Ways of interpreting and presenting data

Positivist researchers tend to claim that they interpret and present their data within a value-free framework. In contrast qualitative researchers acknowledge the value-laden nature of their work. This difference might have more to do with hidden versus overt values which I suggest makes the qualitative study more rigorous by the way values are opened up to public scrutiny. Quantitative researchers, in their desire to establish proof might present data in such a way to make it difficult to challenge complex computer calculations with statistical significances and compelling graphical displays. In contrast there is often a, “hesitancy of many qualitative researchers when dealing with claims to truth” (Murphy et al 1997a p.6). This does not imply a lack of confidence in the rigour or validity of their work but that they are acutely aware of the complexity of the issues. Alternatively it might demonstrate that they have ethical concerns about “what constitutes legitimate persuasiveness in qualitative research” (Eisner 1997 p.268). The interpretation of data from multiple sources adds to the complexity for the qualitative researcher. However even this use of triangulation of multiple methods arouses criticism, says

Silverman (1985), as it is viewed by some as merely an attempt to reflect a one truth positivist approach to research.

The large amount of data from a wide range of sources, mainly in the form of words, creates a particular difficulty for the qualitative researcher. This data needs to be managed in such a way as to aid systematic analysis and interpretation. In one sense it is no different from the need of the quantitative researcher to manage large amounts of numerical data. However the processes adopted are likely to be more transparent when managing numbers than when managing text. An assumption is often made that the quantitative researcher will input data correctly, will check a sample for reliability of data entry and will use appropriate statistical tests or correlation tables. This assumption is possible mainly because it is reasonably easy for calculations to be re-checked. The qualitative researcher on the other hand has to make analytic choices during the process. Unless the sample is small and the data is left ‘to speak for itself’, the qualitative researcher has to make analytic choices to reduce the data before it can be displayed effectively and meanings or conclusions drawn out, (Miles and Huberman 1994). Data displays are an important way for the qualitative researcher to demonstrate that some interpretations are more compelling than others. The strategy of using multiple perspectives, demonstrating thorough searches for negative or differing instances and using a colleague to check for consistency are all important means of demonstrating rigour in interpreting and presenting the data. Without these processes it is suggested that, like quantitative studies:

“qualitative analyses can be evocative, illuminating, masterful - and wrong .... reasonable colleagues double-checking the case come up with quite different findings”

(Miles and Huberman 1994 p.262)

If reasonable colleagues disagree about findings then it is understandable that qualitative researchers encounter opposing tribes. Miles and Huberman (1994) highlight areas where qualitative researchers need to be aware of the potential for bias. These areas include: interpreting data as having patterns or themes that are negligible, putting more emphasis on responses from highly regarded participants than others, or by becoming so involved and part of the group being studied that a balanced perspective is lost.

Recognising our own values and potential for bias, drawing up ethical guidelines and adopting sound practices throughout the process are all important elements of good qualitative research. The same principles can equally well be applied to quantitative research. The positivist researchers who claim that their studies are characterised, “by a belief in value freedom” (Tubbs 1996 p.43) are, in my view, deluding themselves.

3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN - ACTION RESEARCH

The decision to adopt an educational action research approach for this study emerged early on. Tentative findings from the analysis of curricula and project team discussions about the notion of competence and how to determine fitness for midwifery practice were of particular relevance for my own institution. I had initially considered using my own institution as a seventh case study, alongside the six national case study sites. However, I believed it impossible for me to try to assume the role of detached researcher when I was accountable for the quality of the midwifery programmes in my own university. As issues emerged I would need to discuss them with the course team and formulate action plans as and when required. In this way research and action are integrated, unlike the 2

stage process of the national part of the study where as Somekh (1994) suggests, the knowledge generated from the research will be applied by practitioners when the report is published. Coming from a position where I believe that all those exiting from our programmes should be capable of providing women with a safe and positive experience of childbirth, I could not undertake research into our own course effectiveness in isolation nor fail to take alternative action if that seemed appropriate. There was also the need to re-design the curriculum for 1997 and proposals for change would need to be owned by all participants if they were to be argued convincingly during the validation process.

Action research with its emphasis on diagnosing problems and initiating actions as a collaborative process between researcher and practitioner had relevance for my own areas of concern. Noffke (1994) asserts that it is also concerned with “ethical issues as well as technical ones” (p.14) which for me is of vital importance in vocational education, the more so now universities are responsible for conferring the academic/professional award. However, like Prideaux (1993), my department is located in a largely “positivistic and quantitative” (p.375) Faculty of Medicine and Health Science and representatives from medicine would be members of our course planning team. Hence they would be the major players in the validation process. Given that there appear to be a large number of interpretations of action research, it seems sensible to try to locate my own unique interpretation and approach to action research within this plethora. This should better enable me defend the credibility of our findings and actions when exposed to sceptics from both qualitative and quantitative paradigms, and those who value theory more highly than practice. Like Titchen and Binnie (1993) I need to be able to demonstrate, to medical colleagues in particular, that action research is an appropriate and rigorous

strategy when evaluating and improving innovative curricula.