Qualitative methodological rationale

Bassey (1992) describes three ‘realms’ of educational research: empirical research, where “data collection is centre stage” and “where data is systematically collected by strict procedures, critically analysed, interpreted and conclusions drawn”; reflective research, where the research is “systematic and critical in which the findings of empirical research are a starting point”; and creative research, where new systems are created and innovation is valued (4-5). My research framework fluctuates between Bassey’s empirical and reflective research while drawing on Carspecken’s Five Recommended Stages for Critical Qualitative Research (Table 2). In order to avoid the criticism of bias, qualitative researchers have relied on a clear, established and appropriate methodology in order to make their research as objective as possible: “interpreters must employ some kind of method that allows them to step outside their historical frames of reference. Method, correctly employed, is a means that enables interpreters to

105 claim a purely theoretical attitude as observers” (Outhwaite 1975 as cited in Schwandt 2000). Methodology must address many of the perceived problems of the constructionist/constructivist interpretive paradigms (Denzin 1998).

Table 2 - Stages for Critical Qualitative Research

Stages Goals

Stage 1 - Compiling the primary record

-researcher unobtrusive within the social site -primary record built through note-taking -information collected is 'monological' in nature

-the researcher does not involve the people under study (41-42) Stage 2 -

Preliminary reconstructive analysis

-analysis of primary record in which “techniques are employed to determine interaction patterns, their meanings, power relations, roles, interactive sequences, evidence of embodied meaning, intersubjective structures” (42)

-the analysis is: “reconstructive because it articulates those cultural themes and system factors that are not observable and that are usually articulated by the actors themselves” (42)

-process is reconstructive because: “it takes conditions of action constructed by people on nondiscursive levels of awareness and reconstructs them linguistically” (42)

Stage 3 - Dialogical data generation

-researcher ceases to be the only voice enabled to build the primary record -intense conversations with subjects

-generates data with people

-new data will often challenge information collected in Stage 1 Stage 4 -

Discovering system relations

-examination of relationship between the social site and other specific social sites bearing some relation to it

Stage 5 - Using system relations to explain findings

-level of inference increases

-critical researcher is able to suggest reasons for the experiences and cultural forms he reconstructed having to do with class, race, gender and political structures of society

(Carspecken 1996: 42-43)

Bearing in mind how good theory often “emerges from the bottom-up (rather than from the top-down) and from many disparate pieces of collected evidence that are interconnected,” many researchers assert that “the theory is grounded in the data” (Bogdan and Knopp Bilken 2007: 30). A good researcher is aware of the importance of data and how it shapes the end product (ibid). However, the bottom-up approach has a weakness in that the research can become very idiosyncratic and the theorist may be: “unable to raise the level of generality of the theory” (Eisenhardt 1989). Ethnographers and theory exists in a delicate balance as many:

106 ethnographers are faced with the challenge of relating the dominant theoretical frameworks of their discipline to field situations in which their application is not readily apparent. Furthermore, they confront the notion that ‘only the leading figures in a discipline can generate theory’; the rest apply it (Schensul, Schensul et al. 1999: 10).

Whilst case study theories may be testable, novel and empirically valid, they are generally limited to a specific phenomenon. Herein lies the often misunderstood paradox of qualitative research because: “by studying the uniqueness of the particular we come to understand the universal” (Simons 1996: 231). For an interpretivist, meaning, interpretation and representation are deeply intertwined with each other, both in the method and in the end product.

Whilst I acknowledge they are generalizations, there has been documentation of white working-class suspicions of institutions/bureaucracies (Weis, Fine et al. 1997; Weis 2004) and a lack of literacy proficiency (Evans 2006). These two

potential factors could have made positivist research methods problematic.50 _The

longitudinal multi-case study approach enabled me to triangulate my findings in two ways. First, I was able to use a number of different tools for data collection (observation, focus groups, one-on-one interviews, document analysis) while I was researching (Gubb and Arnot 1998). Second, I was able to informally speak to a number of different individuals (students, teachers, tutors, and administrators) who are directly involved with the participants. This triangulation increases the validity of my interpretations. My research plan (Table 3) for interviews and focus groups was informed by nearly forty years’ worth of literature and set around seven key stages with corresponding themes each drawing upon a different tool.

107

Table 3 - Thematic Organization of Interviews and Focus Groups

A solid methodology uses triangulation, or multiple sources of data/sources of

evidence, in an attempt to ensure validity. 51 _{Whilst ethnographers have struggled}

with questions surrounding validity and reliability, I agree with Schensul, Schensul et al (1999) that ethnography has a high degree of internal validity, as validity: “requires researchers to assess whether constructs devised by researchers represent or measure the categories of human experience” (276). Additionally, researchers should not be a slave to “methodolatry,” or the “idolatry of method”

51 Triangulation, through multiple data collection methods, will yield a: “stronger substantiation of constructs and hypotheses” (Eisenhardt 1989: 538).

Stage and Theme(s) Methods Tools Various Topics and Aim

(Preliminary Observation Phase) 1 – Life History Approach Semi-structured interview Pictures of Occupational Masculinities (Appendix G)

Family, national identity,

To understand students life experiences 2 – Schooling

Experience Semi-structured interview Music: Eminem’s The Way I Am School experience, respect in school, parent involvement, bullying, teachers, etc.

To facilitate ‘student voice’ (Smyth and Hattam 2001)

3 – Masculinity

Perceptions Focus groups and/or Semi-

structured interview Pictures of Working-Class Masculinities (Appendix H)

Primary socialization, employment and masculinity, style/dress

To capitalize on ‘student voice’ (ibid) and enable boys to rationalize and explain engagement with learning and attitudes toward schooling

4 – Social Class and Education Semi-structured interview Pictures of Masculinity Variations (Appendix I)

To gain knowledge of social class positioning, ‘lived’ social class experiences

5 – Power and

Aggression Semi-structured interview Pictures of Media Masculinities and Activity

(Appendix J)

Positions of power/autonomy, sexuality/homophobia, priorities To understand the boys’ conception of power in their lives

6 – Racism, Police,

Dilemma Focus groups and/or Semi-

structured interview

Film: Football

Factory Racism, police, response to film To understand how they perceive elements of social control

7 – Influences Semi-structured

interview Worksheet and Drawing Activity Conceptions of admired students, conceptions of each other, individual questions based on Interviews 1-6 To facilitate dialogue on points of confusion in previous interviews

108 where “slavish attachment and devotion to method” overtakes research content (Janesick 2000: 390). The use of methods, such as non-participant observation, interviews and focus groups, were essential to the research methodology. The principle approach in conducting the research, therefore, has been the adoption of a flexible and multi-faceted design strategy enabled an in-depth look at the issues relating to white working-class boys, their schooling, and their subjectivities. I executed a multi-case study with thick description, which I believe was the most appropriate design for this particular problem and the ensuing research questions (Walker 1989).

Implicit in a study of classed, ethnic and gendered processes attending upon engagement with schooling are complexities and contradictions surrounding power and hierarchical, institutionalized asymmetry (Mac an Ghaill 1994; 2000). These are themes that have been examined specifically in a number of school ethnographies, but researchers frequently fall short of actively acknowledging their own involvement in the relationships of power and authority that characterize school settings.