Methods

The interpretative paradigm is often associated with providing opportunities for voices, views, experiences and practices to be heard in research (Cole, 2006; Weaver and Olson, 2006). The intention was to adopt a ‘critical sensibility’ which, according to Denzin and Lincoln (2005:5), would not silence the voices of the participants but allow their

contributions to be heard and valued as reflections of their experiences in ways that contributed to an understanding of gender . The decision to use a discussion group offered a method of generating qualitative data which encouraged the participants to share their views and perceptions. It additionally provided a platform for the participants to benefit from a group synergy (Barbour, 2005), in which they were able to respond to and build from others’ contributions. Cole (2006:26) states that the interpretative paradigm allows voices and experiences to be heard and it is ‘concerned about uncovering knowledge about how people feel and think in the circumstances in which they find themselves’ rather than in ‘making judgements about whether those thoughts and feelings are valid’. I will return to the issue of validity later in this chapter, but it is important to note that the aim of this research was to consider what EYPs think about gender: the aim was not to determine if they are right or if what they say is deemed to be reasonable by someone else’s standard.

5.3.1 Discussion groups

As previously stated, discussion groups (DGs) were used as the main method of collecting data for this project. As a research method discussion groups have both strengths and limitations which will be discussed below. DGs could be seen as a group interview which, according to Barbour (2005), benefits from the creation of synergy from the group

dynamics. As suggested by Holloway and Wheeler (2013), the data that was produced was created through social interaction and the data collected and analysed benefitted from an iterative approach in which , following Hsieh and Shannon (2005), the questions, the methods employed and the data were excavated time and time again, allowing changes to the original planning to take place. Having four DGs and a feedback session provided opportunities for the participants to discuss issues, share thoughts, and question the data and its analysis. This resulted in clarifications, reiterations, contradictions and modification of what had previously been thought and planned (Kitzinger, 2005). As outlined by Hsieh and Shannon (2005), these practices allowed the creation of new ideas, revisions and

[78]

improvements. Thus, the project was data-driven. The questions for the first session (Appendix 1) were created by me to elicit responses from the participants about their understandings of gender in the nursery but thereafter the questions depended on the themes which emerged during the sessions. In the following section I will discuss how the participants were selected and outline the protocols adopted in order that the conditions and settings of this research are transparent.

5.3.2 The discussion group and protocols

The participants selected for the project were BA students studying for an undergraduate qualification in Childhood Practice (QAA, 2007)⁸. I asked the First Year students on the programme to opt in to the research project by posting a message on the University’s virtual learning environment along with the Plain Language Statement (PLS) (Appendix 2) I had written when applying for ethical approval for this project (see the ethics section below). I selected this year group as I had not yet taught them and I would not be

responsible for the marking of their current course: this has ethical implications which will be considered later in this chapter. My message requested that participants should come from the EY sector of Childhood Practice and I selected the first class group in which eight students responded to the posting. This decision followed advice from Holloway and Wheeler (2013) who suggest that although there is no optimum or definitive number of participants in a discussion group, six to eight individuals would be adequate if those involved come from a similar sphere. Here the similar sphere was the individuals’

membership of a learning cohort on the BA in Childhood Practice. The discussion group consisted of eight participants and included individuals in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. This was accidental and had not been part of the selection process, but it did provide a breadth of age and experience of participants working in the EY sectors. The demographic of the group, beyond their shared BA class membership, was not entirely homogenous.

I was aware that the participants who would respond would be women as this reflects not only the demographic of those who study on the programme but, as discussed in Chapter 4, would reflect the profile of practitioners in the field in which 97.5% of practitioners are women (Moss, 2003;Young, 2006). I have already noted that, whilst aware of the

importance of intersectionality, my study focussed on gender and sex. Whilst no specific

1 Childhood Practice consists of students who work in non-compulsory children services; this includes those who work in Early Years, Residential Children’s Homes, Women’s Refuges and Out of School Services.

[79]

information was collected about the individual group participants with respect to social class or socio-economic status (see Rubin et al, 2014⁹), some tentative similarities and differences can be suggested. With regard to aspirations, some of the participants viewed their position on the degree programme as the fulfilment of their earlier potential but some considered degree study to be something that would be normally undertaken by others, not them. Based on my understanding and knowledge of the BA cohorts overall, it is likely that fewer than five per cent were from families in which parents or siblings had a university degree (see Rubin, 2012a,b) Additionally, each group member was white and Scottish, although one wore a hijab, denoting her faith.

Over the five group sessions, attendance was not as consistent as I had envisaged, with sessions varying from four to eight participants because, owing to professional and personal issues, some participants were unable to attend all the sessions. As all the participants received the annotated discussion transcript after each session there was an opportunity for them to know and to reflect on what had been discussed, and to provide feedback or raise questions on the topics discussed when they attended the next session.

In total there were five group sessions, four of which involved discussions of the topics which emerged from the previous meetings. The fifth session was the presentation of the findings from all the discussions and, in that final session, participants were asked to respond to a PowerPoint presentation of themes and analysis discussed in the previous sessions (Appendix 5). In addition, the participants were asked to complete an anonymous evaluation of the research to determine if they thought the discussions had been in any way beneficial to them or their practice (Appendix 4).

5.3.3 The setting.

The discussion groups were held in the University of Glasgow. The participants were informed by email of the dates, times and rooms in which the discussions would be held.

2Rubin et al (2014: 196) take socio-economic status (SES) as ‘one’s current social and economic situation … relatively mutable, especially in countries that provide opportunities for economic advancement’ whereas social class ‘refers to one’s sociocultural background’, a more stable construct likely to be static across generations.

[80]

The room was set up with a video recorder and a microphone and the discussions lasted approximately an hour. At the first meeting the participants read and signed the PLS (Appendix 2-see ethics section below). The participants were informed that I would record the sessions with both an audio and video recorder. I clarified that the video was for my benefit to identify participants talking (Hennink, 2007) and was not for the purpose of examining non-verbal communication. There was also a need to reinforce discussion protocols, as discussed by Wisker (2008), in order that the recording could contain as many of the participants’ voices and opinions as possible and so, for example, everyone had to guard against talking over each other.

At the first session, after the PLS (Appendix 2) was read, I asked the participants to consider if they still wished to participate and assured them that they could withdraw from the research at any time (Holloway and Wheeler, 2013). I also explained that once I had transcribed the recordings and analysed the transcription, providing notes indicating the codes and themes I had identified along with comments, I would send a copy to each of the participants by email. In keeping with a data-driven approach, the participants could, if they wished, suggest new topics for discussion or contest any of my assumptions. Hence the next iteration was based upon the themes from the previous discussion and, as suggested by Hsieh and Shannon (2005), the participants could raise any issues. The attempt to engage the participants in the construction of the themes and explanations was to allow the information gathered to be plausible, realistic and believable to them (Guba and Lincoln, 2005b; Silverman, 2006). It also provided an opportunity for the participants to reconsider their previous contributions and it demonstrated my commitment to them being valued in the research process (Kezar and Dee, 2011). Following Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2007), in the interest of being ethical (see below) I wanted to provide opportunities for the participants to challenge and respond to the data collected and analysed. Whilst no-one did suggest additional topics, some participants did clarify previous contributions. The next section details the processes involved in producing the transcripts sent to the participants.