A NALYSING THE DOCUMENTARY DATA

Analysis of the grades was easy, I tabulated them and could count frequencies and generate descriptive statistics from this. Analysis of the PAD and action plan documents was more difficult. It began with questions I had about how the document was used, how often it was used and what individual comments meant. The PAD documents contained hand written feedback from mentors to students on their performance for every placement in their course and the practice grades. Action plans were developed if a student was underperforming in a placement area. Each year a few students are on action plans, some students succeed and pass their placement, a few leave the course and a very small number are referred in practice. Thus, the action plans were created, usually by lecturers after a discussion with the mentor and student, to signify to underperforming students the areas of practice they needed to develop. These were reviewed on a weekly or fortnightly basis and

updated.

Two types of analysis were used; content and discourse. Content analysis of the PADs included counting how many placements each student had, whether their progress had been discussed at the planned times (initial, mid-point and end-point of the placement), how similar the student’s self-assessed grade and mentor’s grade were and whether the mentor’s written comments matched the grade awarded; this is presented in Chapter 5. Content of the action plans included categorising reasons for student underperformance and determining themes from this; presented in Chapter 6. An analysis of the language and styles used within the PADs was also undertaken; a discourse analysis. The PADs represented a convention in that mentors would

presumably have explained verbally the students’ practice strengths and weaknesses and then written a synopsis of their discussion in the document.

From the content analysis, I observed some students wrote their own feedback, usually this was the mid-point feedback rather than end-point feedback. This could be interpreted to mean the mid-point interview is not as important as the summative evaluation, even though pedagogically, it could be argued, it is more important. I analysed whether mentors elevated students’ practice grades or reduced them and discuss this in Chapter 5. The discourse analysis enabled an interpretation of the symbols used within the mentor’s feedback such as smiley faces, exclamation marks and underlining. These features, and the words used, were interpreted to ascertain negotiation of power and meaning and relationships between students and mentors. Students’ comments who had participated in the group interview were cross

referenced to the action plans and PADs to see if there was a relationship between the forms of evidence.

Key stages and analytical decisions included:

1. Ending data collection. By the time I had analysed the entire interview data, I was confident no new themes were emerging, so theoretical saturation had occurred (Guest, et al., 2006). McLafferty (2004) suggests data generated after 10 focus groups is usually redundant, similarly twelve participants are likely to be sufficient for individual interviews (Guest, et al., 2006). As I had more than both these authors suggest, I was confident I had enough

qualitative data.

2. The next step was to organise the case study data base (Yin, 2009). I

compiled a chronological account of events which could be significant. This included the dates of the interviews and changes to the grading tools to see if there were observations or questions I needed to follow up.

3. I now recognise I had far more data than I needed, thus, I needed to exclude some data from the case study. Initially this was a difficult decision for me because I could see some relevance to much of the documentary data I had

collected. However, over time I narrowed the focus of the study and

excluded midwifery team meeting minutes and other forms of documentary data from the analysis.

4. The memos, coupled with the evidence from the literature review initiated quantitative ideas for analysis; such as what is the compliance with the clinical meeting reviews documented in the PAD? How much variation is there between students regarding the number of placements and the

timeliness of feedback? The generation of descriptive statistics then lead to qualitative questioning such as what potential effect does this have on students’ learning and on the evaluation of that? Similarly, when students said mentors frequently elevated their practice grade, the PADs were examined to see how often and the amount the grade was raised. Thus, the analysis included finding data to support generalisations made during the interviews and relationships between concepts (Merriam, 1988 p.69). 5. The balance between empirical data description and application of the

theoretical framework was omnipresent. Initially, open coding undertaken in Nvivo 10 was inductive, I asked myself ‘what does this student or mentor’s experience mean’ can a label be applied to its content. This open coding was a labour-intensive process undertaken over several months at the weekends. I was hesitant about ‘making mistakes’, however, once axial coding, using Bernstein’s educational transmission codes was applied to the data, I became more confident with the analysis process (Appendix 9). The relationship between the participants’ experiences and educational transmission process became clearer and could be articulated. For instance, students described experiences where midwives were unprofessional in their manner.

Bernstein’s theory enabled ‘the manner’ of the midwife to be understood and described in relation to their status relative to the student. Due to the

hierarchy between the midwife and student, the student was unable to comment in clinical practice about a midwife’s behaviour, however, the student usually observed this and it affected the criteria by which she then evaluated the midwife’s performance and this in turn influenced whether the midwife’s evaluation of the student was considered valid or not. Bernstein’s theory also framed the three main findings chapters: what counts as valid

practice knowledge, transmission of knowledge in clinical practice, and the evaluation of learning.

6. Initially I analysed the quantitative and qualitative data from the students on the three-year course separately from the 78-week course, looking for

differences between them. While there are some differences, explained in the findings, I was surprised about how many similarities there were in their practice grades and experiences. Thus, most of the time I do not separate or differentiate between the students. After reading Becker (1998), I attempted to develop a typology of students based on their demographic information, interview responses and practice grades. I was looking to see if there were patterns in student authority and identity. Similarly, a table was compiled from influences that students explained had affected their grades. As not all students had the opportunity in the group interviews to talk in depth there were many gaps in the typology and table but they helped focus the analysis and clarified where I needed to think more deeply; this was especially in relation to the role of the lecturer.

7. While codes and themes were important in the analysis, I found myself drawn to analysing the discourse of participants. What did it mean when students or mentors used specific words? There is, therefore, an element of discourse analysis in the thesis.

I appreciate the analysis strategy may appear eclectic, however, I felt it was

important to analyse the data from several perspectives to see if this illuminated new ideas. While Bernstein’s (2000) theory was immensely helpful in explaining the significance of my findings, I am aware that in using his theory I may have inadvertently missed some important inductive finding. However, I believe this research can contribute to the body of knowledge on grading students’ practice. I also believe all students have the potential to be midwives, they are selected through a rigorous process, yet not all students are reaching their potential. Bernstein’s theory has enabled the inequity in access to knowledge to be considered to

potentially improve midwifery education so all students have equal opportunity to practise midwifery.