Observation

Classroom observation is a central data collection method for research in ESOL (Roberts et al., 2004) and in education more generally (Bassey, 1999). However, for this topic the methods and techniques employed in information or digital lit- eracy research were more relevant, and Rantala (2010), Hongisto and Sormunen (2010) and Paerson (2011) all offered guidance on how to observe information practices in the classroom. I was also informed by ethnography which offers some of the most detailed discussion on how to conduct observations.

e role and subject position of the researcher seems to be foregrounded in ob- servation. Angrosino (2007) argues for a position of cultivated naivety and this was a useful starting point for me as an observer. Gold (1958) offers classic but, still relevant, definitions of the different kinds of observer. I had privileged ac- cess to the seing but in relation to the learners my role was more removed. e starting position for my role in the class was therefore what Gold (1958) would term observer as participant, in that I declared my role as a researcher and inter- acted with participants, but did not engage in their shared activity of learning. However this role became more blurred as my research progressed. I took on some aspects of a teacher and as I discuss in my findings became part of the in- formation grounds.

Observation can be seen as having particular strengths as a method of data collec- tion. Timmermans and Tavory (2007) argue that it is different from interviews as the data is given rather than seized. It is a way to understand practice in context and build thick description (Stake, 1995). Gobo (2008) adds to this that observa- tion must be concerned with the meaning of actions, not just the actions. is relates to observation as a method for exposing the traces of practices (Nicolini, 2013). Crang (2007) suggests that sustained observation can be useful when lan- guage can be a barrier between researcher and participants. Beyond this I note his description of ethnographic observation as “deep hanging out” and realise the potential blurring between this, and interviews.

3.12.2 Interviews

Interviews can be seen as the default choice for qualitative research (Mason, 2002); however, my selection of this method was a considered choice. I used in- terviews understanding them as a practice and following Holstein and Gubrium’s (1995) position on the active interview. In this way interviews are a meaning making process and can be seen as a negotiated text. Eckerdal (2013) suggests that interviews can be a problematic method for research that takes a sociocul- tural perspective of information. However she argues that a practice approach to interviews is compatible with this perspective.

3.12.3 Group interviews

ere is a significant body of work on focus groups that views them as a way to explore interaction and knowledge formation rather than as a way to canvass opinion (Barbour & Kitzinger, 1999a). It is these definitions I draw on here. I see the difference between a focus group and a group interview as one of degree rather than an absolute so discuss them here together.

Kitzinger (1994) notes that focus groups that tap into an existing community allow the exploration of naturally occurring interactions in context. In this way they act as a bridge between interview and observation, although Barbour (2007) argues they are oen seen as a poor relation to field work. In contrast to Holstein and Gubrium (1995) who argue that interviews are just as natural because all talk is constructed, I see a focus group as offering a different opportunity to explore a particular site where information practices are enacted. ere are other potential benefits of using focus groups. ey can be seen as more likely to be participa- tory as they shi power away from the researcher (Wilkinson, 1999). ey can allow for mutual support and so provide a way to work with participants who lack voice (Chiu & Knight, 1999).

However, there are also difficulties in using focus groups. Barbour and Kitzinger (1999b) suggest that the rich dynamic data collected in focus groups can be dif- ficult to manage and analyse, while Green and Hart (1999) identify that more informal groups are more challenging analytically, but also potentially more in- teresting. Beyond this it is important to recognise that focus groups will also not capture the full range of participants’ individual experiences (Michel, 1999) rather they are concerned with collective experience.

3.12.4 Visual methods

Visual methods such as photography, video, drawing and mapping are becom- ing more popular across the social sciences (Rose, 2012) Pink (2007). ese tech- niques are also an integral part of ESOL teaching and so a useful way to commu- nicate with ESOL learners. e REFLECT model (Cardiff et al., 2007) offers the strongest examples of how to use these techniques as part of a critical pedagogy. Visual methods can help learners conceptualise and express their thoughts and feelings as well as having more instrumental uses such as teaching vocabulary.

ere is also a growing body of research from LIS that uses visual methods (Har- tel & omson, 2011) as well as information literacy and behaviour research in particular (Eckerdal, 2013; Julien, Given, & Opryshko, 2013; Smith, 2010). Most pertinent to this study is Lloyd and Wilkinson’s (2016) recent work with refugees using photovoice.

However, participatory visual methods can be demanding of participants. I par- ticipated in a taught visual methods module and aempted to create a portfolio of photographs to reflect on my information literacy and produce images to use in focus groups. is was invaluable in helping me understand that a method such as photovoice can potentially be intrusive and time consuming, rather than a positive participatory method if it is researcher rather than participant-led.

3.12.5 Information diaries

I only include a brief discussion of diaries as a research method as their use within my research was limited. Toms and Duff (2002) identify that diaries are a promis- ing method for information behaviour research, as they can capture rich detail in context through an everyday process. However, they caution that it is difficult to recruit and retain participants; that participants tend to not follow instruc- tions, and that diary keeping modifies participants’ behaviour. McKenzie and Davies (2012) also use diaries effectively but warn that it can be difficult to en- gage participants. Paerson (2011) intended to use audio visual diaries within his research with ESL learners but only collected limited data and did not use as a major research method. McDonald’s (2013) use of diaries with ESOL learners was an instance of their effective use. She comments that the diaries became an ESOL learning activity and this was one of my intentions in considering this as a research method. My selection of diaries was intended to help me build context and gain other perspectives that may not be expressed in a group interview or observation.

3.12.6 Documents

Bowen (2009) outlines five uses for documents in research; to provide context; raise questions; as supplementary data; to track change and development, and to corroborate other kinds of data. He identifies documents as traces of activ- ity; within this they can be printed or electronic, and in a range of formats.

He suggests the analysis process needs to be systematic and iterative, and that documents should be seen as social facts to be analysed using thematic or con- tent analysis. Merriam (2009) adds to this that document analysis also needs to be serendipitous. She notes that document analysis is underused as a research method. Ginger (2014) offers a more incisive method for analysing documents drawing on interpretative content analysis. Within this research my approach to analysing documents was restricted to using them to provide context and corrob- orate other data, rather than to their full potential as a primary research method.

3.13 Data analysis

e question of how to analyse was revisited extensively during the first two years of my research. e process of selecting a method of data analysis was iterative, involving comparison between epistemological and theoretical under- standings, research aims and the strengths of different methods. e discus- sion in Lauckner, Paterson, and Krupa (2012) of the process of methodological choices was a useful guide when considering the alternative methods of analysis discussed below. I initially planned to use constructivist grounded theory as a method of analysis. Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) can be seen as a break from conventional grounded theory in that it is interpretive rather than positivist in its approach. In this way theory is built from data through a process of coding and constant comparison, but with the recognition that the re- searcher creates rather than discovers the theory. However, my early aempts to use grounded theory were not successful. e longitudinal nature of my re- search meant that the theoretical saturation of constructivist grounded theory did not seem to be a realistic outcome. I also wanted to preserve the richness and complexity of my two cases rather than necessarily produce a framework or model.

Narrative analysis was another inviting method; as it allowed an emphasis on story that had an immediate appeal to me. It has the potential to be an empow- ering (Andrews, Squire, & Tamboukou, 2008) and reflexive (Elliot, 2005) research method. Detmering and Johnson (2012) also show how it can be used for infor- mation literacy research. However, it did not seem to meet all of the objectives of my research as I was interested in the holistic context of the cases rather than individual experience. Nevertheless stories formed a significant element of my research.

Finally I considered discourse analysis. is is a recommended approach for literacy research (Street, 2001). Macdonald (2013) uses critical discourse analysis effectively in her research with ESOL learners. However, while I acknowledge its effectiveness for critical theory approaches it did not match my interest in prac- tice rather than discourse. I would also have needed different methods of data collection, as the observation notes that became my main data source would not be suitable for this method of analysis.

ematic analysis is one of the most flexible and widely used methods in the social science Bryman (2012). I identified this as the most likely method as I em- barked on data collection. However over the process of analysis I moved away from the coding process associated with thematic approach. e approach I even- tually adopted is closest to that suggested by Stake (1995). In his description of analysing case studies he suggests that observation tells the story and that the analysis is a process of winnowing and siing with an emphasis on vignees. I describe how I executed this in section 4.8 and explain how I used information grounds theory as part of my analysis. Previous information grounds research has employed a range of analysis techniques. It is oen used deductively to test hypotheses (Fisher, Durrance, & Hinton, 2004), particularly to develop a greater understanding of the theory itself (Fisher & Landry, 2007a). It is also commonly used with thematic analysis (Kelder & Lueg, 2011; Rohman & Pang, 2015) to un- derstand how information is shared in a particular place.

3.14 Evaluation

A significant challenge of a constructivist approach is the question of its value. e question of what value research holds, is inextricably linked to the question of what kind of knowledge the research generates. In this way research that does not seek to generalise but to build situated knowledge, has to be judged by appropriate criteria. Lincoln and Guba (1985) still provide one of the strongest methods of evaluating qualitative research. I outline their criteria below as a useful tool to evaluate my research.

e criteria identified by Lincoln and Guba (1985) for evaluating the trustwor- thiness of research include credibility, where they suggest techniques includ-

ing prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, peer debrief- ing, negative case analysis, and member checking. For transferability they sug- gest thick description; for dependability inquiry audit, and for confirmability an audit trail, triangulation, and reflexivity. I do not consider these criteria as a checklist but as a guide for me to understand the strengths and weaknesses of my research. Shenton (2004) summarises the positivist alternatives for Guba and Lincoln’s work suggesting that credibility can be seen as substituting for internal validity, transferability for generalisation, dependability for reliability and con- firmability for objectivity. ere is of course an inherent contradiction in this process however it is still valuable to evaluate the claims to knowledge made by interpretive research.

I also note that my evaluation must include how far I was successful in addressing the challenges I experienced in reflexivity, in providing value to my participants and in researching people different to myself. Beyond this my research needs to be evaluated as a case study, where the singular interest is the case.

3.15 Conclusion

is chapter has laid out my theoretical, ontological and epistemological posi- tions. I have demonstrated how these are coherent with my research questions, adoption of a case study approach, and research methods. In the following chap- ter I show how I applied these principles in the execution of my research design.

Chapter 4

Resear methods

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter I discuss how I applied the research approach outlined in chapter 3. I first explain the selection of my case and detail my research population. is is followed by an outline of my data collection methods and how they relate to my evolving research questions. e following sections detail the process of analysis and a discussion of research ethics. e chapter concludes with a summary of the pilot stage of my research.

4.2 Overview of resear design

e emergent, inductive and iterative nature of my research means that it has a ’messy’ quality (Cook, 2009). e diagram in figure 4.1 gives an overview of my research design. It shows how the research was inspired by my professional ex- perience and documents how the research methods and questions developed and evolved over time. It shows how my final theoretical framework was developed at a late stage of the research process, but my research paradigm was a common thread through the project as a whole. Equally it demonstrates how I maintained a literature review and a reflexive diary, until the final stages of synthesising the literature. e diagram finishes with one further uncompleted stage: my final feedback to my ESOL learner participants. is lies beyond the scope of my sub- mied thesis but is a commitment I need to make to these participants.

C:/home/jess/Dr opb ox/phd/casestudy do cuments/pages for app endix/Dra resear ch diagram - Page 1.jp eg

Figure 4.1: Overview of research

4.3 Selection of case

My selection of a case study partner was based on local knowledge. is was coherent for my research as I was not seeking the unique or the representative, but a rich seing to explore. I had previously worked in the seing and continued to maintain links with them. is meant that I had a substantial knowledge of the seing, and an insider status to some extent. I used my existing contacts and knowledge to recruit both initial interviewees and classes. I chose teachers who I thought would be engaged with, and supportive of, my research. Aer recruiting the teachers, I visited the two classes and asked the learners if they would be happy to take part in the research. I had originally planned to use three classes, but T3 was unable to take part in the research due to a change in circumstances.

4.4 Resear population

e case study site is located in a city in Northern England. e focus of this research was two ESOL classes which were nested cases within this site. e provider for both classes was a section of a city council department. e ESOL classes in this site were contracted by the provider to a range of third sector organisations. e provider managed the tenders for these contracts and allo- cated funding which came from central government funding streams. Many of the third sector organisations had long standing relationships with the provider. e majority of the teachers were self-employed and managed by one of these

T1 ESOL teacher (participant in main study) T2 ESOL teacher (participant in main study)

T3 ESOL teacher

I1 Manager

I2 Manager

I3 Trustee

I4 Policy Officer

Table 4.1: Initial interviewees

intermediary organisations. ESOL provision was part of a wider offer of commu- nity learning including other functional skills, family learning, vocational, and leisure courses. ESOL classes were free to learners on benefits who paid a small registration fee and charged at a relatively low rate to those on higher incomes. e majority of ESOL learners who aended these classes were women, many were not working and most provision was targeted at the entry levels of ESOL.

4.4.1 Participants

ere were two stages to this research aer the completion of the pilot. e first was a series of short interviews with two managers, three teachers and one trustee of a charity, all from the case study site as well as a policy officer from a national organisation. eir details are provided in table 4.1

e main data collection involved two ESOL classes. eir details are provided in tables 4.2 and 4.3.

Class A taught by T1

Class A were beginners in English, in a women-only class taught in a primary school. Most of the women had been taught by T2 in previous years although their ESOL studies had oen been interrupted. ere were normally between ten and twelve learners in the lessons I visited. Most of the learners were moth- ers of children in the school or a local nursery. However from those who were there at my first visit A16 was a grandmother, A11 was pregnant with her first child and A5 did not have children. e women apart from A6 who joined in the second term were also all Muslim. ere were regular discussions of faith and Islamic practice which framed both activities within lessons and the women’s experiences.

Class A

Number Terms aended Country of birth

A1 1,2,3,4 Yemen A2 1,2,3,4 Yemen A3 1,2,3,4 Pakistan A4 1 Yemen A5 1,2,3,4 Yemen A6 2 Eastern Europe A7 1,2,3,4 Yemen A8 2,3,4 Yemen A9 1,2,3,4 Yemen A10 2,3,4 Yemen

A11 1,2 Central Africa

A12 1 Pakistan

A13 3,4 Yemen

A14 1,2,3,4 Yemen

A15 2 East Africa

A16 1 Yemen

A17 3 Yemen

A18 3,4 North East Africa

T1 Teacher UK V1 School worker UK V2 Volunteer UK V3 Volunteer UK V4 CVI worker UK Table 4.2: Class A

Class B Terms aended Country of birth

B1 1,2,3 Western Asia

B2 1,2,3 Western Europe

B3 1,2 Central Europe

B4 1,2,3 Eastern Europe

B5 2,3 South East Asia

B6 1,2,3 Europe

B7 1,2,3 Middle East

B8 1,2,3 East Africa

T2 Teacher UK

Table 4.3: Class B

e learners had typically come to the UK for marriage. However there were two refugees and one EU citizen in the class. e learners had generally been resident in the UK for over three years and most for much longer. Some learners did not tell me their immigration status and I did not ask. Many of the women had lile schooling and were not literate in any language although two learners (A11 and A18) were university educated. eir level of spoken English was gen- erally far higher than their wrien capabilities and their ability to communicate was also much higher than their level of English would suggest. e women oen supported each other linguistically with peer translation and checking un- derstanding in their first languages (many but not all the learners spoke either Urdu or Arabic). T1 was an experienced and qualified ESOL teacher who had been teaching in the case study site for several years.

Class B taught by T2

is class took place in a community centre. e learners had an intermediate level of English. Several of them had been learning in this class with T2 for at least two years preceding the start of my research. ey were able to express themselves well in English in most situations. ey were all women, but T2 was male. ey came from a range of ethnic backgrounds and a range of differ-