Phenomenographic informed data collection 66

The data collection approach within phenomenographic research is distinguished by its outcome aims. The process of collecting data within phenomenography is generally through the medium of the non-directive interview. The number of interviews to conduct has been discussed within the literature, for example, Dahlgren (1995) suggests that a researcher could adequately capture the variation in ten interviews. Trigwell (2000) however suggests fifteen. Samples within phenomenography typically aim to represent a range of demographic characteristics within a population so that less common experiences are not obscured by more common experiences (Åkerlind, 2008). The rationale for utilising the interview as the best method for data collection has been queried within the literature. Marton indicates recognition of alternative ways of understanding individuals’ conceptions of the world through "group interviews, observations, drawings, written responses, and historical documents" (Marton, 1994, p. 4427). Richardson (1999) proclaimed that all of these approaches are merely alternative forms of discourse and essentially the same outcome could be expected regardless of the method operated.

It seems therefore that whilst certain observers have questioned the use of one method of data collection over another, what is clear is that discovering individuals’ conceptions of reality is the overriding aim of phenomenography. Thus one must assert that the interview is a recognised form of data collection, which has been used extensively within the field of phenomenography and therefore is underpinned by logical and productive thought. This is perhaps pre-eminently espoused by Svensson, Anderberg, Alvegard, & Johansson (2006a) who argue that phenomenographic interviews should be intentionally expressive. As such the interviewee is encouraged to reflect upon and confirm the intended meaning of their utterance. Adopting such an approach therefore ensures objectivity in that meanings from the interviewee are established by their own understanding of the phenomenon under discussion (Anderberg, 2000). It is for these reasons that the interview was a chosen method of data collection within all three of the studies reported in the present thesis.

Considering alternative ways of gathering data in phenomenographic research such as students’ conception of literature reviews (Bruce, 1994) and within mathematics (Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas & Prosser, 1994) can be somewhat illuminating with regards to the merits of conducting interviews. In both studies participants were asked to write short statements to determine their conceptions of learning. This approach allowed researchers to gather a large amount of data from a large body of students. However, the scope of the responses was limited not least by the fact that the data was restricted entirely to what was written down and sent to them. The researcher was not able to probe and further contextualise the responses with the individuals in person for example. It seems therefore sensible to align one’s own practice with that of Hammersley (2003) who recognises the issues discussed previously and advocates researchers becoming increasingly conscious of some of the dangers associated with drawing too conclusive an interpretation from the data gathered. This perhaps also aligns appropriately with Säljö (1996, 1997) who comments upon researchers becoming cautious about interpreting conceptual inferences as explained by linguistic difference between interviewees.

Richardson (1999) advances that there are fundamental issues surrounding ethics within the phenomenographic interview. His issue seems to centre upon Marton and Booth’s (1997) assertion that in order to allow conceptions to be enunciated within the interview the researcher needs to transform the interviewee into a state of ‘meta-awareness’. Within such a situation Richardson (1999) seems to argue that Marton & Booth (1997) are suggesting the interview could become a quasi- therapeutic situation. The researcher would therefore need to espouse specific tactics to break down interviewee's defence structures of renunciation and opposition. Richardson’s (1999) point infers that this presents ethical dilemmas. One would argue that, aside from power issues (a challenge when researchers are working with their direct subordinates), the researcher’s primary focus is to understand the individual’s conceptions of reality. In this regard, Stenfors-Hayes et al. (2013) suggest that within the interview, the researcher needs to hold a sincere interest in relation to participants’ responses. Further a relaxed, friendly and open environment should be created. Ashworth and Lucas (2000) indicate empathy and imagination help to capture participants’ understanding of phenomenon. Barnard, McCosker & Gerber (1999) argue that this can be achieved by viewing the interview as a focused conversation. During the research process I was acutely aware of the need to allow students and lecturers the opportunity to not only report their experiences of assessment and feedback but also the need to allow them to delve deeper into such experiences in order to illuminate the emotional impact such experiences had upon them.

Within the phenomenographical interview the researcher needs to ensure they are constantly interpreting the meanings of the participant’s life world in real and understandable language. Ashworth & Lucas (2000) contend that issues surrounding empathy are very important. Empathy requires the researcher to detach themselves from their life world and appreciate the life world of the interviewee (Ashworth and Lucas, 2000). Crucial to this understanding is the meaning making constructed through interactions between the participant and the researcher (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Marton (1994) argues that the rapport

between the researcher and the participants, coupled with the researcher’s own knowledge and experiences, have a large effect upon the experiences and understandings generated. However, as Sandberg (1997) highlights, there is an ethical responsibility for the researcher to not let their subjective impressions influence the respondents’ understanding of the phenomenon, whether they be in line or not, with the participants. Reflexivity is a strategy that phenomenographical researchers can employ in order to overcome the potential criticism that their research lacks objectivity. Haraway (1991) and Malterud (2001) both argue that for researchers to ignore their own influence within the research data collection process is in itself a potential cause for a lack of objectivity accusation to be levelled. In essence the argument centres upon the researcher’s ability to recognise and address their own influence and more importantly document this within the research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). A reflexive researcher is one who acknowledges personal prejudices, biases or preconceived ideas that they are carrying into the research process (Sin, 2010). As such the researcher systematically identifies and attempts to minimise these at differing stages of the research process. Sin (2010) argues that in order for this process to remain transparent the researcher should document how they have minimised personal prejudices, biases or preconceived ideas, so the reader can ultimately make an informed judgement about the research. I operationalised reflexivity within the study two which allowed me to minimise the potential impact of prejudice, bias and preconceived ideas during data collection. A more detailed explanation of how this was achieved can be found in the method section of study two in chapter four.