An evaluation of the multi-method approach: teachers beliefs and medium of instruction
Title: An evaluation of the multi-method approach: teachers beliefs and medium of instruction
Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….
Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………....
2.1. Defining the Conceptual Framework
3.1. The Research Interview
3.2. The Classroom Observation
3.3. The Research Interview and the Classroom Observation
The Multi-Method Approach: ………………………………………………………….
3.1. The Research Interview and the Classroom Observation…………………..
Validity and Trustworthiness………………………………............................................
4.1. Truth in Tam’s Study
4.2. Ethics and The Transcription Process
4.3. Validity: The Case Study, Data Saturation, and Document Analysis
Conclusion & Implications for Thesis…………………………………………………...
Link to article critiqued:
Tam, A.C.F. (2011) Does the switch of medium of instruction facilitate the language learning of students? A case study of Hong Kong from teachers’ perspective, Language and Education, 25:5, 399-417, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2011.573076. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1080/09500782.2011.573076.
Introduction & Rationale
In Essay 1 I discussed the concept of quality in relation to the language of instruction used in Nigerian schools. In continuation with this topic - that is, the language of instruction - this second essay will critique Tam’s (2011) study: ‘Does the switch of medium of instruction facilitate the language learning of students? A case study of Hong Kong from teachers’ perspective.’
In my thesis, I will use a qualitatively-driven multi-method approach to explore Nigerian primary school teachers’ beliefs about and views on mother tongue instruction. At this point, my prospective overarching research question is as follows: What role do Nigerian primary school teachers’ views on the Medium Of Instruction (medium of instruction) have on the implementation of language-in-education policy in the classroom? My prospective sub-research question is as follows: How do Nigerian primary school teachers ‘make sense’ of mother tongue-based instruction?
In contrast to existing literature on language of instruction in the Global South, Tam’s (2011) study is not concerned with the alleged benefits of the medium of instruction when implemented. Her interest lies in the feasibility and effectiveness of Putonghua as a Medium of Instruction (PMI) in improving the Chinese proficiency of secondary school students in Hong Kong. Her emphasis is not only on the use of Putonghua as a Medium of Instruction (PMI) in secondary schools in Hong Kong, which is a relatively linguistically homogeneous region, but also on the use of PMI as a facilitator for language learning. On one hand, her argument seems to be that in thinking about the success of PMI, mother tongue-based instruction, or any other medium of instruction, what medium of instruction is implemented should not take precedence over how the medium of instruction is implemented. For example, she presents two similarly worded research questions (p. 403):
What are teachers’ beliefs about and the reasons for the potential benefits or possible shortcomings of PMI in teaching and learning in general, and the language learning of students in particular (in terms of general Chinese competency, writing and Putonghua proficiency as stated by SCOLAR)?
What are teachers’ observations about the actual benefits or shortcomings of PMI in teaching and learning in general, and the language learning of students in particular (in terms of general Chinese competency, writing and Putonghua proficiency)?
These two research questions challenge an assumption in the literature that there exists an uncomplicated ‘causal equation’ (Freeman, 1998; Salami, 2008, p. 108). In this causal equation it is assumed that the government’s decision to legitimise one language of instruction over another will lead to improvements in the language proficiency of all students (quality learning), which is the government's’ goal. The problem is that this equation disregards factors and micro-level processes, like available funding, the teachers’ proficiency in the language of instruction and in the target language, and poor planning which can greatly determine how successful the government is in reaching this goal (Tam, 2011, pp. 413-414). In contrast to this assumption, Tam never assumes that the medium of instruction (or the switch from one medium of instruction to another) affects student language learning; rather she interrogates the discourse underlying this assumption, by conducting an exploratory single-case study to understand one key micro-level factor: teacher cognition. Put another way, she uses teacher cognition (teachers’ beliefs and observations) as a lens in which to understand the language learning of students using PMI - or the success or ineffectiveness of PMI as a medium of instruction. Therefore, the parameters that Tam has set for her work have been defined by what she has observed to be a theoretical and methodological gap in the literature: teachers’ perspectives on the language learning of students using PMI (or the effectiveness of PMI for student language learning).
I chose Tam’s study in particular because her methodological approach (specifically, her conceptual framework and multi-method approach) are relevant to my own thesis. While, there is ample scholarly literature on the mixed-method approach (Creswell, 2003; Hesse-Biber & Johnson); less attention has been paid to the integration and synthesis of multiple qualitative research methods, otherwise known as the multi-method approach: ‘When multiple forms of qualitative data (or multiple forms of quantitative data) are collected’ (Creswell, 2015, p. 3).
Tam operates within a social constructivist and interpretivist research paradigm, and uses semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, and documentary analysis to understand the language learning of secondary school students using PMI from the perspective of ten secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Social constructivism is a research paradigm that emphasises the production of knowledge, and the construction and legitimisation of reality through language and social interactions (Andrews, 2012); which is in direct contrast to the assumption in scientism and positivism that the researcher can directly access a concrete, commonsensical, ‘knowable,’ independent (from our human minds) reality. Tam’s inquiry into student language learning using PMI is mediated through the teachers’ constructions. She implicitly highlights the need to consider the language learning of students in Hong Kong using PMI from multiple perspectives, with the teachers’ perspective being an oftentimes neglected perspective. In my own thesis I will use semi-structured interviews and classroom observations to understand language of instruction from the perspective of three Nigerian primary school teachers in Abuja, Nigeria. As a journal article, which is by its very nature designed to convey the specifics of a researchers’ methodology, Tam’s study will help me understand in greater depth the methodologies (and its various dimensions) used, in past and present research, to investigate teacher medium of instruction.
In this essay, my objective is to critique how exactly Tam integrates these two methods. In analysing Tam’s piece I argue that a multi-method approach is crucial if a holistic and in-depth understanding of teachers’ beliefs about a medium of instruction and the reasons they give for their beliefs is to be achieved. This is because the multi-method approach involves the use of multiple methods. Because each method operates on a certain ‘experiential level’ (Salkind, 2010) - that is, on a certain sensory level of experience - the multi-method approach gives the researcher access to different dimensions of experience and sensory levels of experience.
I argue that Tam’s multi-method approach enables her to explore the parameters of her conceptual framework and her research questions. To substantiate this I must examine two aspects in Tam’s work: the parameters of her conceptual framework, and her multi-method approach. First, I must determine the parameters of Tam’s conceptual framework, research questions, and aims, in relation to their social constructivist epistemological underpinning. This will be my focus in the second section.
Second, I must consider Tam’s multi-method approach, specifically, the strengths and weaknesses of the semi-structured interview and classroom observation separately and in conjunction with each other. This will be my focus in the third section. In section four, I will evaluate Tam’s multi-method approach by considering the effects of the multi-method approach on the validity and trustworthiness of her work; though, I will touch briefly on her use of documentary analysis, her chosen method of data analysis, and the extent to which she addresses ethics.
2. The Conceptual Framework
In this section, I argue that Tam’s multi-method approach - that is, the combination of two qualitative research methods - is appropriate for her conceptual framework and research questions, because the interview and observation are two methods that are well suited to Tam’s social constructivist leanings.
2.1. Defining the conceptual framework
Some conflate theoretical framework with conceptual framework; however, there are others who argue that they are different (Borg, 2003; Jabareen, 2009). Jabareen (2009) defines the conceptual framework as: ‘...a network, or “a plane,” of interlinked concepts that together provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon or phenomena’ (p. 51). Similarly, Imenda (2014) defines the conceptual framework as ‘an end result of bringing together a number of related concepts to explain or predict a given event, or give a broader understanding of the phenomenon of interest – or simply, of a research problem’ (p. 189). I would argue that the conceptual framework and the theoretical framework perform a similar function in the research process: the conceptual framework plays a central role in theory formation and development. It encompasses the concepts that either constitute a given theory, emerge in the research process, or contribute to the creation of a theory (Bowen, 2006). The theoretical framework is, as Imenda (2014) argues, a term used to refer to ‘a set of concepts drawn from one and the same theory, to offer an explanation of an event, or shed some light on a particular phenomenon or research problem’ (p. 189). The theoretical framework and conceptual framework interact with one another. However, as Illustrations 1 and 2 suggest, the conceptual framework is most appropriate when used in conjunction with an inductive research problem, like the language learning of students using PMI, which is the subject of Tam’s qualitative inquiry: the goal of data collection is not to falsify pre-existing hypotheses or theories, but rather, to generate new theories. Illustration 1 is my interpretation of illustration two in the context of Tam’s work. According to Imenda’s flow chart the researcher begins with a research problem, and whether the researcher uses a conceptual framework or a theoretical framework is determined by the kind of research problem they are confronted with. A quantitative research problem will require the application of a theoretical framework, but a qualitative research problem will require the application of a conceptual framework to the research problem.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Illustration 1: The relationship between the CF and the TF (Imenda, 2014, p. 192).
Illustration 2: My Interpretation of Tam’s Conceptual Framework in relation to Imenda’s illustration.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Tam mentions numerous concepts in her research questions and frequently throughout her article: teachers’ beliefs, teachers’ observations, language learning, teaching, learning, and PMI. She frames her study with these interlinked concepts and existing research on ‘the use of a second language as the medium of instruction’ (Tam, 2011, pp. 401-403), instead of theory, as other similar studies have done; but, there are instances in her report that suggest that she has been influenced by theory. For example, she assumes that ‘...schooling is found to be essential to realize one’s political and economic aspirations’ (p. 400). She calls this a fact; and yet, she offers no theoretical reasoning to support this claim. It could be that she is, as an academic, operating within an academic ‘interpretive’ community, in which this fact is taken-for-granted or common-sense knowledge. Theoretical influences aside, her concepts are grounded in certain ‘ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions’ (Jabareen, 2009, p. 51).
Let us first consider two key concepts that feature in Tam’s two research questions: medium of instruction and and teachers’ beliefs. Language is a noun that encompasses oral communication, written narrative or discourse (Fairclough, 1989, p. 3), and so on. However, when language and instruction (or language and learning) are used together language, as a concept, acquires an educational and pedagogical significance: the process of learning a language in whatever form it takes, depends on an relationship between the knowledgeable expert (for example, a teacher) and the comparatively less knowledgeable learner. Neither language instruction nor language learning occur in a vacuum (Mercer, 2000); therefore, language instruction and language learning, as is consistent with social constructivism, are social activities or processes that are contingent on the constant socially constructed negotiations of meaning between actors, and the meanings and interpretations of actors involved (Mercer, 2000; Berger and Luckmann, 1967). For example, the success of Putonghua as a medium of instruction is subject to the teachers’ personal constructions, which are inherently subjective, and vary depending on the teacher and context. Like ‘language learning,’ teachers’ beliefs cannot be observed directly, only indirectly ‘inferred,’ as it manifests in the teachers’ actions and interactions (Borg, 2001; Borg, 2015; Pajares, 1992, p. 326). On the one hand, teachers’ beliefs, as with the beliefs held by any other individual, cannot be solely understood on a cognitive and affective level. For example, by conversing with the researched subject in an interview the researcher can grasp what they think about the phenomenon and why. Interviewees can lie or misunderstand what the interviewer has asked, and even then the interviewee’s response is filtered through the researcher’s interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the interviewee’s response. On the other hand, beliefs are also reflected in, manifest in, and are influenced by the teachers’ actions and interactions with others (Haney, Lumpe, Czerniak & Egan, 2002); for example, how the teachers interpret medium of instruction in the classroom and in their delivery of a certain medium of instruction.
There is also the complex relationship between what a school teacher says in a given situation (i.e. their observations on language learning of students using PMI) and what they do in another (Simmons et al, 1999) - for instance, how teachers’ use language in their classes, or the actual language learning of Hong Kong secondary school students using Putonghua as a medium of instruction (Hunter and Brewer, 2006; Hunter and Brewer, 2016). As Hammersley (1990) argues, ‘to rely on what people say about what they believe and do, without also observing what they do, is to neglect the complex relationship between attitudes and behavior’ (p. 597). This means that Tam needs to use research methods that capture both teachers’ reported observations about the language learning of students using PMI, and actual language learning of students using PMI.
Tam does not explicitly state how she has operationalised teachers’ beliefs. However, on the basis of Tam’s (2011) leanings towards a social constructivist epistemology in this report, one might argue that the multi-method approach (specifically, the triangulation of qualitative research methods) is appropriate for her conceptual framework, research questions, and aims. There are several reasons for this. First, because Tam needs to understand ‘multiple social realities’ (Hesse-Biber, Rodriguez, & Frost, 2016) and acquire subjective knowledge: what the teachers know, and the reasons behind the teachers’ beliefs. Second, because Tam’s takes neither her own interpretations nor the teachers’ beliefs and observations as the objective reality: On the one hand, the teachers’ personal beliefs can ‘distort’ (Pajares, 1992) their observations (i.e. what they know) about PMI. As Pajares (1992), ‘...beliefs color not only what individuals recall but how they recall it, if necessary completely distorting the event recalled in order to sustain the belief,’ (p. 317). On the other hand, the researcher as a tool in himself or herself; which means that researcher bias is inevitable part of being a (human) researcher (Onwuegbuzie, Leech, Collins, 2008. p. 2). She needs methods that complement this ontological view.
Tam’s (solely qualitative) multi-method approach is justified because it is well suited for the subjective knowledge she wants to gain, and the multi-dimensional nature of the phenomenon she is investigating. However, the combination of two or more different methods can lead to what Hesse-Biber (2016) calls ‘epistemic tensions’ between their respective philosophies and epistemological assumptions. In Tam’s work, such epistemic tensions are reduced, primarily because interviews and observations operate within the qualitative research paradigm, which means that they share similar epistemic and ontological assumptions. Nonetheless, in order to effectively synthesise these two methods, an understanding of their respective philosophies and assumptions is needed, as will be the subject of discussion in the ensuing section.
3. The Multi-Methods Approach
The multi-method approach is an approach that uses multiple methods to investigate a given phenomenon (Hunter and Brewer, 2016). Unlike the mixed-method approach, which is a type of multi-method approach focused on the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, the multi-method approach is an overarching term used to describe not only research that combines qualitative and quantitative methods (i.e. QUAL-QUANT), but also research that utilises solely qualitative or solely quantitative methods (i.e. QUAL-QUAL or QUANT-QUANT). In her work, Tam triangulates three qualitative research methods: the interview, observation, and document analysis. In the ensuing section, my focus will be on Tam’s use of interviews and observations in her work, and their respective philosophies and assumptions. I argue that Tam’s (solely qualitative) multi-method approach is justified because there is greater congruence between the depth and intersubjectivity that interviews and observations offer, and Tam’s aims. Quantitative methods, namely, experiments (or intervention studies) and surveys which are frequently used to investigate stakeholders’ beliefs about the medium of instruction, are unable to offer such depth. I end with suggestions of methods that would have also been appropriate for Tam’s investigation.
3.1. The Research Interview
Tam does not disclose the specifics of the interview; however, in deciding to use interviews and observations in a qualitative inquiry, she does allude to the limitations of experimental and survey-based studies. First of all, a qualitative inquiry is concerned with ‘processes,’ (Hesse-Biber, Rodriguez, & Frost, 2016). As a qualitative inquiry, Tam’s study seeks to investigate the implementation of PMI, which is a process that inevitably involves the teacher (p. 402). For this reason, an appropriate method for Tam’s work would be the observation and the research interview, as the observation would allow her to acquire an ‘in-depth understanding of how language learning is enacted at the classroom level,’ and the interview, an understanding of the reasons why teachers’ hold certain beliefs about PMI (Tam, 2011, p. 402). One advantage of the face-to-face semi-structured interview is that it is interactive. The interaction between the interviewee and interviewer, and the interviewee’s engagement with the researcher’s concepts (reflected in the interview questions), may lead to the emergence of new concepts (Bowen, 2006). The semi-structured interview allows the researcher room to explore these concepts, and test the boundaries between them. Each interview is a ‘co-construction’ (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004) and a ‘conversational exchange and partnership’ (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, pp. 79-107). It should not be reduced to a ‘unidirectional flow of information’ from the passive interviewee to the ‘expert’ interviewer (Limerick et al, 1996; Silverman, 1993; Atkinson & Silverman, 1997) as is the traditional conceptualisation of the research interview. As Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) argue, ‘the process of knowing through conversations is intersubjective and social, involving interviewer and interviewee as co-constructors of knowledge,’ (p. 18). In other words, one product of the semi-structured, unstructured, or in-depth interview, specifically the interaction it implies, is an intersubjective and phenomenological kind of knowledge that is subject to the researcher’s interpretation and heavily dependent on context.
Experiments and surveys cannot provide such in-depth and rich descriptions of the phenomenon. Such studies (Genesee, 1985; Day & Shapson, 1991) with their experimental designs, reveal patterns, relationships between variables, the effect of one variable (i.e. pedagogy) on another variable (i.e. language proficiency of students); but, they cannot and do not explain why. For example, in her article, Tam acknowledges three dated, but classic, studies (Genesee, 1985; Day & Shapson, 1991) with an experimental design that test their hypotheses and use control groups and experimental groups to assess the effectiveness of language immersion programs in the West (pp. 401-402). In the post-positivist tradition, quantitative data obtained through surveys or experiments are generally taken-for-granted as objective and ‘concrete reality’ (Hesse-Biber, Rodriguez, & Frost, 2016), and consequently, the reasons and personal motivations that underlie a teachers’ expressed beliefs about PMI are of little importance.
3.2. The Classroom Observation
In a qualitative inquiry, like Tam’s, classroom observations are useful because they record phenomena (i.e. interactions, behaviours and events) as they occur. This means that unlike questionnaire survey studies, observations are in a position to infuse a sense of realness (Konecki, 2008) into the study needed to gain an ‘in-depth understanding of how language learning is put into practice at the classroom level,’ (p. 402). For example, observations grant the observer direct and physical access to the usual happenings of the participants under observation as they occur (Paterson, Bottorff, & Hewat, 2003); and yet, despite this ‘realness,’ there are factors that can potentially affect this usefulness. First, there is Tam’s positionality as a researcher. Tam, as the observer, is still an outsider who is cognitively and socially excluded from the ‘lived experience’ or ‘life world’ (Moustakas, 1994, p. 48) of those being observed. This may be because she uses naturalistic methods from within the ethnographic tradition, but takes an etic approach (Fram, 2013) - that is, the observations and interviews are designed to bring her into greater proximity to the phenomenon under investigation, but her perspective is outside the phenomenon. Second, there is an increased likelihood for social desirability bias or the Hawthorne effect, whereby the researched subjects’ behaviour changes (so that it is less natural) in the observer’s presence. Third, observer effects are more difficult to control as they are an inherent part of the observer’s identity, such as their perceptions, biases, expectations.
These factors can be minimised. For example, repeat observations can minimise the Hawthorne effect, because overtime with sustained or lengthly contact with the observer, the participants being observed may become familiar to the observer’s presence and behave as they would in the observers’ absence. A sequential multi-method approach in which interviews are used ‘consecutively’ (Preissle et al, 2016) to inform the observations can help the researcher cross-examine all the data and identify disparities within and between the interview data and observational data (Ahmed and Sil, 2012). This can, at least to an extent, reduce observer effects, and enhance the reliability and validity of the researchers’ work.
3.3. The Research Interview and the Classroom Observation
The multi-method approach is advantageous because one method can be used to enhance or compliment the other (Brewer, 2005), as can be seen in Tam’s work where the classroom observations are used to enhance the validity of the interview data. In Tam’s work the interview transcripts and observations are used to ‘provide more cues to probe teachers’ beliefs during interviews’ (p. 404); for this reason, I can infer that Tam’s multi-methods approach is sequential - that is, the observations precede the semi-structured interviews, and are dependent on the interviews (Kragelund, Moser & Zadelhoff, 2015). Clearly, the sequential multi-method approach, as with any other approach, has its own limitations. It can be time-consuming and burdensome for the participants involved, and as Presissle et al (2016) recognise, it may be difficult to fully anticipate or predict potential ethical challenges. Nonetheless, the sequential multi-method approach remains an effective way to bring the researcher into greater proximity to the teachers’ usual use of PMI in the classroom (their pedagogical strategies and interactions between teachers and pupils as it occurs), and to the teachers’ beliefs about PMI.
Ultimately I agree with Flick (2004) who argues that researchers should not ‘begin [their research] by regarding one procedure as central and the others as preliminary or illustrative’ (p. 181), because it implies that the methods are not truly in dialogue with each other. Instead, one method is of instrumental use to the other. And yet, Tam does integrate the two methods in her analysis through her sequential design, and in using these two methods, she is able to capitalise on the strengths of each: In using these two methods together, Tam is able to access two differing experiential levels and worldviews: For example, the research interview offers the researcher access to a political (or ideological), affective, and cognitive experiential level that classroom observations do not offer (Salkind, 2010). However, Tam could have incorporated a quantitative method into her design: for example, an analysis of the SCOLAR documents that Tam uses to operationalise language learning in her research questions, or an inferential statistical analysis of the Chinese proficiency of students before the switch and after (using exam scores and analysis of student reports and textbooks) might have enhanced the validity of Tam’s conclusions;though to do so would be to assume that the ‘general Chinese competency, writing and Putonghua proficiency’ of students can be objectively measured and compared.
4. Validity & Trustworthiness
In the previous sections, I have examined Tam’s conceptual framework and her methods.
I argued that Tam’s multi-method approach enables her to explore the parameters of her conceptual framework and her research questions, and that a multi-method approach is crucial if a holistic and in-depth understanding of teachers’ beliefs about a medium of instruction and the reasons they give for their beliefs is to be achieved. I now turn to another aspect of Tam’s work: the validity of her findings, discussion, and conclusion.
In order to determine whether Tam’s work is valid, it is necessary that I first understand what trustworthiness and validity mean for those engaged in qualitative inquiry. A valid study is not necessarily one that is best suited for the researchers’ conceptual framework; but, low validity may reflect a poor coherence between the researchers’ chosen methodological approach and their research questions. Validity is a contested term. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) and others (Frey, 2018) are critical of the use of ‘validity’ in the qualitative tradition, because they view validity as a term that originated in the post-positivist tradition which is underscored by objectivism. For this reason (and, perhaps others), they argue that the use of ‘validity’ in the interpretivist and constructivist paradigm (Mathison, 2005), which is traditionally underscored by a subjectivist epistemology is problematic. Instead of validity, they advocate the use of trustworthiness, which refers to the extent to which a researchers’ findings and conclusions are transparent, believable, supported by or grounded in the data, and offer ‘an accurate representation’ the phenomenon (Given, 2008). As the above discussion has highlighted, the use of validity in the interpretivist and constructivist paradigm is contested. However, for present purposes, I will continue to use validity and trustworthiness, interchangeably, in this essay as terms that refer to whether the researcher is investigating what they claim to investigate (Arksey & Knight, 1999).
In the following section I argue that Tam’s work shows strong validity; and while there are aspects in her work that threaten this validity (i.e. case study), there are other aspects in her work that compensate for this (i.e. data saturation, her attention to ethics, and document analysis).
4.1. Truth in Tam’s study
How we conceptualise validity will change depending on our research paradigm: Arksey and Knight’s (1999) definition is better suited to qualitative approaches. Kvale’s (1995) definition is less applicable to Tam’s (2011) study, primarily because Tam does not measure anything in the way that quantitative post-positivist studies do (p. 402). Such quantitative post-positivist studies are oftentimes ‘...characterized by hypothesis testing of carefully controlled and measured variables under controlled conditions or in controlled situations…’ (Brown, 1984). Instead, in Tam’s study, the quest for validity is less about striving for objectivity, and more about wrestling with one particular philosophical question: ‘what is Truth’ (p. 23). Tam recognises that the teachers’ beliefs are part of reality that has often been neglected in research on the effectiveness of medium of instruction (p. 400). Her study rests on and actively negotiates two types of ‘Truth.’
The first is the teacher’s Truth: their beliefs and observations on educational change, i.e. the introduction of PMI. Tam has chosen to use ‘teachers’ beliefs’ as a conceptual framework for understanding the effectiveness of PMI. It is important to recognise that these beliefs that Tam repeatedly refers to are actually self-expressed beliefs that the teacher has chosen to tell the researcher. The second type of Truth is Tam’s interpretation of the teacher’s Truths (Maxwell, 1996) and this makes up the summations and inferences in her findings and discussion section. This is tricky: as human beings our actions and behaviours are oftentimes unpredictable as they are deeply connected to our sense of identity, our self-perceptions, world view, motivations, and so on. This is exemplified in Goffman’s theory of impression management and in what Atkinson & Silverman (1997) call the ‘invention of the self.’ As human beings, our actions and thoughts are largely influenced by how we perceive people, and our perceptions of how they perceive us. As a consequence, we are continually acting out roles and expectations, and re-creating, inventing, and ourselves, so as to project a version of ourselves onto others (Goffman, 1956). Therefore, Tam’s interview transcripts are only her interpretation of the teacher’s beliefs, and are selectively woven together to form her own narrative. As Limerick et al (1996) conclude, ‘...material collected from interviews...is our [the researchers’] story of their story that forms the written report’ (p. 451).
It is the first Truth - the teacher’s beliefs - that Tam aims and claims to investigate in her case study (pp. 40-401); but, to what extent is she actually investigating this Truth she claims to investigate? To what extent is her study trustworthy? On a narrower level, we might view, as some have, validity as authenticity, and assess the Tam’s study on this basis. Tam talks of the research interview enabling her to ‘elicit’ (p. 659) the teachers’ beliefs; her emphasis of the research interview as eliciting teachers’ views, might be criticised for taking teachers’ responses for granted (Atkinson and Silverman, 1997).This issue of Truth is intimately connected to the study’s constructivist paradigm (Nightingale and Cromby, 1999). She demonstrates that she understands that interview data is not the Truth - that is, we should not take the interviewee’s given responses at face value. Tam’s (2011) findings are trustworthy, but only to an extent.
4.2. Ethics and the transcription process
As this essay has already discussed, the use of two methods can enable the researcher to capitalise on the strengths of each method (Brewer, 2005). However, each approach brings not only its own respective strengths to the researchers’ work, but also its own respective ethical issues. First, there are the challenges and ethical issues that arise when using a multi-method approach. Ethics can affect the validity and trustworthiness of a researchers’ work (Fendler, 2016). On a basic level, Tam’s (2011) study controls for ethical issues - namely, informed consent and ‘beneficence,’ and anonymity (Walford, 2006). First, the school and the teachers (all those observed and interviewed) are given pseudonym names: ‘Fidelity College’ and codes, such as ‘T1-F-29’ (p. 406). This should protect the teachers’ identities (Given, 2008). Second, ‘the transcriptions were sent back to the interviewees for verification’ (Tam, 2011, p. 405; Limerick et al, 1996), the consequence being that all the interviewees are invited to get involved in the research process, which is a strategy that reflects the view, held by some, that the research process is a meaning-making process that is not grounded in the subject-to-object (Hesse-Biber, Rodriguez, & Frost, 2016) and passive-to-active relationship that tends to characterise experimental and correlational studies (Vincent and Warren, 2010, pp. 51-52). In this ‘co-constuction’ of knowledge, there is only one Truth (the teachers’ beliefs) that Tam wants to understand, as her two research questions suggest: the language learning of students from the teachers’ perspective.
In allowing the teacher participants to read the transcripts, a strategy otherwise known as ‘member-checking’ or ‘counter-checking’ (Birt et al, 2016, Preissle, Glover-Kudon, Rohan, Boehm, and DeGroff, 2016), Tam actively explores her own biases, and taken-for-granted interpretations of the event and teachers’ responses, and her personal assumptions and beliefs about PMI (Arksey & Knight, 1999; Etherington, 2004; Warren & Vincent, 2001, p. 382); and she encourages teacher’s reflexivity - that is, it encourages the teachers to reflect on their own practice as professionals. These biases, interpretations and assumptions can be subsumed under what Scheurich (1997) calls ‘interpretive baggage’: a process of ‘ordering’ and ‘sorting decontextualized and coded data into a coherent whole’ that is influenced by the researchers’ own ‘values, priorities, and beliefs,’ (p. 49).
This is exemplified in the transcription process itself (Halcomb & Davidson, 2006; Duranti, 2006; Bucholtz, 2000; Lapadat & Lindsay, 1999) which is a method of data management that can have a significant impact on the reliability and validity of a researchers’ work (Nikander, 2008).However, and as Tessier (2012) argues, the transcript is often taken-for-granted, viewed as a neutral analytical tool or conveyor of knowledge, (in this case, as neutral conveyors of teachers’ beliefs) that the researcher trusts will present an unadulterated or pure version of the event (that is, will capture exactly what the researcher claims to capture). And yet, transcripts are only ever re-presentation and the researcher (or transcriber’s) biases interpretations of the event. Put another way, transcripts are often presumed to present uncontaminated data; but, transcripts are only mediatory and mimetic, because they offer us a representation of an event, a social reality or a life-world (Atkinson & Silverman, 1997; Kvale and Brinkman, 2009). One consequence of this ‘perceived validity of transcripts’ (p. 451) is that the researcher fails to ask to what extent they themselves influence, and this can result in researcher bias, which greatly determines the trustworthiness of a researchers’ work (Maxwell, 1996).
Nonetheless, by combining fieldnotes, transcripts, and audio- and video recordings, Tam enhances validity, reliability and quality of her findings and conclusions, and goes some way to capturing the ‘realness’ of the ‘event’ (Konecki, 2008), as each technique combats the other’s weaknesses (Tessier, 2012, p. 447); though implicit in this term realness is the post-positivist ontological assumption that there is a concrete (though not objective) reality out there than can be accessed through naturalistic methods.
4.3. Validity: The Case Study, Data Saturation, and Document Analysis
As she herself recognises (p. 413), Tam’s case study sacrifices a representative sample and generalisable findings for depth (with a small, purposively selected sample size). Tam’s study is a single-case study, and a case study is, as Yin (2016) argues, needed to understand teachers’ beliefs about a given medium of instruction in a particular context. However, due to her small (purposefully selected) sample of Chinese secondary school teachers, Tam cannot generalise her findings and conclusions to the wider target population, i.e. Chinese secondary school teacher. On the one hand, instead of a single-case study (using observations and interviews), Tam could have used a multi-case study, with multiple schools, i.e. with teachers from different backgrounds (Stake, 1995, p. 7).
Tam’s use of document analysis and the constant comparative method compensate for this limitation. Data saturation is one way to improve validity (Mills, Durepos & Wiebe, 2010; Lewis-Beck, Bryman, & Futing, 2004). Tam reaches data saturation through her use of Grounded Theory, specifically, the constant comparative method, to analyse all the verbal data. Grounded Theory is a methodology and an analytical technique, developed by Glaser and Strauss, but variously interpreted and modified by other researchers: for example, Charmaz, Strauss and Corbin. Taylor and Bogdan (1998) argue that it is ‘...a method for discovering theories, concepts, hypotheses, and propositions directly from data rather than from a priori assumptions, other research, or existing theoretical frameworks,’ (p. 137). In other words, theory generation comes after data collection, and theory generation is the impetus for data collection (Willig, 2013). Data is not used to confirm pre-existing theories and concepts.
In her work, Tam ‘positions’ herself outside ‘a Grounded Theory methodology’ (Fram, 2013, p. 3): she uses ‘open, theoretical, and constant comparative’ coding methods to interpret the data. The constant comparative method is an iterative and inductive process that relies on the natural or organic emergence of categories and the reduction of the data. It is a ‘data-analytic process whereby each interpretation and finding is compared with existing findings as it emerges from the data analysis’ (Lewis-Beck, Bryman, & Liao, 2004). Tam compares the categories she identifies in her classroom observations with the categories identified in the semi-structured interviews, which suggests that her study is inevitably more concerned with theory generation, instead of theory verification.
However, it is not clear in Tam’s report what the ‘parameters of [her] analysis’ are (Creswell, 1998; Charmaz, 1990) as she seems to jump from inductive analysis and inferences based on her interpretations of the three-sets of verbal data to high inference claims in her conclusions and recommendations. From her ‘close study’ of the subjective theories of the teachers interviewed, as summarised and presented in the tables (p. 407), she develops her own ‘substantive theory’ on teachers’ beliefs about PMI (Glaser and Strauss, 1965).
The constant comparative method is appropriate for Tam’s study as it logically follows from the constructivist epistemological paradigm that she is operating in. Nonetheless, Tam could have used grounded theory to compare each individual case (each teachers’ view) instead of homogenising them (Yes versus. No), an alternative approach would be to use inferential statical analysis: for example, teachers who said YES to question in interview were more likely to use certain pedagogical strategies in the classroom. Inferential statistics would enable Tam to discover correlations (not causal relationships) between the teachers who said YES and the use of certain pedagogical strategies in the classroom.
Tam carries out document analysis in conjunction with interviews and observations. Document analysis can mitigate against potential biases (Bowen, 2009, p. 29): it can be used to supplement other research methods (Bowen, 2009), and can give the researcher a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between wider social structures (and processes) and micro-level actors and processes. Arguably, if used in conjunction with a linguistics- and discourse-driven mode of analysis (i.e. Critical Discourse Analysis), it could bring the researcher into greater proximity with the language used. Clearly, the selection of documents can itself be biased, and an analysis of student schoolbooks, report cards, and other related paraphernalia, relies heavily on teacher and student factors. For example, report cards could be product of teachers’ judgement, pedagogy, schemas and cognition (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968; Fairclough, 1989, p. 117).
6. Conclusion &
Implications for thesis
As the above discussion has demonstrated, Tam’s study is valid, and her multi-method approach is appropriate for her conceptual framework (which was for the purpose of this essay inferred from her two research questions); though she could have used another methodological approaches to achieve this end. The above critique of Tam’s work has highlighted a number of issues that I will need to take into consideration in my own thesis. First, there is the importance of specific and well-defined research questions, and adequately operationalised concepts. I will ensure that the medium of instruction, teachers’ beliefs, among others, are adequately operationalised - for example, in the types of questions I ask in the semi-structured interviews. Second, I will reflexively consider my positionality as a researcher (in a ‘prestigious’ institution, my British accent and Nigerian heritage): I will be less accustomed to the cultural norms, and my accent may create an invisible barrier between me and those being researched. I will consider other perspectival ways in which I can define the research problem. Third, Tam’s study highlights the need to consider the impact that a qualitative methodological approach can have on research integrity, and our previous discussions around the conventional view of the interview, and the asymmetrical relationship between the researcher and the researched subject it implies, have made me aware of the relationship between language and unequal power relations (Fairclough, 1989).
References
Ahmed, A. & Sil, R. (2012). When Multi-Method Research Subverts Methodological Pluralism—or, Why We Still Need Single-Method Research. Perspectives on Politics. 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592712002836.
Andrews, T.(2012). What is Social Constructionism? The Grounded Theory Review, 11(1).
Arksey, H., & Knight, P. T. (1999) Designing an interview-based study. In Arksey, H., & Knight, P. T. Interviewing for social scientists (pp. 43-59). London: SAGE Publications, Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781849209335.
Atkinson, P., & Silverman, D. (1997). Kundera’s Immortality: The Interview Society and the Invention of the Self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049700300304.
Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870.
Blumer, H. (1954). “What Is Wrong with Social Theory?” American Sociological Review. 19(1), pp. 3–10. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2088165.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Lang. Teach. 36. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444803001903.
Bowen, G. A. (2006). Grounded Theory and Sensitizing Concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500304.
Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal. 9(2). DOI: 10.3316/QRJ0902027.
Brown, C. (1984). Two windows on the classroom world: diary studies and participant observation differences. In Larson, P., Judd, E.L. & Dorothy S. Messerschmitt, D.S. (Eds.). On TESOL '84. A Brave New World for TESOL. Selected Papers from the Annual Convention of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (18th, Houston, Texas, March 6-11, 1984). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED274166.
Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics. 32. Retrieved from www.elsevier.nl/locate/pragma.
Chapman, A.L., Hadfield, M., & Chapman, C.J. (2015). Qualitative research in healthcare: an introduction to grounded theory using thematic analysis. J R Coll Physicians Edinb, 45: 201–5 http://dx.doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2015.305.
Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. London: SAGE Publications.
Charmaz (1990). ‘Discovering’ chronic illness: using grounded theory. Scl. rfzd. 30(11). Retrieved from https://student.cc.uoc.gr/uploadFiles/1110-Γ001Κ/Charmatz_1990.pdf.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.
Day, E.M. & Shapson, S.M. (1991) Integrating Formal and Functional Approaches to Language Teaching in French Immersion: An Experimental Study. Language Learning. 41(1). https://doi-org.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00675.x.
Duranti, A. (2006). Transcripts, Like Shadows on a Wall. Mind, Culture, and Activity. 13:4. DOI: 10.1207/s15327884mca13043.
Dyer, C. (1999). Researching the Implementation of Educational Policy: A backward mapping approach, Comparative Education, 35:1, 45-61,DOI: 10.1080/03050069928062.
Elmore, R. (1979). Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions. Political Science Quarterly,94(4), 601-616. doi:10.2307/2149628.
Etherington, K .(2004). Becoming a Reflexive Researcher: Using Our Selves in Research. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Fairclough, N. (2014). Language and Power. London: Routledge.
Fendler, L. (2016). Ethical implications of validity-vs.-reliability trade-offs in educational research. Ethics and Education. 11:2, 214-229, DOI: 10.1080/17449642.2016.1179837.
Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in Qualitative Research. Retrieved from https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/podzim2004/SOC431/um/67743/06FLICK_koref.pdf?lang=en.
Framm, S.M. (2013). The Constant Comparative Analysis Method Outside of Grounded Theory. The Qualitative Report. 18(1). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/fram1.pdf.
Freeman, R. D. (1998). Bilingual education and social change. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Frey, B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. (Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Doi: 10.4135/9781506326139.
Goffman, E.(1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Retrieved from https://monoskop.org/images/1/19/Goffman_Erving_The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life.pdf.
Genesee, F. (1985). Second Language Learning Through Immersion: A Review of U.S. Programs. Review of Educational Research. 55(4).
Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Discovery of Substantive Theory: A Basic Strategy Underlying Qualitative Research. American Behavioral Scientist, 8(6), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276426500800602.
Hammersley, M. (1990). What’s Wrong with Ethnography? The Myth of Theoretical Description. Sociology, 24(4), 597–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038590024004003.
Haney, J., Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., & Egan, V. (2002). From Beliefs to Actions: The Beliefs and Actions of Teachers Implementing Change. Journal of Science Teacher Education,13(3), 171-187. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/stable/43156295.
Halcomb, E.J., & Davidson, P.M. (2006). Is verbatim transcription of interview data always necessary? Applied Nursing Research, 19(1).
Hesse-Biber, Rodriguez, & Frost (2016). A Qualitatively Driven Approach to Multi-method and mixed methods research. In Hesse-Biber, S.N. & Johnson, R.B. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.13.
Hesse-Biber, S.N. (2016). Introduction: Navigating a Turbulent Research Landscape: Working the Boundaries, Tensions, Diversity, and Contradictions of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Inquiry. In Hesse-Biber, S.N. & Johnson, R.B. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.13.
Hunter, A., & Brewer, J.D. (2005). Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles. London : Sage Publications.
Hunter, A., & Brewer, J.D. (2016). Designing Multimethod Research. In Hesse-Biber, S.N. & Johnson, R.B. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.13.
Hunter, A., & Brewer, J.D. (2016b). Conundrums of Multimethod Research. In Hesse-Biber, S.N. & Johnson, R.B. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.13.
Imenda, S. (2014) .Is There a Conceptual Difference between Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks? Journal of Social Sciences. 38:2, 185-195, DOI: 10.1080/09718923.2014.11893249.
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406.
Konecki, K. (2008) Triangulation and Dealing with the Realness of Qualitative Research. Qualitative Sociology Review, 4(3). https://www.academia.edu/3143445/Volume_IV_Issue_3_December_2008.
Kragelund, L., Moser, A., & Zadelhoff, E. V.(2015). Using the Obser-View in Qualitative Research: Benefits and Challenges. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621426.
Kvale, S. (1995). The Social Construction of Validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049500100103.
Lapadat, J. C., & Lindsay, A. C. (1999). Transcription in Research and Practice: From Standardization of Technique to Interpretive Positionings. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049900500104.
Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A., & Futing Liao, T. (2004). The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Doi: 10.4135/9781412950589.
Lewis, J. (2009). Redefining Qualitative Methods: Believability in the Fifth Moment. International Institute for Qualitative Methodology. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/160940690900800201.
Limerick, B., Burgess‐Limerick, T., & Grace, M. (1996). The politics of interviewing: power relations and accepting the gift. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9:4, 449-460, DOI: 10.1080/0951839960090406.
Mann, S. (2011). A Critical Review of Qualitative Interviews in Applied Linguistics, Applied Linguistics. 32(1). https://doi-org.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/10.1093/applin/amq043.
Mathison, S. (2005). Encyclopedia of evaluation.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Doi: 10.4135/9781412950558.
Maxwell, J.A. (2012). A Realist Approach for Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.
May, S. (2015) Language rights and language policy: addressing the gap(s) between principles and practices. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16:4, 355-359, DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2014.979649.
McCracken, G. (1988). Qualitative Research Methods: The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Doi: 10.4135/9781412986229.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds how we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
Merchant, C. (2006). The Scientific Revolution and The Death of Nature. The History of Science Society, 97. Retrieved from https://nature.berkeley.edu/departments/espm/env-hist/articles/84.pdf.
Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Doi: 10.4135/9781412957397.
Monahan, T., and Fisher, J.A.(2011). Benefits of "Observer Effects": Lessons from the Field. Qualitative Research, 10(3). DOI: 10.1177/1468794110362874.
Namyalo, S, & Nakayiza, J. (2015). Dilemmas in implementing language rights in multilingual Uganda. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16:4, 409-424, DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2014.987425.
Nightingale, D.J. & Cromby, J. (2002). Social Constructionism as Ontology: Exposition and Example. Theory and Psychology. 12(5). Accessed from https://journals-sagepub-com.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/0959354302012005901.
Nikander, P. (2008). Working with Transcripts and Translated Data. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 5:3,225-231, DOI: 10.1080/14780880802314346.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. (2012). Qualitative Analysis Techniques for the Review of the Literature. The Qualitative Report, 17(28). Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss28/2.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307.
Paterson, B. L., Bottorff, J. L., & Hewat, R. (2003). Blending Observational Methods: Possibilities, Strategies, and Challenges. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 29–38.
Preissle, J., Glover-Kudon, A., Rohan, E.A., Boehm, J.E., & DeGroff, A. (2016). Putting Ethics on the Mixed Methods Map. The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. Edited by Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber and R. Burke Johnson.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3(1). https://doi-org.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/10.1007/BF02322211.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Doi: 10.4135/9781452226651.
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. London: SAGE Publications.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049900500402.
Scheurich (1997) Research Method in the Postmodern. London: Falmer.
Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., Richardson, L., Brunkhorst, H., Tillotson, J., Craven, J., & Yager, R. (1999). Beginning Teachers: Beliefs and Classroom Actions. JRST, 36(8). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1002/%28SICI%291098-2736%28199910%2936%3A8%3C930%3A%3AAID-TEA3%3E3.0.CO%3B2-N.
Silverman, D.(1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text, and interaction. London: Sage.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods: Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Doi: 10.4135/9781412984249.
Taylor, S.J. & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. (3rd Ed.). A Guidebook and Resource. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.
Tessier, S. (2012). From Field Notes, to Transcripts, to Tape Recordings: Evolution or Combination? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(4).
UNESCO (2003). Education in a multilingual world: UNESCO education position paper. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000129728.
Walford, G. (2005). Research ethical guidelines and anonymity. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 28:1, 83-93, DOI: 10.1080/01406720500036786.
Warren, S. & Vincent, C. (2001). “This won't take long…": Interviewing, ethics and diversity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14:1, 39-53, DOI: 10.1080/09518390010007674.
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Yin, R.K. (2006). Case study research : design and methods. (Fifth edition). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Comments
Post a Comment