This chapter will
outline the research design employed by this study to achieve its
research aims. The aims of this research are as follows:
To achieve these aims the study will attempt
to answer the following research questions:
A mixed methods
research design was employed, for this research, to answer these questions and
included the use of questionnaires, focus groups and interviews. Justification
for the use of a mixed methods research design, along with details of the
research instruments used and data collection methods followed, will be
outlined in depth in this chapter.
This chapter will
begin by outlining the theoretical perspective which frames this research.
It is imperative to consider one’s own set of
beliefs before commencing any research and deciding on a methodology and
related methods, as the researchers world view will undoubtedly effect how the
research is undertaken and interpreted (Morgan, 2007). The popularity of paradigms as a way to
summarize researchers’ beliefs about their efforts to create knowledge has been
directly attributed to Thomas Kuhn’s landmark book titled “The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions” (Kuhn, 1962). However within this book the term
“research paradigm” was described as many different things and as such was
criticized as lacking in clarity by fellow scholar Masterman in 1970. Kuhn went
on to discuss the various application of the term “research paradigm” at length
in a further “postscript” (Kuhn, 1974) and suggested that depending on the
field of study the meaning and applications of the this term can vary, from
paradigms as worldviews, as epistemological stances, as shared beliefs among
members of a specialty area or as model examples of research (Morgan, 2007),
see appendices 3.1 for a detailed description of these four versions of
paradigms.
Kuhn defines a paradigm as: “an integrated
cluster of substantive concepts, variables and problems attached with corresponding
methodological approaches and tools…”. According to him, the term paradigm
refers to a research culture with a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions
that a community of researchers has in common regarding the nature and conduct
of research (Kuhn, 1977).
The most commonly used definition still stems
from Kuhn’s original works, with paradigms being described as the set of common
beliefs and agreements shared between scientists about how problems should be
understood and addressed (Kuhn,1962). It is within this definition however,
that a great significance lies on the chosen application of its concept to
one’s own research, which is crucial in framing the theoretical underpinning of
one’s chosen methodologies. It is also
noteworthy to add that the assumptions associated with one paradigm over the
other are neither correct or incorrect, but that it is the duty of a researcher
to argue the value of their chosen paradigm in relation to the methodologies
they employ (Shanks, 2002).
The centrality of a research paradigm includes
clarity between “what is to be studied and how the research process is to be
carried out” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005a, p. 183). This section of the
methodology chapter will seek to map out this research projects’ process while
underpinning it with the philosophical components that make up research
paradigms.
The value of the researcher taking the time to
reflect upon their own philosophical assumptions of knowledge and placing
themselves somewhere within the spectrum of paradigms is vital, because as
Denzin and Lincoln (2005) have reminded us, paradigms “are human constructions”
that “define the worldview of the researcher” (p.183). In attempting to understand one’s own
research paradigm, there are four key considerations to explore:
3.2.1.1.1 Ontology
Ontology concerns the nature of reality, for
example, is there a “real” objective world out there, or is reality
constructed through human relationships?
In research there are two key ontological assumptions, Realism and
Nominalism, although perceptions of reality can exist along a continuum between
the two. Realists feel that we can ‘gain access to that world by thinking,
observing and recording our experiences carefully’ (Moses and Knutsen 2007,
p.8) and that reality exists independently of our thinking about it. This type
of ontological assumption is more typically aligned with traditional hypotheses
testing research. Nominalism conversely, believes that ‘reality is socially
constructed, that individuals develop subjective meanings of their own personal
experience, and that this gives way to multiple meanings’ (Bloomberg and Volpe
2008, p.9). According to a nominalist assumption it is the researcher’s role to
make sense of the reality which has been socially constructed through a process
of interpretation of experiences and perceptions of individuals and phenomenon’s. This research aligns itself with that of a
nominalist ontological view and attempts to understand the SNAs and PE teachers
experiences of inclusion from their own perspectives, rather than believe that
there is one singular truth and correct model of inclusion. It seeks,
therefore, to use research to give voice to the individuals who make sense of
and construct their own realities.
3.2.1.1.2
Epistemology
Epistemology is “the study of the nature of
knowledge and justification” (Schwandt, 2001, p. 71). Epistomological positions
are characterized by a set of assumptions about knowledge and knowing, which
provide answers to the question “What and how can we know?” (Willig,
2012). It attempts to answer the basic
question of what distinguishes true knowledge from false knowledge and how can
we come to find out.
In research “Epistemology is inescapable”
(Carter and Little, 2007 pp 1319). It is impossible to engage in the process of
knowledge creation without already having some assumptions about what knowledge
is and how it is constructed, therefore epistemology theoretically shapes the
research either by a researcher actively adopting a theory of knowledge to
underpin their studies or by a less reflexive researcher implicitly adopting a
theory of knowledge (Carter and Little, 2007).
Furthermore epistemology is normative, in that it is the basis for
explaining the rightness or wrongness, the admissibility or inadmissibility, of
types of knowledge and sources of justification of that knowledge. It is for
these reasons that every aspect of a research project contains epistemic
content, from the methodology chosen to the methods and to the axiology or
ethical decisions made within the research process and interpretation of the
research data, see figure 3 for a summary of this interconnected relationship.
There are two basic pillars on the continuum
of epistemological assumptions (see figure 4.) although many different terms
have been used to label each pillar, for the purpose of this research the terms
constructivism and that of empiricism will be used. It must also be noted that
as with all philosophical viewpoints on a continuum there are many assumptions
which fall between both constructivism and empiricism.
Empiricism views reality as universal,
objective, and quantifiable. It assumes that reality is the same for you as it
is for me and through the application of science we can identify and ‘see’ what is?shared reality. Within this
assumption the individual is reduced to the status of a passive receptacle, as knowledge is seen as static with the role of the researcher
being one of objectivity to access the reality and knowledge (Ashworth, 2003).
The basic assertion of the constructionist
argument is that reality is socially constructed by and between individuals who
experience it (Gergen, 1999) and that reality can be different for each of us
based on our unique understandings of the world and our experience of it
(Berger & Luckman, 1966). The subjectivity of reality within this
epistemological stance is key and the belief that knowledge is adaptive and active
– with the role of the researcher being to unveil knowledge as it happens.
An additional empirical stance exists which is
positioned slightly between both empiricism and constructivism, called Social
constructionism (Berger & Luckman, 1966; Gergen, 1999, 2001a, 2001b).
Within this assumption the individual is a sense maker whom seeks to understand
or make sense of their world as they see and experience it. Social
constructionism allows the unique differences of individuals to come into focus
while at the same time permitting the essential sameness that unites human
beings to be identified (Ashworth, 2003). In this manner each individual
reality is true for the person because he or she experiences it but it is
independent of that person due to his or her inability to alter it (Gergen,
1999).
This latter understanding of knowledge as
being socially constructed, flexible to the individuals experiences and subject
to individual reality is one which this research aligns with. The role of the researcher therefore
within this research is to unveil knowledge as it happens with no pre-conceived
notions of what form of experiences are expected or unexpected. The constructed
knowledge surrounding inclusion in PE will come mainly from reviewing available
literature within this field while the constructed insights will come from the
perceptions of inclusion experiences collected from those at the center of the
research, SNAs and PE teachers, through questionnaires and focus groups and
interviews.
As previously stated a researchers
epistemology modifies methodology and justifies the knowledge produced through data collection (see Figure 3)
(Carter and Little, 2007). A methodology
is defined as “a theory and analysis of how research should proceed” (Harding,
1987, p. 2), and it justifies the methods used for data collection within a
research project. Methods are “procedures, tools and techniques” of research
(Schwandt, 2001, p. 158) which produces data and analyses from which knowledge
is created. This research used a mixed methods approach and based on the ontological and
epistemological assumptions aligned with this research as outlined above, the focus
was on using interpretative qualitative and quantitative methods to explore a
broad spectrum of perceived realities surrounding the topic of inclusion in PE
and the role of the SNA. It is in this
way that this study lends itself nicely to that of a mixed methods study, with
an associated paradigm to provide a theoretical framework. This is discussed in more detail in the following
section.
As stated briefly above, epistemology also has
ethical and values weight. Axiology relates to
the values which underlie the way in which research is carried out and
interpreted, because undeniably, knowledge that is generated by a project will
be discussed and justified in relation to the broader cultural values of the
researcher but also of the research context. With an epistemological viewpoint
of social constructivism this becomes even more valid, because a researcher who
believes that individuals experiences and knowledge are created from social
interactions must be very aware of the potential impact of themselves as the
researcher within this environment and how their interpretations of the
research data could become a “truth” for the participants who are part of the
research. The epistemological values which underlie this belief will have
consequences on the role the researcher will play in the research and also on
the way the data is presented and interpreted. Within this research for example
caution had to be taken when conducting the focus groups and interviews not to
use leading questions which may guide the participants to provide certain views
about inclusion which may be similar to the researchers.
Now that the epistemological and ontological
assumptions for the research have been examined, detail will be given in
relation to the chosen paradigms which are most aligned with this particular
research project.
Flick (2009) attempted to bring some order to
the ambivalence which exists in relation to what constitutes a paradigm by
describing four categories of paradigms, although he declares that his
categorization is by no means definitive. Table 1. displays four of the major
paradigms.
Table 1. Four main
paradigms and associated methodologies
The next section briefly describes the four
main paradigms and assesses their influence on this research.
In early educational and psychological
research the main paradigms that dominated studies were positivism and
following on from this, post positivism.
The underlying assumption of positivism is
that of realism. The perspective of positivism is that knowledge is viewed as
being tangible and objective with positivist researchers examining evidence
available and making firm and objective conclusions based on that evidence,
whilst being mindful that “great precision is necessary on the part of the
scientist to verify conclusions” (Emden and Sandelowski, 1999, p.2).
Post-positivists rejected the narrow perspective, limiting what could be
studied to what was directly observable and whilst they still held beliefs
about the importance of objectivity, they believed that researchers should
“modify their claims to understandings of truth based on probability, rather
than certainty’ (Flick 2009, p.12). As a result of this new paradigm, research
methods allowing measurement of phenomenon which were previously considered as
being too subjective by positivists emerged. Within this current research the
influence of the post positivist paradigm can be seen in the use of
questionnaires to measure the perspectives of SNAs and PE teachers in schools
across Ireland towards inclusion in PE. For
example, the questionnaire data is analysed statistically to provide objective
conclusions for the research questions being asked, however the data collected
from the questionnaires is very much subjective as it drawn from the
perceptions of the SNAs and PE teachers themselves.
Conversely to positivism and post positivism,
constructivism, which is rooted in the nominalist philosophy, makes the
assumption that knowledge is socially constructed by those active in the
research process. The belief is that social reality is subjective and that
people organize experiences in order to make them understandable, independently
of any foundational reality (Egon, Guba and Lincoln, 2001). Within this paradigm
it has been suggested that researchers should attempt to understand the complex
world of lived experience from the viewpoint of those who live it (Schwandt,
2000) and seek to comprehend how “the individual created, modifies and
interprets the world” (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2004, p.7). Within this
research project the constructivism approach can be seen in the focus groups
and semi structured interviews which were conducted in an attempt to gain
further understanding of the research participants lived experiences of
inclusion in PE and the role of the SNA.
Whilst the influences of both the
post-positivist and more so the constructivist paradigm have been shown to be
evident within this research project, within both of these paradigms the
researcher remains external to the research setting and attempts to avoid
having any influence over the research setting. Within this research project,
although the former attempt to remain uninfluential over the research phenomenon
being explored was adhered to for the initial stages of the research (Study 1
phase 1), the advancement from this study was to collaboratively plan and
implement a training intervention on inclusion, in an attempt to affect the
inclusion practices within PE. This results in the need to branch into an
alternative paradigm which has recently emerged to allow the research process
to attempt to transform the lives of research participants in some way.
Due to the inadequacy of positivism and
constructivism to address social justice issues, the transformative paradigm
was founded. A range of transformative paradigms exist with the most relevant
to the intervention phase to this research being the critical theory
transformative paradigm.
Critical theory progresses to go beyond
explain social phenomenon, as with positivism, and past seeking to understand
them, such as with constructivism, but rather is sets out to actually change
the situation (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2010)
In attempting to apply critical transformative
theory to this research a number of key features were needed, firstly to
understand the lived experiences of people within the context being studied, to
examine the social conditions in order to uncover the hidden limiting
structures and finally to fuse theory and action to attempt to make a positive
change in the observed phenomenon. All of these features can be seen to be
evident through the variety of methods applied within this research project.
As exemplified in the above descriptions of
paradigms, some assumptions and applications were taken from various paradigms
in order to best answer the research questions of this project. It has been
suggested that once a researcher does not ignore their own worldview it is not
necessary to operate within one single paradigm or conduct paradigm driven
research (Cohen, Manion and Morrision,
2004) but rather to focus on the research questions at hand and how to answer them
most productively while staying true to your own epistemology.
The mixing of paradigms in this way have been referred to as pragmatism,
and it would be most accurate to state therefore that this research project
operates primarily within a pragmatic paradigm. Morgan (2007) supports this
type of approach to research arguing that a pragmatic approach allows the
positive aspects of all paradigms to work together and focuses on the research
problem, using whatever methods are necessary to understand and solve the
problem. Additional scholars have also
advocated for this pragmatic approach stating that it ‘sidesteps the
contentious issues of truth and reality and orients itself towards solving
practical problems in the real world’ (Feilzer, 2009 p.8).
This research project was undertaken with the
stance that both paradigms and methods can be combined in order to ensure that the phenomenon under
investigation can be reported in a manner that places the findings of the
research and the possible theories that can be generated to the fore. As qualitative and quantitative methods both
have positive and negative components it was envisaged that combining both
allows for the positive aspects to be maximised and the negative aspect to be
minimised.
The following sections will examine theuse of qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods research as well as discussing the data collection methods employed for
this research. The current research employed a mixed methods approach.
Researchers assuming qualitative perspectives are interested in
understanding individuals’ perceptions of the world. Qualitative
researchers are interested in perceptions of reality and are open to the possibility
that people may observe the same thing differently.
Campbell
(1997, p.122) defines qualitative research as: “An inquiry process based on
building a holistic, complex understanding of a social problem. It is
characterized by data collection in a natural setting where the researcher acts
as a key instrument. Furthermore, the research contains deep, rich description
and is more concerned with process than specifying outcomes or products.”
Qualitative
researchers view events through the prism of the people being studied; this is
normally achieved through person-to-person interaction. Additionally, Punch draws our attention to another important
distinction, which is that ‘qualitative research not only uses non-numerical
and unstructured data but also, typically, has research questions and methods
which are more general at the start, and become more focused as the study
progresses’ (Punch 2005, p28).
Creswell (2009) describes quantitative
research as ‘a means of testing objective theories by examining the
relationship among variables. These variables, in turn, can be measured,
typically on instruments, so that numbered data can be analysed using statistical
procedures’ (p.4). Quantitative researchers gather facts or data and examine
the association of these sets to another
(Bell and Waters, 2014). Through the use of structured and predetermined
research questions and conceptual frameworks (Punch 2005), they therefore use
techniques that are likely to produce quantified and, if possible,
generalizable conclusions (Bell and Waters, 2014).
Quantitative approaches are based on a number of assumptions. Firstly, they assume that regularities or patterns in nature exist and that these patterns can be observed and described. Secondly, dividing them into parts and studying those parts using empirical methods can test statements based on these regularities. Thirdly, they assume that it is possible to distinguish between value-laden statements and factual ones (Moses and Knutsen, 2007).
Critics of this approach strenuously challenge most or all of these assumptions. They believe that there are very few absolute ‘facts’ in social science and contend that, even if the world exists independently of the observer, our knowledge of it does not. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2004) argue that life cannot be defined solely in measurable terms and that the quest for objectivity alienates us from ourselves and from nature. These
critics advocate a more qualitative approach to research in social science.
Mixed methods research attempts to respect the
multiple beliefs, perspectives and usefulness of both qualitative and quantitative
approaches, incorporating the best of both worldviews (Guba and Lincoln, 2005).
Creswell (2008) advances a number of strengths of mixed methods research,
strengths which render the approach appropriate for this study. Firstly,
quantitative and qualitative data together provide a better understanding of
the research problem than either type by itself; secondly, one type of research
is not enough to answer the research question; and thirdly, from a practical
perspective, multiple viewpoints are needed. Another aspect of mixed methods
that is appealing, is that one method can develop, inform and complement the
other, and thereby mitigate the limitations associated with the primary method.
Mixed methods provide greater breadth and depth, which facilitate enhanced
description and deeper understanding of the research phenomena (Johnson,
Onwuegbuzie and Turner, 2007). Mason (2006) asserts that the fusion of
quantitative and qualitative ideas can create data and arguments that can form
the basis for well-founded social theory. Greene (2007, p118) contends that
“the greatest potential of mixed methods inquiry is the generative
possibilities that accompany the mixing of different ways of knowing,
perceiving and understanding”.
Having now justified and validated the reasons
for employing a mixed methods research methodology,what remains is to make
careful consideration around three other factors:
These issues will be discussed below in
relation to decisions made for this research project.
Timing can also be referred to as sequencing
and it refers to the temporal relationship between the quantitative and qualitative
components within a research project (Green et al., 1989). Timing is often
discussed in relation to the time the datasets are collected but it is more
important to consider the order in which the data will be used by the
researcher within a study (Morgan 1998).
Timing in mixed methods design is classified in one of two ways: concurrent
or sequential (Morse, 1991). Within this research project data was collected
sequentially with quantitative data being collected first through
questionnaires, followed by qualitative data through focus groups and
semi-structured interviews. The rationale for doing this sequentially was so
the questionnaire data could inform the interview questions asked.
Weighting refers to the relative importance or
priority of the quantitative and qualitative methods to answering the research questions, referred to as the
“priority decision” (Morgan, 1998).
Again there are two options with regard to weighting of data collection
measures, equal weighting or priority weighting given to one data collection
method. It has been suggested the theoretical worldview used to guide the
research project will determine whether the qualitative or quantitative data
will get more weighting in the project. In the case of this research it is the
quantitative data which is given more weighting with the qualitative data being
used in a supporting and explanatory role. See figure 4 to illustrate choice in timing and weighting
for mixed methods research design.
In relation to mixing of the data, Creswell
et al., (2011) identified six separate mixed method research approaches. These
include the convergence parallel design, the explanatory sequential design, the
exploratory sequential design, the embedded design, the transformative design
and the multiphase design.
Sequential mixed methods designs comprise of
multiple phases of data collection with the particular sequence being
determined by the research purpose (Andrew & Halcomb, 2009). Sequential
designs may be either explanatory, in which the quantitative data is collected
first followed by the qualitative data, or exploratory, in which the
qualitative data is collected first and followed by the quantitative element of
the study (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2007). Andrew and Halcomb (2009) suggest
that in explanatory designs the weight is usually, but not always, afforded to
the quantitative element of the study, while exploratory designs usually, but
not always, affords the weight to the qualitative element of the study.
This research study chose to employ an
explanatory sequential design whereby the
quantitative data was collected first, in the form of the questionnaires,
followed by the qualitative data collection through follow up focus groups and
interviews. Within this design, the purpose of the qualitative data is to
further explain and interpret the findings from the quantitative data and thus
the priority focus is on the quantitative data. For example, the questionnaires
in this study were used to collect quantitative data from a large number of
SNAs and PE teachers, which would be representative of the general perceptions
amongst this population in Ireland. Following on from this, participants who
completed the questionnaires were invited for interviews where they could
further explain and offer insights into their questionnaire answers.
The rationale that quantitative data would
offer a general understanding of a research problem, followed by the
qualitative data refining and explaining the statistical results through an
exploration of participants’ views, is well documented in the literature
(Rossman and Wilson 1985; Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998; Creswell 2003). The
strengths of this design include its straightforwardness and the provision of
opportunities for the exploration of quantitative results in more detail, while
the limitations of the design are that is it is time and resource consuming to
collect and analyze both types of data, particularly at different time points
(Creswell, Goodchild, and Turner 1996; Green and Caracelli 1997; Creswell 2003,
2005; Moghaddam, Walker, and Harre 2003; Ivankova, Creswell and Stick, 2006).
See Appendices 3.3 for the model of data collection and analysis using the
Mixed Methods sequential explanatory design.
The rationale for mixing both kinds of data
within one study is based on the perception that neither quantitative nor
qualitative methods alone would be enough to encapsulate the trends and details
of a phenomenon. Using quantitative and qualitative methods together in one
study takes advantage of the strengths of each type of data and complements
each other to allow for a more thorough analysis. (Ivankoca, Creswell and Stick year; Green,
Caracelli, and Graham 1989; Miles and Huberman 1994; Green and Caracelli 1997;
Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998).
While the main research question under
investigation in this research relates to human experience and thus would seem
to most naturally lend itself to qualitative methods such as focus groups and
interviews, in order to try to establish an overview of the broader trends in
the national population of SNAs and PE teachers working in mainstream post-primary
schools, it was necessary to firstly use quantitative methods in the form of
questionnaires followed by qualitative methods to provide more in depth
insights.
The
next section will detail the qualitative and quantitative methods employed
during this research.
It is important for any research study that the methods selected are both adequate to answer the research questions and appropriate for the research methodology being employed. Having reviewed previous and related research studies a combination of questionnaires and follow up focus groups and interviews were deemed the most appropriate methods for use during this research study. Barton and Thomlinson (1981) and Haug (1998) support the use of interviews in order to tackle critically the inherent assumptions and contradictions of research with questionnaires. Therefore, the combination of questionnaires followed by interviews (focus group and semi-structured) allowed the opportunity to
answer the research questions and identify themes and issues surrounding the
role of SNA’s in PE.
The two data collection methods used for this research were
questionnaires and focus groups/interviews.
“A Questionnaire is a method for collecting primary data in which a
sample of respondents are asked a list of carefully structured questions chosen
after considerable testing with a view to eliciting reliable responses.”
(Collis and Hussey, 2014, p.205). Questionnaires can be used in a number of
different settings including interviews, by telephone, online and postal. For
this research a combination of online and postal questionnaires were used. The questionnaire used in this research was
developed by the researcher based on a version of a questionnaire used in Davis
et al. (2007) with adaptations made to make the questionnaire more applicable
to this particular research environment and context. Other sources which guided
the choice of questions on the questionnaire included a review of the
literature in the area of inclusion in PE (Sweeney and Coulter, 2008; Chandler
& Green, 1995; La Msater, Gall, Kinchin & Siedentop, 1998, Block 2003;
Meegan and MacPhail, 2006) along with Department of Education published
documents on the role of the SNA in post primary education (DES,
2011)
Two different questionnaires were designed for
SNAs and PE teachers with many similar questions on both, using
multiple-choice, likert scale and dichotomous (yes/no) questions. Survey Monkey
was used for the development of the online version of the questionnaire.
Content validity of the questionnaire was determined by a two-step
process consisting of written comments from higher education professionals
(n=3) and the completion of a 6-item modified validity rating form (See
appendices 3.1 ) by a sample (n=11) of SNAs (Thomas and Nelson 1996).
Focus Groups and
Interviews sought to gain further insight into the role of the SNA using
the topics from the questionnaire as a guide.
Focus Groups are
“used to gather data relating to the feelings and opinions of a group of people
who are involved in a common situation or discussing the same phenomenon”
(Collis and Hussey, 2014, p.141). Using
interview style techniques groups of participants are encouraged by a group
leader or researcher to discuss their opinions on selected topics. The
advantage of focus groups as opposed to interviews is the addition of the
effect that the group interaction can have on topics being discussed, for
example through listening to others views being expressed participants can be
stimulated to voice their own opinions, which they may not have done without
this group interaction (Morgan, 1997). The purpose of a focus group is not to
obtain data which can be generalized about a whole population but rather to
obtain as full a range of perceptions
about a specific phenomenon. Within this research the focus groups aimed to
provide additional insights and depth to the findings of the questionnaires and
so the questions and topic chosen were based on findings that were considered
important and pertinent to the study from the questionnaire data.
Interviews are a
method of collecting information from selected participants through asking
questions to find out what they do, think or feel. Under an interpretivist
paradigm interviews seek to explore “data on understandings, opinions, what
people remember doing, attitudes, feelings and the like, that people have in
common” (Arksey and Knight, 1999, p.2) and will be unstructured or semi
structured (Collis and Hussey (2014). During interviews open questions which
require longer and more developed answers, rather than yes/no answers, can be
used, or closed questions which require very brief factual answers. Within this research semi structured
interviews were conducted, whereby participants were encouraged to talk about
specific topics of interest through the use of open ended questions but allowed
for other questions to emerge during the
course of the interview depending on the responses given by the participants.
Probing questions also formed an important part of the interview to ensure the
participants elaborate on statements which they make that may be of particular
interest to the research question.
As with all data
collection methods, interview and focus groups have some potential problems
which the researcher must be aware of. One such problem which can occur is
social desirability bias, whereby participants will answer in the way they feel
the researcher would like them too, (Collis and Hussey, 2014). Another common problem with focus groups is
having one participant who is overly dominant, making it difficult for others
to express their opinions. The role of the researcher here is vital in firstly
explaining the way in which the focus group will be conducted to all
participants prior to its commencement and secondly by maintaining control of
the group and encouraging all participants to contribute throughout. Being
aware of these potential problems prior to data collection is vital for the
researcher in order to conduct the focus groups and interviews to the highest
standard.
Questionnaires were posted to all mainstream
post-primary schools in Ireland who employed SNAs according to the NCSE School
Allocations List from 2012/13 (See Appendices 3.2) (n=732 Schools, n=2019 SNA’,
n=1100 PE Teachers). These questionnaires were addressed to SEN Co-ordinators
in each school. Links to an online version of the questionnaire were also emailed
to the schools and to SNA union groups. Follow up phone calls were made to SEN
Co-ordinators in the schools two weeks after initially sending the
questionnaires in an attempt to increase response rate.
It has
been suggested in the literature (Fincham, 2008)
that taking this multi-mode approach to questionnaire data collection
may yield greater response rates, with a study
carried out by Yun and Trumbo (2000) receiving a response rate of 72% with such an approach. Response rate is
“defined as the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible
subjects in the sample” (Draugalis, Coons, & Plaza, 2008, p11). Despite
taking this multi-mode approach and using follow up procedures, the
response rate for this research remained relatively low, with just 16% of the
SNA population responding (n=330 SNAs) and 18% of the sampled PE Teachers (n= 193
PE Teachers). A low response rate to questionnaires by potential respondents in a population can result in nonresponse bias
which can have a negative effect on the reliability and validity of
questionnaire study findings (Fincham, 2008).
Whilst the literature
available does not seem to set a minimum acceptable response rate, Draugalis,
Coons and Plaza (2008) reviewed articles from 2005 and 2006 and reported that
35% of survey research papers had response rates less than 30%, 30% had
response rates between 31%-60%, and 35% had response rates of 61% or greater.Cook
et al have noted that: “Response representativeness is more important than
response rate in survey research. However, response rate is important if it
bears on representativeness.”(Cook et al, 2000, p.821).
Representativeness refers to
how well the sample drawn for the questionnaire research compares with the
population of interest (Fincham, 2008). Within this study it can be stated that
the population of interest is well represented based on comparisons of the
demographics of the participants which were reported (Location, Age, Gender) in
this study, with that of other research on this population. The results section
will outline these comparisons in more detail. Based on this, whilst non response bias must
be considered in the interpretation of the questionnaire data collected, it
would seem accurate to suggest that the data will provide a reliable
representation of the greater population of SNA’s and PE teachers? with whom
this study is interested.
Follow up Focus Groups (n=4) and Semi
structured interviews (n=6) were conducted with a total of 29 SNAs who had
completed the questionnaires. All SNAs who participated in the questionnaire
research were contacted by email and invited to take part in the follow up
focus groups and interviews. These focus groups and interviews added depth to
the questionnaire results and allowed for themes and topics arising from the
questionnaire data to be further explored.
This research employed
a mixed methods design using quantitative approaches to analyse the
questionnaire data and qualitative approaches to explore the themes from the
focus groups and interviews. As stated
previously the quantitative analysis took place initially followed by the
qualitative data analysis. The questionnaire data was inputted into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and was
screend and cleaned before being analysed using descriptive statistics, including
frequency and percentage response distributions and measures of central
tendency, and inferential statistics, including T-tests, Regression Analysis
and Pearsons correlations. Using the
initial descriptive statistics analysis of the questionnaire data, interview
topics were chosen for the qualitative stage of the data collection. The
interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim before
being entered into Nvivo software, where the data was coded and analysed using
thematic analysis with an emphatic interpretation orientation. Verification
procedures as per Ivankova, Creswell and Stick, (2005) were followed including; member checking,
intercoder agreement, rich and thick descriptions of the cases, reviewing and
resolving disconfirming evidence, and academic adviser’s auditing.
The methods of data
analysis used and the procedures followed will be outlined in greater detail
below.
The questionnaire data was analysed
quantitatively using Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Statistics is a branch of science that deals with the
collection, organisation, analysis of data and drawing of inferences from the
samples to the whole population (Winters, Winters and Amedee, 2010) Descriptive statistics try to describe the
relationship between variables in a sample or population. Descriptive
statistics provide a summary of data in the form of mean, median and mode.
Inferential statistics use a random sample of data taken from a population to
describe and make inferences about the whole population. It is valuable when it
is not possible to examine each member of an entire population (Satake , 2015).
Data from the
questionnaires were tested using both parametric and non-parametric tests
depending on the variables being analyzed.
Parametric tests were used to analyse numerical
data that are normally distributed. The two most basic prerequisites for
parametric statistical analysis are:
However, when the assumptions of
normality are not met, and the sample means are not normally distributed,
parametric tests are used. Non-parametric tests
are also used to analyse ordinal and categorical data. Non-parametric
tests may fail to detect a significant difference when compared with a
parametric test (Nahm, 2016).
Statistical tests were conducted
to measure for relationships, differences, and inferred causality between the
variables.
To test the data for relationships
between selected variables, Pearsons Correlations and Multiple Regression
Analysis was conducted.
The independent paired t-test was
used to measure for significant differences between independent samples. The formula for unpaired t-test is:
where X1
− X2 is the difference between the means of the two groups and SE
denotes the standard error of the difference.
Chi-square test was used to
analyse the categorical or nominal variables, comparing the frequencies to see whether
the observed data differed significantly from that of the expected data. It is
calculated by the sum of the squared difference between observed (O)
and the expected (E)
data (or the deviation, d) divided by the expected data by the following
formula:
Logistics Regression
was also used to test the odds of an event occurring based on one or more
predictor variables.
Qualitative
data analysis has been described as the “central step” in qualitative research,
and in many ways forms the outcomes of the research (Flick, 2013). Defined as “the
classification and interpretation of linguistic (or visual) material to make
statements about implicit and explicit dimensions and structures of meaning-making
in the material” (Flick, 2013), qualitative data analysis aims to describe,
compare and explain selected phenomenon’s and potentially develop theories
based on these acquired analysis.
Interpretation
is a key component of qualitative research and without it we cannot make sense
of or derive any true meaning from the data (Willig, 2013). Different
interpretations of the same data can be generated as a result of asking
different questions of it, which highlights the impact that a researchers ontological
and epistemological positions have on the data analysis due to the effect they
have on the interpretation orientation selected. The two different interpretation orientations
are stated as being suspicious interpretation and emphatic interpretation.
Suspicious’
interpretation aims to reveal hidden truths
and to unmask that which presents itself, to bring out latent meaning
which is contained within but not immediately obvious in the data. It is
necessary to have theoretical concepts to interrogate the data using this
approach.
Emphatic
interpretation seeks to elaborate and illuminate the meaning
which is contained within the material by paying special attention to its
features and qualities and making connections, noticing patterns and identifying
relationships. ‘Empathic’
interpretations are very much grounded in the data and do not set out to
explain why something occurs or to identify a causal mechanism underpinning the
phenomenon but rather to amplify what the data is saying (Willig, 2013).
The
interpretive orientation taking place? with the data analysis in this research
was an emphatic one, with the purpose of the qualitative data being to give
voice to the data and provide further insight into the perceptions of the
research participants surrounding the phenomenon being explored.
As
stated previously the data analysis method used for the qualitative data was
thematic analysis. Thematic analysis refers to the process of identifying
themes in the data which capture meaning that are relevant to the research
question and identify patterns in the data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Through its theoretical freedom, it has been
stated that thematic analysis provides a flexible research tool, which can
provide a rich account of data. (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
Themes or patterns within data can be identified in one of two primary ways : in an inductive or “bottom up‟ way, or in a theoretical or deductive or “top down‟ way. Inductive analysis is a method of coding the data without trying to fit it into a pre-existing coding or research question driven framework. In this sense, this form of thematic analysis is data driven. In contrast, a “theoretical‟ thematic analysis would tend to be driven by the researcher’s theoretical or analytic interest in the area, and is thus more explicitly analyst-driven. This form of thematic analysis tends to provide a less rich description of the data overall, and more a detailed analysis of some aspect of the data. The choice between inductive and theoretical approaches also affects whether the researchers codes for a quite specific research question (which maps onto the more theoretical approach) or the specific research question evolves through the coding process (which maps onto the inductive approach) (Braun and Clarke, 2006). For the purposes of this research a theoretical approach was used to develop themes from the data, using the research questions, existing literature and the quantitative data results as the analytical guide.
The six phases of conducting thematic analysis
as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) were followed as the procedure for
analyzing the data in this research, see table below for an outline of these
phases.
3.1 Four
versions of Paradigms (Morgan 2007)
3.2 6-item
modified validity rating form
3.3 NCSE
SNA Allocation 2012/13
3.4 Mixed
Methods Sequential Explanatory Design
3.1.
6-item modified
validity rating form
3.2
NCSE SNA Allocation 2012/13
3.3 Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Data
Collection and Analysis Design.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more