Summary of the Methodology and Methods

The methodology design and development have been fundamental to this study, and may prove valuable for future projects. The summary of this design is outlined in Table 4.11.

What is involved? Why?

Preliminary light literature review As a scoping exercise, to explore initial ideas Research questions posed To frame the research study

Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz 2014) used as the backbone for the design

This builds on an interpretative perspective and assumes that theories are not

discovered but are mutually constructed by the researcher and the participants, as a result of interactions within the field (Charmaz and Belgrave 2012) Regular and frequent access to participants;

Researcher to enter, however partially, the participant’s world and be affected by it

Enabling interactions within the field and for relationships and friendships to develop

Researcher to display heightened

interpersonal skills: empathy; listening skills;

friendship; mentoring skills

For the researcher-participant relationships to thrive and become deeper and more meaningful

A determination to limit any potential power hierarchy between researcher and participant

For research methods to be successfully initiated, including interviews and observations.

Time and energy Relationships and trust take time to build; this can be a slow but intense process

Mutual commitment to project; participants need to want to be involved

To ensure the longevity of the project and to gain deep and interesting data; and to limit superficial sentiments

Researcher to be prepared to give of themselves, for example: deliver

demonstration lessons; offer resource ideas;

contemporary research input; guidance (if sought); time to listen

To acknowledge there is no ‘intimacy without reciprocity’ (Fontana and Frey 2005: 711) To value the not insignificant time

commitment from participants by making the experience worthwhile

Being at the heart of the research project, and employing the art of noticing (Mason 2002) with sensitivity

To augment all of the above

To access unique, deep and intimate data Prior experience, perceived wisdom and

natural analysis using common sense, invoking Schatzman’s (1991) ‘common interpretative acts’

Used to frame and interpret the data – with no pretense that prior experience is irrelevant or is to be hidden

Sharing, explaining, reviewing, talking about and experimenting with ideas; necessarily filtered through the perspectives of our personal lives

To help make sense of the participants’

unravelling stories

Examples: the sense of stress and anxiety, or the burden of workload, can be

appreciated through the lens of being a teacher; the struggle to recruit teachers viewed through the lens of being a senior leader

Close and comparative attention to the data, including an extended and ongoing review of literature; theoretical sampling employed

To constantly compare data with data, including the literature; the literature is treated as any other source of data.

To look for gaps, overlaps, and emerging themes.

Unavoidable ethical tensions to be dealt with sensitively, invoking Strike et al’s (2002) two guiding principles: the principle of benefit maximization and the principle of equal respect

To simultaneously limit any potential ‘harm’

to participants whilst being uninhibited to expose and reveal the ‘full’ findings

The writing of detailed narratives for each participant; rich, detailed descriptions built up over time

To capture and present the participants data from multifarious sources, from which a general analysis can be drawn to address the research questions

A list of propositions documented in the conclusion of the study, intended to be credible, original and useful – and to resonate with future readers; thereby

‘validating’ the study

To summarise the analysis and to make sense of the findings: to suggest enhancements for future provision and

‘extrapolation to similar situations’

(Golafshani 2003: 600) Table 4.11 Summary of the Methodology Design for this Research

The research questions have given me clear direction and intent to what I was looking at, and the methodology and methods a clear framework for how to look and see. It was however, always unclear as to what I would find or discover.

Observing and listening to the participants over a significant period of time, I have attempted to summarise the narratives simply and clearly. Richardson (2001) describes much academic writing to be ‘simply not interesting to read’

(2001: 35) and Cockcroft (1982) identified the reduced relevance of research when the reports are ‘written in a technical style which is not always easy to follow’ (1982: 228), as too did Tooley and Darby (1998). In the telling of these stories, and in the subsequent analysis and drawing of conclusions, I have attempted to portray the writing in in an engaging and accessible way, and to promote the original voice of the participants. From a rich patchwork of

narratives, an important story with the beginnings of new knowledge is manifest;

this without ‘pretence that by some methodological alchemy it will be

transformed to something more secure in its epistemic status’ (Thomas and James 2006: 29). The findings, this new knowledge, although not generalizable is anticipated to be transferable in terms of being useful for future research studies and for the design of future retraining programmes.

Each of the participant’s stories, weaved together from the various research instruments employed throughout the course of this longitudinal study, are described in detail in the following chapter.