16: Research project schedule

Peer debriefing

Peer debriefing is a useful technique to verify the conclusions drawn in the data analysis process and to ensure that it is transparent. Ary et al. (2010), Gay et al. (2009), Lodico et al. (2010) and Mertens (2010) state that peer debriefing enables the researcher to see whether their interpretations are reasonable. Peer debriefers may also discover new ideas that the researcher did not see (Lodico et al., 2010).

To incorporate peer debriefing in this research project, after the initial phase of the research, I met with a group of group of colleagues and shared my data and my findings. This was an ongoing process where I was given feedback on my

interpretations and the transparency of this process. I was also presented with new • January-February

• Interviews • Observations

• Teacher-as-research during practicum Phase One

• June-July • Interviews • Observations • Questionnaire

• Teacher-as-reseacher during practicum Phase Two

views regarding the data that I may not have seen. Notes were taken at the meeting to record what was spoken about and to enable me to reflect on the discussions. See appendix O for an example of the minutes taken at these meetings.

Member checking

Member checking is a similar process to peer debriefing but with one difference. Member checking refers to the process of asking the participants whether they agree with the interpretations made from the data (Ary et al., 2010; Creswell, 2008;

Fraenkel et al., 2012; Lodico et al., 2010; Mertens, 2010). Creswell (2008) writes that the researcher may ask several questions:

» Are the descriptions complete and realistic? » Are the themes accurate?

» Are the interpretations are and representative?

The member checking process occurred in several ways for this research project. A final interview was undertaken where the participants in the primary cohort (Tevita, Kali and Regina) were asked to identify whether they agreed with the interpretations, descriptions and themes. In addition, the questionnaire distributed was another way of checking with the majority of the Pasifika population at the school whether they agreed with the findings.

In this questionnaire, the students were asked two questions as a means of member checking. The first question asked students to rank a list of factors according to their impact on their educational achievement. These factors were derived from the initial findings and can be seen in image 3.7 on the next page. The results from this

students perceived to have the most and least impact respectively. The results indicate that the students perceived encouragement, teachers and family to have the greatest impact on their academic achievement while the size of the school, positive role models and socio-economic background were identified as the factors with the least impact. The results from this question show inconsistencies from the initial findings. Thus the data analysis process took into consideration these differences and possible reasons for these differences were derived from further responses.

Image 3. 7: First member checking question

The second question asked the students to what degree they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements. These statements, similar to the factors in the first question, were derived from the themes developed and can be seen in image 3.8 on the next page. In addition, image 3.8 shows to what degree the majority of the students agreed or disagreed with for each statement. The full results from this question can also be seen in appendix P and again appear to challenge some of my initial findings. Thus the data analysis process took into consideration these differences and possible

reasons for these differences were derived from further responses. These differences were also considering in further analysis.

Image 3. 8: Second member checking question

Progressive subjectivity

This method is predominantly based around the researcher. Mertens (2010) states that because the researcher is an instrument in qualitative research there is a need to monitor the developing constructs and document the process of change from

reflective journal kept throughout the research project. In fact, Mertens (2010) states the journaling is popular choice for recording this information.

Progressive subjectivity was incorporated into this research project throughout the duration of the research project. This occurred through recording when the direction of the project changed, when I was contemplating what information I had just

received from an interview or when I saw another way of interpreting the results (see appendix B for an excerpt).

Triangulation

This method is perhaps one of the most popular methods of providing evidence of credibility or in this instance the fa’afaletui model. Triangulation is the process of combining several different research methods, several different data collection strategies and/or several different sources of data (Ary et al., 2010; Bogdan &

Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2008; Fraenkel et al., 2012; Gay et al., 2009; Mertens, 2010; O'Toole & Beckett, 2010). This process enables the researcher to check for

consistency across methods, strategies and sources of data (Mertens, 2010). Ary et al. (2010) and Creswell (2008) add that triangulation ensures the theory being developed has been studied, investigated and observed from several different viewpoints. This concept is very closely linked to the fa’afaletui concept itself and could be

considered a crucial aspect of this model.

This research project used triangulation in all three areas of the research project; triangulation of research methods, triangulation of strategies for collecting data and triangulation of sources of data (see diagram 3.17 on the next page).