Methods of data collection

The data collection tools in the study could be described as falling into two categories, which are observation-based research and documentary methods.

Observation

Observational research entails making systematic recordings, which are then subject to interpretation and analysis (Opie, 2004). The observations that took place in the study were audio recordings of participants’ AL sets.

A particular advantage of audio recordings is that ‘the transcripts can be used to provide a check against bias or misinterpretation’ (Opie, 2004:123). Other advantages of observational research include:

• Enabling the researcher to see the familiar as strange

• Hearing the participants speak for themselves, thus giving you information you may not otherwise have obtained

Generally speaking, a disadvantage of observation may be that the act of being observed changes the behaviour of those being observed. Thus, a relative strength of carrying out audio recordings was that this approach distanced me from the data collection as the course tutor, since I was not present in the room. My presence may have had an even greater influence on the observed than normal, owing to the power imbalance introduced by the fact that I was the course tutor. Note that I gave the PSTs a warning as part of the process of making the research ethical, that there were some things they might say that could affect their place on the PGCE course. This knowledge may have limited their responses to an extent. It is possible that an outsider-researcher may have been able to collect more open responses.

Video recording might have been even better than audio recordings because I could then have seen the participants’ facial expressions. This may have made it possible to code for their emotions, as well as making it more likely that I ascribed meaning to what they said correctly. However, I had in the past taught some PGCE students

who were afraid to be video recorded, and overall I considered audio recording to be less intrusive and intimidating.

Two other potential disadvantages of using audio recordings are that the outputs are open to interpretation by the observer, and that the process of transcription is very time-consuming (Opie, 2004). My non-participatory role may have decreased my influence, since I did not interact with the AL sets, and therefore did not ask

questions that might lead the participants in a particular direction. On the other hand, my absence limited my ability to ask additional questions that may have enlightened me further as to the social meanings being made by the participants. Being an insider-researcher is a relative strength when interpreting data, however.

Interpretation is supported by having a pre-existing knowledge of the setting, and it is supposed that insider-researchers are less likely to stereotype and judge

participants than are outsider-researchers (Greene, 2014).

Angrosino (2012) makes a distinction between naturalistic and clinical observations. There was a sense in which the audio recordings in the study were clinical. The groups of research participants were removed from the main group of science PSTs and situated in separate smaller rooms, in order to ensure that high quality audio recordings were obtained. This may have influenced the behaviour of the

participants in comparison with other students, who carried out their AL sets within the classroom. The fact that students were given a protocol to follow for AL sets (Appendix E) as well as the accompanying open-ended questions (Appendix F), also tends to make them more clinical in nature, since these materials guided their

activity. That said, since the researcher was not present in the room, they may have felt free to express themselves in a way that they may not have done had the researcher been present, which gives the observation a naturalistic element.

Documentary methods

Charmaz (2014:45) makes a distinction between ‘extant’ and ‘elicited’ documents. Extant documents are ones which would have existed had the research not taken place, whereas elicited documents are ones which the researcher introduces as part of the project. The study included both types of documents.

• UCAS forms, which had been completed by participants at the point of application to the programme. These provided some autobiographical material.

• Teaching reviews and reports of their progress on the PGCE programme, written by the participants’ mentors in their placement school.

Generally speaking, extant documents are considered to be more unobtrusive than elicited documents, and less likely to have been influenced by the researcher. However, note that there are pressures when documents are within institutions. The example Charmaz (2014:49) gave was patients’ charts within the hospital: ‘such documents also protect the institution and reaffirm its hierarchical order.’ In the case of my own data, the teaching reviews and reports:

• Protect the mentor’s relationship with the student – they might wish to avoid conflict with the student, and they may be concerned that any negative comments would damage the student’s confidence

• Protect the school’s relationship with the university partner – they may not wish to be seen to be a poor mentor or poor school placement, since they depend on the university for the supply of NQTs.

Hence there is an extent to which those documents should be interpreted with caution.

I also elicited some documents, which would probably not have been written had I not carried out the intervention:

• Reflective journals

• Written critical incident analysis

• Action plans and reviews of action plans

There is a possibility with such materials that participants will write fiction, to an extent (Opie, 2004). Their writing may reflect the impression they wish to give, rather than something closer to their lived reality. Participants are free to write only what they want to write, and hence may omit some relevant material. The quality of the written material also depends on the research participants’ confidence with writing. McCulloch (2012) also points out that there may be a question about

authenticity with materials written by participants, and that the contents are somewhat dependent on their memory of events. Whilst I think it unlikely that a third party would have written reflective journals for them, it is possible that those who were less comfortable with personal writing may have asked for assistance from friends or family.

The data collected are elaborated in section 4.2.1 as some of the data collection methods were used on multiple occasions at different times in the year. A summary of data collected is shown in Appendix L.