The third phase of data collection lasted from 2 January, 2013 to 4 February, 2013, one year after the second phase. In this phase, I mainly concentrated on discussing the preliminary findings with participants and deepening my understanding of teacher educators’ pedagogies. In this, my key tasks were hanging out and conducting focus group interviews centred on examining the emerging findings from previous phases of analysis (Figure 5.4).
Focus group session process
Prior to my visit, I generated a preliminary analysis of collected data. I also presented some of these findings at conferences. These processes and events helped me clarify and structure my focus group questions and discussion points (Appendix D). Before
conducting these focus groups, I invited my participants to an informal tea, where I outlined key ethical concerns associated with confidentiality and anonymity. It was important to reiterate and clarify these so that participants understood the process of focus group interviews. At the end of the ethics session, my participants chose who they wanted to work with during these group interview sessions. Appendix A lists the schedule of these focus group sessions.
103 Figure 5. 4. Focus groups
Data generation during this phase was also organised through Seidel’s (1998) QDA: notice, collect, and think about (Figure 5.4). This process helped me identify
unanticipated data through the hanging out activities, which eventually enriched the focus group discussions. The audio recorded focus group discussions tended to be small: me and two participants, lasting approximately an hour. I began these sessions by sharing preliminary findings based on an analysis of existing data. They were also given the opportunity to argue and justify, regarding specific concerns related to their pedagogical practices. Focus group sessions were thus opportunities to member-check initial sets of analysed data. Participants discussed issues, for example, relating to their rote learning pedagogy and their views about their very early learning experiences of recitation of the
Qur’an and the extent to which these had influenced their pedagogical thinking.
Though focus group discussions hugely contributed to the data, I experienced some limitations. The first was that some researchers focus on power relations between a researcher and participants in a focus group session (Morgan, Gibbs, Maxwell, & Britten, 2002), suggesting that power relation can be both a benefit and a disadvantage to the data. For example, when a researcher directs questions too much, this may influence eliciting interactions between participants. On the other hand, when participants are given more flexibility this could also influence the nature of the data generated. I experienced both of these cases during the focus group sessions. For example, participants often raised issues beyond my research focus. I, therefore, had to steer them back to it, sometimes making it hard to maintain a balance between where the participants wanted to go, and what I
104
needed to learn about. In that regard, Gibbs (1997) claims that researchers often need to keep the session focused and deliberately steer the conversation back on track. Morgan (1988) argues that researchers have less control over the data generated when members of focus group begin to build on each other’s ideas during a discussion.
Secondly, my participants decided to form two-member groups as they found it more suitable and convenient for them. However, I wondered whether the data generated would have been richer if groups were larger to feed off each other in conversation. Thirdly, focus groups took place during a busy time at the start of an academic year, and so, I wondered whether this timing affected the data I gathered. I also had some difficulties in conducting the discussions as scheduled, because for some groups, rescheduling
happened twice. For other groups, I had to organise the session directly after their classes, so it is possible that they were not necessarily focused on my discussion but on their classes.
Hanging out Activities during Three Phases
The three phases explained previously were undertaken independently from each other due to the nature of data gathering process and the preliminary analysis involved in each. However, these phases were took place during two major visits in 2012 and 2013, as illustrated in Table 5.1. The hanging out with my participants is thus explained taking into account the spread of the two visits, consisting of a total of eleven weeks. The hanging out took place during working days (Sunday to Thursday - in the context of this research and working hours - 8:00 am to 4:00pm).
Table 5. 1. Duration of hanging out within the three phases of data collection Field-
visits Year Data collection phase Hanging out time Visit 1 2012 1
st phase - Interviews: 2 - 26 Jan. 4 weeks
5days per week, 6-7 hours/day 2nd phase - Observations: 27 Jan.- 8 Feb. 2 weeks
Visit 2 2013 3rd phase - Focus groups: 2 Jan - 4 Feb. 5 weeks
During this time, apart from gathering data through primary sources, I was involved in both formal and informal activities with my participants. Some formal activities were associated with their professional duties such as planning lessons, discussing assignments and projects, helping in their presentations, as well as discussing new modules and new courses. Being part of these activities allowed me to learn my participants’ everyday professional activities and experience something of their concerns related to their use of digital technologies at their workplace context. Some of the informal activities, I
105
participated in were going for coffee, having lunch together, talking during their free times, participating in meetings and social occasions. Since I was always available without any teaching obligations at their workplace, many of my colleagues came to my office whenever they had free time.
My hanging out activities meant I could enrich my data. For example, I often overheard conversations or had conversations with colleagues. Those conversations were useful for learning about many issues associated with their professional practices. My participants often talked about students and their attitudes toward learning, and this was useful to learn. The reflections written about my hanging out activities complemented the exploration of my research interest. In short, the hanging out approach was a useful method for my ethnographic research, particularly enabling me to reflect on many issues associated with my insider researcher position. This was very pertinent in the early phase of interviewing. It also allowed me to be connected with my participants outside
interviewing and observation times. Lastly, it assisted me in modifying interviewing questions, clarifying issues after observing classroom teaching, and adding discussion points to focus group sessions. In all, these enriched the exploration of my research focus. Some examples of these hanging out activities are given in Appendix E.
The hanging out with my participants was combined with reflective journaling. Though I could not always write about the activities I was involved in on the spot, I made short notes to develop later. Writing about the hanging out activities enabled me to learn additional information about various issues associated with my own experiences. This means that whenever I wrote about incidents, events, or situations, I added my reflections to them. These reflections helped me learn about useful issues associated with
understanding of the research focus. There are precedents for my approaches of hanging out and writing of journal. These journal entries assisted my research process in several ways. Firstly, they helped me to unravel my researcher role and to manage issues related to my insider researcher role. Secondly, they documented everyday activities and recorded miscellany (date keeping, time keeping, schedule changes) relating to the research process. Thirdly, they showed me more about my own research journey and increased the trustworthiness and transparency of my research process. Some examples of these journal entries are given in Appendix E.
In my hanging out approach I experienced two limitations.The first relates the timing of my hanging out. This appeared to be difficult because of the limited periods of my visits. Secondly, my visits occurred at the start of two academic years, 2012 and 2013. Most participants were busy with preparations for teaching. I wondered whether I could have
106
collected richer data if I had been able to spend more time with them, or had been able to visit during the mid-year. These limitations, however, were out of my control.