Phase Three: Data Analysis and Write-Up

Phase Three consisted of the transcription of the digitally recorded interview data, member checking of interview data, data analysis and subsequent write-up. Through the analysis, narratives were constructed to depict the reflexive and developmental nature of the journey undertaken by the conductor-music educator to provide a rich description of the nature of the work of the conductor-music educator. This phase included analysis of the following:

1. Musical scores – compositional structure, musical and technical demands, potential performance problems and subsequent development of teaching strategies;

2. Video data of my conducting – self observation examining teaching strategies employed;

3. Interview data – interviews with ensemble participants; 4. Journaling –rehearsal and concert reflections.

The autoethnographic writing presented in Chapter 4 is a synthesis the four data collections outlined above. The narrative blends and shapes the data into a story, a story which describes the work as a conductor-music educator.

Through individual interviews I explored the ensemble participant‘s prior musical experiences and stated perceptions of the role of the conductor during rehearsals and the nature of the conductor‘s work. Data from these interviews were included in the autoethnographic writing. At times the participants‘ voices are in the foreground and at times their voices are subtly woven into narrative text; however, they voices are always present. After the final concert a video-stimulated group interview explored the ensemble participants‘ perceptions of the nature of conductor- music educator‘s work. This interview focused on the teaching and learning strategies employed during rehearsals as the ensemble prepared the music pedagogical texts for performance. A common criticism of autoethnographic writing suggests that the researcher is often largely visible, a presence described by Anderson (2006) as a ―hidden and yet seemingly omniscient presence‖ (p. 383).

This visibility places the researcher‘s at the centre of the autoethnographic text through the recounting of personal experiences. However, Anderson (2006) offers that researchers should ―illustrate analytic insights through recounting their own

ensemble participant interviews provides a dialogue with data from others, or from informants beyond self (Brookfield, 1995; Anderson, 2006). When working with one‘s own autobiographical data it is important to engage with the stories of others, their practice, other collaborators and anyone else who is willing to enter into meaningful discourse about the data (Tenni, Smyth, & Boucher, 2003). Therefore, data from the others (ensemble participants) is woven into my reflexive writing.

As I analysed the data it became apparent that the work of the conductor- music educator is multilayered and multifaceted. Themes which emerged reveal that work is cyclical in nature, where the four distinct stages of rehearsal process, preparing, planning, implementation and reflection, inform the next stage. Another of the themes was the importance of selecting quality repertoire, or music pedagogical texts, which allow the conductor-music educator to teach instrumental technique and for musical understanding through the repertoire – the music is the text book. One of the goals of the conductor-music educator is to empower students to become metacognitive thinkers, to teach them how to teach themselves. This is achieved through the use of multiple teaching and learning strategies teach instrumental techniques and musical understanding, as well as to motivate students. The final theme which emerged from the data is that a conductor-music educator never stops teaching.

Through the analysis of the data it became apparent that I reflected upon rehearsals each week. These reflections informed my subsequent rehearsal preparation; the analysis of my rehearsal data became the impetus for my rehearsal planning. With this in mind I have presented the analysis of the rehearsal preparation

and reflection data as a core component of my autoethnographic writing (de Vries, 2006; Lee, 2009).

3.9 Authenticity and transferability

The self-study of one‘s own practice is multi-faceted and it should be our desire to use the findings of the study to inform and improve our own teaching practice. We therefore have a moral obligation to not only assess the study and its findings for its value or quality, but also for its validity (Feldman, 2003). At times the researcher‘s bias towards the data, and the difficulty it may pose for analysis, as the researcher is presented with information that may be extremely unexpected, confrontational and revealing. There may be a ―temptation to discard, ignore, rationalise or prematurely intellectualise the information and thereby diminish the insights it may generate‖ (Tenni, Smyth, & Boucher, 2003) this problem needs to be recognised and avoided.

Recognising and embracing methodological rigour, rather than an exclusive reliance on the assumptions of a positivistic paradigm, provides the work of autoethnographic inquirers with authenticity and establishes trust in the findings. To elevate autoethnography above an egocentric, or self-indulgent, account of a particular event or phenomenon it is important to recognise the requirement for rigour. Autoethnographic inquirers recognize the tentative and variable nature of knowledge and they accept and value the way in which autoethnographic inquiry allows wondering, tentativeness, and alternative views to exist as part of the research account (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). So, before any knowledge can be transferred from this study to another context you, the reader, must trust that the findings are authentic, and allow yourself to wonder and construct your own alternative views.