Phase Two Analysis and Data Collection: Interpretation Panels

The second, sequential phase of the research was strictly qualitative. Interpretation panels were used to provide analysis and insight into the survey results, as well as to add depth to the understanding of the research questions. Participants were selected from those volunteering via response to a survey question, with final selection based on their willingness and availability to participate in the panel activity. Three panel sessions were planned, one at each participating institution, with 5-6 participants in each session. This process was chosen to provide analysis on all the research questions as answered by the survey participants, but with the discussion focused on the following research questions:

1. What motivates experienced tradespeople to move into a second career of teaching? 4. How does their vocational identity change with the change in career?

5. What factors lead them to a feeling of satisfaction or effectiveness with their work, and to continue as teachers?

The use of interpretation panels was guided primarily by the advice provided by Noonan (2002), who said “interpretation panels are organized in the same way as a focus group, the difference is that they are used after data are collected and subjected to the preliminary analysis” (p. 92). The panel discussions provided new data, as well as analysis of that previously gathered, as panel members related their own experiences. New data arising from the panel discussions were collected and considered in the final analysis.

89

Noonan (2002) also advised that interpretation panels differ from focus groups in their purpose (analysis versus data collection), makeup (purposely selected versus random), and resulting data (consensus versus sometimes conflicting). Again, while this research is modeled on this outline of the process, the expectation was that some additional data would be collected in the interpretation panels, and that consensus might not be achieved.

3.3.5.1 Interpretation panel process. The following section outlines the components of the interpretation panel process.

3.3.5.1.1 Questions. Given that this portion of the data collection and analysis was

sequential to the gathering of data and analysis through the survey, the exact content of questions to be used for discussion with the interpretation panels could not be determined before the first phase was conducted. Questions were designed to provoke reflection while allowing a wide range of potential responses from participants, and focused on the topics of motivation, transition, and formation of a new vocational identity. The topic of competencies of effective teaching was not addressed directly via this instrument.

3.3.5.1.2 Participants. Participants for this portion of the research project were solicited through a question included in the survey, asking for permission to contact via email regarding participation in a panel discussion. Those survey participants who volunteered were contacted via the email addresses provided in the response to this question, and were provided with

information on the purpose of the study, research ethics board approval(s), and a consent form to complete. A copy of the invitation letter and consent form is provided in Appendix B. No direct compensation to participants was planned or given.

The panel participants became known to the researcher through the process; however, pseudonyms and masking details were used in reporting any personal data collected in order to provide a level of anonymity in the final analysis. A version of the transcript, condensed for the convenience of the participants, was made available to the participants for review and member checking; small revisions arose based on this review. Participant comments were reported anonymously. Since participants in this portion of the research could be identified by the researcher, they had the opportunity to choose to withdraw specific contributions from the overall results up to the point of publication of this document. Participants were known to each other, or became known through the panel process; no advice was given by the researcher

90

regarding maintaining confidentiality of the discussion among participants after the session ended.

3.3.5.1.3 Panel sessions. Three panel sessions were planned, one at each institution participating in the study. Based on the number of volunteers, four sessions were arranged. The sessions were conducted on the campus where the panel participants taught, for the ease and comfort of participants. Each panel session was expected to take approximately one to two hours to complete, and did fit within this timeframe when conducted. While questions were prepared to guide the discussion, based on the preliminary data analysis of the survey, considerable latitude was given in the discussion to allow the experiences of these participants to be recorded and to enrich the understanding of the research questions. The sessions were recorded and transcribed.

The conduct of these sessions was guided by advice provided for focus group facilitation (Finch & Lewis, 2003; Macnaughten & Myers, 2004) and interpretation panel facilitation practice (Hardie, 2011; Noonan, 2002). Finch and Lewis (2003), in discussing focus group data collection, emphasized the synergistic nature of the process leading to further reflection by participants and additional discussion. They also described focus groups as spontaneous conversations in a naturalistic setting, allowing for the opportunity to see how ideas develop sharing of ideas; however, Finch and Lewis (2003) caution that the naturalistic setting must be managed by the researcher. Their advice for management includes the following stages.

Scene setting and ground rules: The researcher provides an introduction to the research,

with assurances regarding the bona fide nature of the study, emphasizing points that may

encourage participation, such as the participants’ connection to the research topic. Expected roles and ground rules should be explained.

Individual introductions: Although the participants in the panel sessions may well already

know each other, introductions with brief backgrounds should be made.

Opening discussion: The researcher should be active in this stage, starting the

conversation with an opening topic that solicit easy responses and engages participants.

Discussion: The researcher may become a juggler or manager at this stage, directing the

flow of discussion to ensure key points are included, refocusing discussion, and balancing the contributions of participants.

Ending the discussion: The final topic should be decided in advance with the aim to end

91

abrupt ending. The researcher should provide reassurance of anonymity, and appreciation for participation, and be willing to stay for conversations after the session (Finch & Lewis, 2003, pp. 178-180).

In conducting the interpretation panels, this advice was followed. Ground rules and reassurance of anonymity were provided at the beginning of the session and introductions were made as necessary, given the group members’ existing connections. Once the discussion began, the researcher’s role became one of refocusing and adding new topics to cover the research question. In each session, I brought the question of satisfaction, as a positive topic for discussion, in near the end of the allotted time. Ending the discussion often proved difficult, however, as the participants had a great deal to share. Each session concluded with a description of next steps: that the discussion would be transcribed and shared with them for member checking, that any identifying details would be masked, and that anonymity would be protected throughout the process.