with some modifications. Figure 3.1, below, outlines the operational procedures used to collect the data as well as the sequence of, and the relationship between, these procedures. The process of designing the research and the collection and analysis of data took place in continuum. Each activity fed into the others, as illustrated in the diagram. Various mini-, or brief, case studies were conducted in order to provide newer and richer details on the various factors in the district educational landscape.
Figure 3.1: Case Study Research Design (adapted from Yin)
Adapted from Yin (1989, 2003).
Having adopted the model illustrated above, the research design, data collection and analysis took place over the five-year period of the researcher‘s doctoral study.