Phenomenographic informed data analysis 72

During data analysis meanings, which emerge from the data, are not established independently of one another, rather they are in relation to each other. Marton & Booth (1997) explain this as “the meaning of one bit derived from the meaning of and lending meaning to the rest” (p.124). The iterative process thus relates to the context of individual experiences within the context of the collective group (Åkerlind, 2005; Bowden, 1994). Sandberg (1997) argues that when reporting the results the focus needs to be upon the ‘way’ the phenomenon is understood and not the ‘why’ it is understood in such a way. The clear distinction within phenomenographic analysis is that categories are constructed rather than discovered by the researcher (Walsh, 1994). The researcher consequently has a responsibility to ensure that data is represented in a responsible and valid manner.

Preconceived perceptions need to be managed by the researcher coupled with discussing the data outcomes with peers (Wahlström, Beerman, Dahlgren & Diwan, 1997). Consequently, a criticism which can be levelled at phenomenography is that the descriptions are perhaps less rich than they would be within phenomenology (Åkerlind, 2005). Rather, within phenomenography individuals’ unique personal experiences are in essence reconstituted by the researcher to paint a more representative picture of the collective experience of a phenomenon under investigation (Bruce & Stoodley, 2010). In this regard, Åkerlind (2005) argues that phenomenography offers a complete understanding due to the fact that the qualitatively different ways of humans experiencing a phenomenon are organised by the researcher, rather than unrelated individual experiences. Conversely, Clegg & Stevenson (2013) argue that whilst analysis within phenomenography details some real insights, it does appear a little flimsy and perhaps somewhat vulnerable. Further they assert that despite phenomenography’s attempts to minimise insider research, this still features (Clegg & Stevenson, 2013). A counter approach is contended:

“A better approach, in our view, is to theorise the nature of the interview and its interpretative context and to attempt to document and scrutinise the ethnographic elements that form part of interview studies”. (Clegg & Stevenson, 2013, p.8).

In essence Clegg & Stevenson (2013) are arguing that the process of interpretation will become far more opaque unless researchers fully engage in the scrutiny of their own practice and the contents of the interview. Such assertions also conjure up questions of validity and reliability within the data analysis. Researchers who disagree with the methodological approaches of phenomenography often interrogate the validity of the term ‘reality’ (Richardson, 1999). From the phenomenographical lens one could argue ‘reality’ never truly exists, outside of that of the describer’s conception and interpretation. Therefore it follows that validity is

exemplified by the relationships between the categories and further supported by direct quotes from the participants (Giacomini & Cook, 2000; Sjöström & Dahlgren, 2002). Indeed, Entwistle (1997) argues a similar point suggesting that sufficient extracts need to be presented in phenomenographic analysis so that a category’s scope can be fully appreciated. As such the data reported in chapters three, four and five is represented by direct quotes from the research participant’s in order to illuminate the contents of the constructed themes.

Such a distinction therefore necessitates that data within phenomenographic analysis emerge in a relational manner (Åkerlind, 2008). However one must also appreciate the inferences of Ashworth & Lucas (2000) who suggest that there are a limited and sometimes definable number of conceptions of a phenomenon. They point to the area of learning conceptions stating that in Säljö’s (1979) seminal study, only five different conceptions were held by students. The interesting facet of this contention is the hierarchical and inter-related nature Säljö (1979) reports. The inference within such phenomenographic studies is that individuals range from less to more complex conceptions of particular phenomena. Therefore we can see progression within individuals across their range of experiences, indicating retention of and advancement of understanding (Marton & Booth, 1997; Marton & Pang, 2008). This is perhaps exemplified with the work of Reid & Petocz (2002) that identified six ways in which students understood statistics. Within their study a contrast between the levels of student sophistication is made. On the one hand students operate at a rather simplistic level (in this case simple techniques); at more developed levels students generate meaning from the data they produce. Within Reid & Petocz’s (2002) study how the student appreciates and develops their appreciation of the variation between the ways of approaching study is revealed by the phenomenographic approach.

In contrast, recent studies have maintained that categories are related to each other suggesting an inclusive hierarchy (e.g. Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Prosser et al., 2005; Åkerlind, 2004, 2008). Prosser et al. (2005) and Åkerlind (2004) argue that conceptions are both relational and hierarchical, with Åkerlind proposing that in

phenomenography the different ways of experiencing a phenomenon would be “internally related” (2004, p. 366), and that therefore, the different ways of understanding a phenomenon would “typically represent more or less complete experiences of the phenomenon rather than different and unrelated experiences” (2004, p. 366). She argues that it is this view of experience as relational which indicates that categories may be “ordered along a hierarchy of inclusiveness” (2004, p. 366) where a complex category subsumes the less complex ones. This structure is indicated by her research results where categories of description showed references to aspects of the phenomenon present “lower in the hierarchy but not vice versa” (2004, p. 366). Following the arguments of Åkerlind the data in study two in the present thesis was constructed in a similar manner in order to demonstrate the differing experiences of the same phenomenon within the student population (see chapter five).

The hierarchical development of understanding which features in the research literature discussed so far in this chapter can be classified as the ‘outcome space’ (Marton, 1994). Within this space the researcher identifies common themes in the meanings expressed by the collective group (Åkerlind, 2010). Marton & Pang (2008) explain that the outcome space represents the results of phenomenographic research as relationships between the categories of description. Marton & Booth (1997) assert that:

“The outcome space is the complex of categories of description comprising distinct groupings of aspects of the phenomenon and the relationship between them” (p.125).

It therefore follows that within this outcome space, logical and hierarchical ways of experiencing the phenomenon are displayed. Further, as Marton & Pang (2008) argue within the outcome space elements of variation can be exemplified too. Phenomenography does not set out to study objective reality; rather an outcome space that makes sense is viewed as a reliable outcome (Åkerlind, 2005c). Such a

conclusion seems logical if one were to trace the origins of the word phenomenography back to the Greek word phenomenon’ meaning ‘that which is revealed’ (Austerlitz, 2007). As such, the ‘outcome space’ therefore reveals lived experiences of people, from their own point of view (Marton, 1988; Van Manen, 1990). However the premise of the outcome space has been queried within the literature. The grounds for such a contention rest in the work of Bruce (2006) who discusses and subsequently questions the relevance and theoretical importance of the outcome space. Bruce (2006) is concerned that the ground on which phenomenography was built (within education contexts) may not have such credence or applicability outside of its foundation realm of education. However the present thesis was carried out within an education setting and therefore the arguments in favour of utilising an outcome space seem to support its use within this thesis.

The primary research tool for data collection in this thesis was in-depth semi- structured one-to-one interviews. However within study two with the students and subsequently study three with academic lecturers, visual methods were also used to promote discussion and explore the participants’ experiences of assessment and feedback. In the study two students were asked prior to participating in the interview to take part in a drawing exercise. In study three, with academic lecturers, videos of students talking about their experiences of assessment and feedback were played and the lecturers asked to comment on them. Both these methods have been discussed frequently within the literature alongside similar methods. The following sections critically discuss the use of visual methods in research and explain why such methods were chosen for use within this thesis.