Theoretical Framework 32

The theoretical framework used in this study, has been informed by constructivism – an approach to research that aims to understand "the subjective world of human experience" (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2013, p. 17) by recognising that a subject’s world and knowledge (their reality) is constructed and, at least in part, subjective. Crotty (1998) identified constructivism as closely aligned to qualitative methods because of the distinct focus on the subject of the experience and what their meanings and perceptions bring to shaping that experience. As this study explores the interactions between the subjects (VET teachers) and object (technology tools, e-Learning), it has been informed by Crotty’s interpretation of constructionism in this way. Meanings emerge from these interactions and are both objective and subjective – objects shape subjects, and vice versa. While participants’ experiences with technology have been the focus of this study, teachers’ contexts are socially situated and will also influence these individual meanings. Creswell’s (2013) description of a social constructivist framework has been a secondary influence because it allows the researcher to “look for the complexity of views” (p. 25) and recognise teachers’ complex contexts, including personal background and their interactions with learners, support staff and others. The concept of ‘complexity of views’ has shaped, where relevant, an emergent approach that recognises this complexity of teachers’ perspectives. Both in the interview process and the analysis phase, this concept has informed my interview questioning approach using open and semi-structured questioning techniques, and the thematic analyses and presentation of data.

Narrative Inquiry

I have also been greatly shaped by narrative inquiry as an appropriate framework. Connelly and Clandinin (Clandinin, 2013; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990) argued that narrative was both a

phenomenon and a methodology. While narrative analysis could be used to frame studies designed using other methodologies, narrative inquiry could also be considered a distinct methodology that offers a particular way of looking at the world, participant interpretations, and the relationships between participant, researcher and data.

My interviews were undertaken using a narrative inquiry approach. This allowed me to be inductive and exploratory in order to better understand teachers’ needs and challenges. Connelly and Clandinin (1990) described narrative inquiry as “the study of the ways humans experience the world” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 2). It allowed a way to understand an individuals’ experience but also the “social, cultural and institutional narratives within which individual’s experiences are constituted, shaped, expressed, and enacted” (Czarniawska, 2004, p. 41).

As discussed in Chapter 1, there is a complex policy and political context that surrounds VET education. Narrative inquiry allowed me the lens to view and interpret the data that takes into account these social and political contexts, individuals’ stories of educational experiences, and the complex relationships between practitioners and learners, and practitioners and institutions. Narrative inquiry was informed by Dewey’s theory of experience as an underpinning philosophy (Clandinin, 2013). However, Clandinin and Connelly noted that narrative analyses and narrative inquiry was a relatively new area of inquiry and so approaches are still being developed (Clandinin, Pushor, & Orr, 2007; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). Clandinin (2013) argued that narrative has “come to refer to almost anything that uses… stories as data, narrative or story as representational form, narrative as content analysis, narrative as structure, and so forth” (p. 11).

Connelly and Clandinin also noted that narrative inquiry was important in educational research: … education is the construction and reconstruction of personal and social stories; teachers and learners are storytellers and characters in their own and other's stories… Narrative is a way of characterizing the phenomena of human experience. (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 2)

Narrative inquiry affords what Connelly and Clandinin (1990) referred to as an ‘invitational quality’ (p. 8) of data results or findings – inviting other researchers to put themselves in the place of the researcher and participant to consider the story told. The ‘invitational quality’ of narrative inquiry recognises subjectivity and affords a degree of empathy that allows narrative inquiry to be readily applied to small-scale investigations, as:

When I disclose what I have seen, my results invite other researchers to look where I did and see what I saw. My ideas are candidates for others to entertain, not necessarily as truth, let alone Truth, but as positions about the nature and meaning of a phenomenon that may fit their sensibility and shape their thinking about their own inquiries. (Peshkin, 1985, p. 280)

A key advantage of narrative inquiry is that it gives weight to the participant’s voice. In such a small- scale study it is difficult to either generalise or transfer findings more broadly, however, it is possible to focus on these individual stories, moments and emotions of the subjects involved; to reflect on what these stories are saying and not saying, and the perspectives and ideas we as researchers and practitioners can take from them. As described previously within other chapters, my interest in this study has been to provide VET teachers with a voice which has often been missing within the research literature. Narrative inquiry allows for a “collaborative stance between practitioner and researcher” (Clandinin & Connelly, 1988, p. 270) where the voice of the researcher can be included where needed, but also prioritised within the narrative. Connelly and Clandinin (1990) described that:

In narrative inquiry, it is important that the researcher listen first to the practitioner's story, and that it is the practitioner who first tells his or her story. This does not mean that the researcher is silenced in the process of narrative inquiry. It does mean that the practitioner, who has long been silenced in the research relationship, is given the time and space to tell her or his story so that it too gains the authority and validity that the research story has long had. (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 4)

Narrative inquiry has allowed for the participant voice (in this case VET teachers) to be prioritised, but also the relationships between myself as researcher and the participants were now made visible. I already had an existing professional relationship with some of the participants. While I aimed to let the participants speak for themselves, the relationships and my own personal background have affected both my rationale for my study and the way some of the dialogues played out in the field – such as where participants would ask questions of me and what I thought. Narrative inquiry recognises these relationships and enables these interactions to take place, and makes me consciously aware of such.

It was important to me to ensure that the participants were given the ‘time and space’ to tell their stories and to contribute to a collaborative research relationship. Clandinin and Connelly (1988) referred to these interactions as ‘negotiation of entry’, acknowledging the researcher voice as part of a collaborative research relationship or what they term a “caring community” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 4). This is a place where all parties view themselves as participants in a research community and is important for establishing and maintaining trusting relationships. My role as a support person at the site and my background in VET, enabled me to be empathetic and relate to their stories.