“Sorting your stuff” is a fun activity. It can lead so some personal revelations. What this activity involves is the participants emptying their handbags, book bags, backpacks, or other containers that they have with them. Then, they sort the objects into two or three categories and, in doing so, explain how they chose the categories into which they sorted the objects.
This is an activity that I have used in conducting workshops on phenomenography. But, recently at the 32nd Annual Qualitative Analysis Conference (2015), I noted that some professors* of qualitative research methods also use this activity to introduce basic thematic coding. It is, however, possible to use this activity simply as an “introductions and welcome” activity in a more general sense. For classes that are not related to qualitative research, facilitators can ask students to select object of different topics and themes.
Modalities
Asynchronous: If used as an asynchronous activity, students can post pictures or videos of their objects. If using still pictures, it is helpful if the students take several pictures to show their thought processes. If using videos, the students can narrate their thought processes. Then, the class members can make suggestions and ask questions about the categories chosen.
Synchronous: It is possible to do this activity in a synchronous manner, but it can be time consuming. It is possible in a synchronous format for the students to work together in groups. The students could aim their cameras at their tabletops and talk about what objects they have with them. Or, the students could come prepared to the online meeting with pictures of objects (perhaps even objects that are special to them; there could be a class theme). Then, they could arrange the objects on a shared whiteboard. Fellow classmates could even move the pictures around the whiteboard to discuss alternative classifications. As you can see, there are numerous ways to do this activity online. Students can also do some meta-coding where they locate themes and categories that are common across the entire class.
Preparation
Whether face-to-face, asynchronous (text-based), or synchronous (VOIP), ask the students to have their handbags, backpacks, book bags, etc. near their computers (or bring to class).
The instructor may or may not wish to have the students read related course materials or watch videos about qualitative research (if that is the objective of the class) in advance.
Test the whiteboard and/or discussion forum to ensure that students can post images and/or manipulate the system in ways amenable to the activity. For example, students must have adequate permissions to manipulate the whiteboard. And, they must be able to post images to the discussion forum.
Teacher responsibilities
Depending on the format (face-to-face, asynchronous, or synchronous), the instructor needs to think about how to initiate the activity during the session, and to facilitate turn-taking and group structures (particularly for synchronous activities).
At the beginning of the session, the instructor can demonstrate his/her own special objects and how s/he would categorize them.
During the activity, the instructor can help guide the discussion of the categories and the processes.
And, it is important to debrief the students at the end. Help the students understand thematic coding, for example. And, if relevant, help the student make connections to the literature as well as any assignments or projects for the course.
Comments
I have had excellent success in using this activity for facilitating phenomenography workshops. However, it is important to remind students of qualitative research that they will more than likely be categorizing complex concepts. The use of simple manipulatives has its limitations. Therefore, I recommend this type of activity as a springboard. More in-depth discussions and activities are necessary in any instruction of qualitative thematic coding.
By asking the students to reach into their own handbags and backpacks, you are asking them to share some information about themselves. What we carry with us daily can provide insights into who we are as people. This activity can stimulate interesting and, at times, interesting discussions about what is important to us. I use “us” because the instructor should actively demonstrate and share alongside the students. In this way, this activity very much contributes to the acceleration of identities.
Rating 4.5 stars
Note: for an introduction to identity accelerators for online teaching and learning visit this entry.
*Note: The speakers at the 32nd Annual Qualitative Analysis Conference who mentioned this technique were: Gail Lindsay (UOIT) and Jasna Schwind (Ryerson University).
One way of taking memos; I've been using Atlas-TI's memo feature
I am in the third iteration of coding—starting a fourth tomorrow. Whenever I start a new iteration, it seems overwhelming. And, I only just start to feel comfortable after I have already coded three-quarters of the transcripts. Upon the pilot transcript and the first iteration of coding, I used memos spartanly. I didn’t want to clutter my workspace. Rather, I was interested in just getting the codes added.
However, I have slowly allowed myself more and more latitude with memos. And, upon the third time through, it has become clear that memoing helps me to work through the thought process of why I am coding each segment in the manner I have. Many times, I have selected a code, dragged it onto the segment of text. Then, while memoing, I realize that it’s not quite right. As I memo, I think.
As I memo, I also see greater links with segments that I had previously coded separately. I can see better how they interrelate and should be considered as parts of a greater whole. This might seem a bit cryptic, but it is easy to code each sentence or paragraph—relying on the visual aspects of the text as a cue for when each code begins and ends. This is not necessarily the way to code–at least not for my phenomenographic purposes. (I believe we mentioned similar concerns with coding in the article referenced below.) I am interested in the meaning aspects of the text. As I memo, I articulate my thoughts on the segment, and find myself better able to conceptualize the connections between the segments, between the segments and the transcript within which they appear, and between the segments and the collection of transcripts in the project.
A major advantage of using memos is that it is a record of thought. And, by retracing thoughts, codes can be reviewed, kept, modified, or changed completely. When there is a large quantity of data, time will elapse between the coding of each segment. It is nearly impossible to remember how each decision was made. Having a record of thought processes it extremely important. I have even included memos indicating my own shifting from one decision to another by comments such as, “I have decided to code this segment as X. Hmmm . . . no, I think I will code it this way instead . . . because this part of the segment indicates . . .” Being able to trace my hesitance, indecision, changes of mind helps in the final evaluations/decisions.
Recommendation: use memos; use them often.
References:
Garrison, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001
Yes, that title says what I want it to say. I’m hoping that by sharing this in my blog, it provides some hope for doctoral students groping through the dark depths of their data.
Admittedly, I have been procrastinating somewhat—a few months, actually. I have done the initial coding of my transcripts using discourse analysis techniques derived from the work of Gee (2010), Potter (1996), and some other significant authors. Then, I did some additional coding for some salient and potential phenomenographic categories that I saw emerging—some expected; some not so expected. I exported from Atlas-TI quotes according to the code categories. I have read through all of them in Word, highlighting and jotting down additional notes in on the pages themselves and in my extremely messy journal. I have plodded along in faith that something would one day make sense, and with an unspoken knowing that these steps would lead me to that place.
As a result of this seemingly blind journey, I started seeing categories of description emerge. And, I am getting a sense for the variation in experience associated with the categories of description.
During my last meeting with my supervisor in which she shared some newly discovered ideas from another student’s viva, I crossed my most profoundly deep threshold of understanding. I am now coding for some additional code-perspectives. And, I can see how discourse analysis strongly supports the study of liminality–sub-liminality, in particular. My supervisor and I discussed the idea of discourses and sub-liminality (hyphenated spelling is intended), and I found the relevant literature by the threshold-concept-gurus in my notes. (Thank gawd for the notes I took on my resources—invaluable.) Today, it feels as if it is just coming together.
At the time of writing this, I was in one of my favourite, sunny coffee-spots, and I was starting to code with these new codes. Suddenly, I saw significant meaning and patterns. I could see the connection between discourse analysis, threshold concepts, Harré’s Vygotsky cycle, and my data emerging as if it is the most natural thing in the world. Whoa. Breakthrough. Now, I must find more time to code.
Of course, my experience in writing my master’s thesis had taught me to expect these moments of lucidity to be punctuated with moments of feeling overwhelming out-of-control. Alas, these are natural ripples in the pond. Keep going.
References:
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and Cognition (p. 368). London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.
Gee, J. P. (2011). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (3rd ed., p. 224). New York, NY: Routledge.
Yes, I think this title says it all. My thesis just seems to motor along. I’m not sure anymore if I’m the one controlling it, or if it is whispering paths I should take. As I look upon my schedule and my proposal, however, it is pretty much going as planned with a few minor hiccups along the way.
Although I had planned to do much of the writing in 2012, it turns out that I did large portions of the methodology chapter and literature review at the end of 2011. Analysis, which I had planned for the beginning of 2012 is on target. As I look back, why did I do so much writing when I did? Two reasons: 1) conferences, and 2) it intuitively made sense. And, having already put much thought into my proposal, I was able to take some liberties.
A mossy street in SOS de los Reyes Catolicos, Spain
One of the speakers at a PhD student workshop at the Networked Learning Conference in Aalborg, Denmark back in 2010 had suggested that many doctoral students leave data collection too late. I heeded this advice. Collecting data early allows some analysis and consideration earlier in the process. Hopefully, if the project was untenable, I could shift gears before becoming too invested in one particular path. To prepare for an early data-collection, I decided to focus on the methodology chapter. In retrospect, I found this to be very helpful. A solid grounding in the methodology and methods along with consideration of issues of trustworthiness and philosophical commensurability guided the structure and performance on the interviews. I was also able to pull-together a symposium on phenomenography for the up-coming Networked Learning Conference in Maastrict, 2012.
After interviewing the participants and transcribing their comments, I shifted my attention to the literature review. At first, I considered doing some analysis prior to the literature review in hopes that the literature review would not influence my observations. But, as my supervisor pointed out, I am not doing grounded theory. In any case, I have found that the transcripts speak to me very separately from the ideas collated in the literature review. In some ways, the literature review helped to open my mind to new possibilities. It also helped me to consider my philosophical position and theoretical framework in much greater detail. And, again, I was able to submit an abstract to another conference, this one on threshold concepts in Dublin.
What I have found surprising is how many ideas have fallen into place. In my spare time—that is, when I take breaks from coding—I read some of the seminal works that I have earmarked as requiring attention. My latest discovery is Bakhtin. I can see how his work might be affiliated with social constructionist philosophy. His work resonates with me and is helping fill in some gaps in my framework. Slowly, I hope to work my way through the stack of books and journal article piled high around me.
Although this process seems in control, I do not entirely feel like I am controlling it. It’s as if something is guiding me along and presenting options–interspersed with moments of inspiration that change the course of my work subtly and continuously.
I am finally ready to start recruiting participants for my doctoral thesis on Identity Positioning of Doctoral Students in Networked Learning Environments. The seemingly endless wait for ethics permission and institutional permission (sometimes known as site permission) was actually a very useful time. I used the time for further reading and reflection on phenomenography in light of the recent methodology workshops and my readings on methods.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
.
Why study interviewing methods so intensively right now?
I feel strongly that one must understand one’s methodology before collecting data. And, it is important to be mindful of all the choices that one must make while employing data collection methods. Some researchers utilize data collected previously by other researchers for other research purposes. This might be suitable avenue for researchers who have difficulty accessing some participants or whose projects are on tight time constraints. It might also be done simply for convenience. In some cases, seemingly perfect data sets can be procured from national databases such as the UK Data Archive. As I read more deeply about phenomenography, I sense that it is in the best interests of my own study to collect data carefully with sensitivity to phenomenographic theory and procedures of analysis. This is also the position taken by Bowden (2000):
Whatever research method is used, researchers need to articulate the purposes of their project and to keep those purposes in mind at all stages of the research—in the design of the investigation, in the development of the data collection processes, in the collection of data and in the analysis and interpretation. (p. 7)
What is a phenomenographic interview?
Interviewing is the most common method for collecting data in phenomenography (Walsh, 2000, p. 19, Marton, 1986, p. 42). Trigwell (2000) and Dunkin (2000) suggest that the ideal number of interviews rests around 15 to 20. In phenomenological studies, the number of suggested interviews might be less as phenomenology seeks to explore the essence of an individual’s experience in some depth. Phenomenography, on the other hand, focuses on the limited possible ways of experiencing a given phenomenon across a group of individuals. The outcome space (results) is a compilation of categories of description which expresses the variation. As such, it is necessary to reach a balance between depth of description and breadth of experience among a group of individuals.
Interviews are typically semi-structured (or “guided” if you choose Olson’s terminology) and last roughly 40 to 60 minutes or until the “the interviewer feels the experience has been described, and the meaning of relevant words has been revealed (Trigwell, 2000, p. 67). Most phenomenographers seem to agree that the participants should have sufficient flexibility to describe the experiences as they wish in their own way. Hence, most questioning and probing is open-ended. Bowden (Chapter 1) and Prosser (Chapter 3), in working with children, prefer to offer “problem questions” that the participants are asked to resolve. By asking participants to work through problems or tasks “interviewees are encouraged to reveal, through discussion, their ways of understanding a phenomenon, that is, to disclose their relationship to the phenomenon under consideration” (p. 9). Most of the questions in a phenomenographic interview follow from comments of the participant (Trigwell, 2000). Some sample questions that Bowden supplies (p. 10):
Could you explain further?
What do you mean by that?
Is there anything else you would like to say about this problem?
Prosser offers some interesting observations on eliciting information from the participants:
While it is relatively easy to get interviewees to describe their strategies, it is much more difficult to get them to discuss their intentions underlying their strategies and their conceptions of phenomena. (Prosser, 2000, p. 44).
To approach the participant’s conceptions, the researcher must consider the interview/discussion as a whole. According to Marton & Booth (1997) interviews take place on two levels: the interpersonal contact between the interviewer and the participant and at a metacognitive level in which the participant relates his/her awareness of an experience (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 87). So, whilst the researcher attempts to maintain focus on the target conception(s), he/she must also provide room for the participant fully express related nuances and details. In some cases, it might be helpful within the context of the co-constructed interaction (see previous blog postings on interviews), for the researcher to share her own experiences. However, Bowden (Chapter 4) warns against “leading too much” to avoid influencing the participants. As per my previous blog postings on interviewing, anything that the researcher discloses during the interview should be as carefully transcribed and reported as the participant’s dialogue.
In some cases, a phenomenographic interview might seem to revolve tediously around the same question over and over again. This is partially true. A phenomenographic interviewer will ask similar questions in different ways so as to elicit a number of different views on the phenomenon. “Typically, a range of questions is used to provide views of each conception from several angles in order to make the description of the conception as rich as possible” (Dall’Alba, 2000, p. 94).
In a metaphorical sense the group of readers can be thought of as a prism through which the text passed, to be refracted and to exit in distinctly different meanings (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 150).
Definitions
The following definitions are in no particular order except that I hope that one flows to the next. Also, they contain direct quotes from the books below with more specific referencing at the bottom of this page.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Phenomenography
Not a method, but an approach primarily used in educational research (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 110).
Takes a “relational or constitutionalist view” (Trigwell, 2000, p. 63). [See “conceptions” below.]
The classic (and most cited) definition of phenomenography comes from Ference Marton himself:Phenomenography is a research method adapted for mapping the qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualise, perceive, and understand various aspects of, and phenomena in, the world around them. (Marton, 1986, p. 31 also cited in Bowden, 2000, p. 2)
Bowden describes the nature of phenomenography:. . . in a sense, phenomenographic research mirrors what good teachers do. It tries to understand what the students are doing in their learning. It attempts to discover what different approaches students are taking and to understand these in terms of the outcomes of their learning activities. (Bowden, 1986, p. 10 cited in Bowden, 2000, p. 48)
Unit of study: “a way of experiencing something” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 111). Also: a way of discerning something (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 112).
Object of research: “the variation in ways of experiencing a phenomenon” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 111).
“The aim is . . . not to find the singular essences [as in phenomenology], but the variation and the architecture of this variation in terms of the different aspects that define the phenomena” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 117).
Learning
Within the phenomenographic perspective, learning involves a change in perception or integration of concepts. Marton & Booth (1997) write:. . . learning proceeds , as a rule, from an undifferentiated and poorly integrated understanding of the whole to an increased differentiation and integration of the whole and its parts. Thus, learning does not proceed as much from parts to wholes as from wholes to parts and from wholes to wholes. (p. viii).
“Learning is mostly a matter of reconstituting an already constituted world” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 139).
According to Marton & Booth (1997), experiencing learning involves the how and the what. How refers to the “indirect object and the act of learning whilst the what refers to the direct object of learning (p. 91). The how and the what both contain structural (with internal and external horizons) and referential aspects. [See definition of experience below.] ” [Note: Should one use indirect object in this instance or ablative / adverbial? This would be so if the “how” phrase were somehow a predicate. But, “how” refers to an act. The word, act, is a noun form. But, in that case, can it not also be a kind of direct object? How refers to manner, which would be expressed in the ablative case in Latin. Hmmmm . . . ]
Conceptions
An individual’s personal understanding of a phenomenon. This is not directly accessible or knowable by the researcher.
The “relation between the individuals and the phenomenon” (Bowden, 2000, p. 17, 50). [This suggests the relational/constitutionalist view mentioned above.]
Synonyms: ways of understanding, ways of comprehending, conceptualizations, ways of experiencing (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 114).
Sometimes referred to as “apperceptions”.
Apperception
“‘Appresentation’ refers to the fact that although phenomena are, as a rule, only partially exposed to us, we do not experience the parts as themselves, but we experience the wholes of which the parts are parts. We do not experience silhouettes but phenomena (material or conceptual) in all their complexity of space and time” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 100).
Description
“The description we reach is a description of variation, a description on the collective level, and in that sense individual voices are not heard. Moreover, it is a stripped description in which the structure and essential meaning of the differing ways of experiencing the phenomenon are retained, while the specific flavors, the scents, and the colors of the worlds of the individuals have been abandoned” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 114). [Somewhat reductionist.]
“The descriptions arising from phenomenographic research are relational, experiential, content-oriented and qualitative” (Marton, 1988, p. 94 cited in Dall’Alba, 2000, p. 94).
Category of description (CoD)
Sometimes confused with conception. However, a CoD is a construct created by the researcher to represent as closely as possible the participants’ conceptions—at the collective level (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 128).
Some researchers feel that CoDs emerge from the data as with grounded theory. In this view, the CoDs are viewed as forming an essential part of the data. I believe this suggests that the CoDs are believed to exist a priori. This sits in opposition to a social constructionist perspective in which the interaction of the researcher and the data mutually bring each other into existence (Walsh, 2000).
Others, such as social constructionists, feel that CoDs are constructed and as such reflect the “relationship between the data and the researcher” (Walsh, 2000, p. 20). Rather, in my view, CoDs reflect a relationship between the researcher and the understanding shared by the participant. This view recognizes the role of the “wider analytical process” which rests upon a holistic-phenomenographic approach from project initiation.
Outcome space
The outcome space represents the set of categories of description and outlines how they are logically related to each other. Equally important, the outcome space also indicates the internal consistency of the categories themselves (Walsh, 2000, p. 26). During analysis, constant examination of the internal and external logic guides the iterative construction of the CoDs and, hence, the outcome space.
“. . . the outcome space is the complex of categories of description comprising distinct groupings of aspects of the phenomenon and the relationships between them” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 125).
“A more reasonable idea is to see the object as a complex of the different ways in which it can be experienced . . . ‘Outcome space’ thus turns out to be a synonym for ‘phenomenon’: the thing as it appears to us, which contrasts with the Kantian ‘noumenon’: ‘the thing as such’” (Marton, 2000, p. 105).
The outcome space often results in 2 to 9 conceptions described or displayed in a way that shows how they relate to one another (Trigwell, 2000). [Interesting: this is reminiscent of Miller’s Law, the Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two: Some Limist on our Capacity for Processing Information.] Trigwell (2000) adds that the small number of conceptions might be due to the relative homogeneity of the participants within a given study.
Experience
“Experiences are reflected in statements about the world, in acts carried out, in artifacts produced” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 120). Phenomenographers take a “second-order perspective” that allows them to examine these experiences as they express their experiences. (p. 120). The researcher brackets as much as possible his/her own experiences of the phenomenon.
Experiences are neither mental nor physical, but arise as a relationship between the two. In other words, experience is non-dualistic (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 122 and p. 164; Marton, 2000).
According to Marton & Booth (1997), all experience is composed of structural and referential aspects. Structural aspects are composed of internal and external horizons which are internally related:
Structural aspect (how)
How the explanation is given (Trigwell, 2000).
Indirect object.
“The structural aspect of a way of experiencing something is thus twofold: discernment of the whole from the context on the one hand and discernment of the parts and their relationships within the whole on the other” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 87).
Internal horizon of the structural aspect: “The parts and their relationships, together with the contours of the phenomenon” experienced (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 87).
External horizon (context) of the structural aspect: “That which surrounds the phenomenon experienced, including its contours” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 87).
Referential aspect (what)
Meaning
What is focused on; the content (Trigwell, 2000).
Direct object.
Also has a structural and referential aspect with internal and external horizons. (Yes, this is a bit confusing; Marton & Booth’s (1997) diagrams help greatly).
Trigwell (2000) elaborates:Two internally related aspects of a category. If you like, an action (how) and the something being acted upon (what). For example, transmission is the how and the content is the what. We actually saw the how and the what as the same as the structural and the referential. (p. 74)
Figure & Field / Focal & Figural
“The dimensions are discerned in relation to the thematic field against the background of which the phenomenon, and the situation in which it is embedded, is seen” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 100). Note: a situation is located within a specific time, context, and space. A phenomenon is “experienced as abstracted from or transcending such anchorage” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 82). This distinction is important in the study of learning as some learners may focus specifically on the situation whilst others may focus on the phenomenon underlying the situation. This is the foundation for the concepts of surface and deep learning.
“. . .figure and ground . . . The underlying idea is that the salient features of a phenomenon—what we focus on when we talk about it—constitute what is important about it for us in that particular context” (Patrick, 2000, p. 123).
Awareness
These concepts, focal and figural, are integral to the phenomenological concept of awareness:. . . awareness has two most important qualities. One of them is that we cannot be aware of everything in the same way. I few could, there would not be any differences between individuals as far as their experiences, and hence their acts, are concerned. There would in fact be no world experienced; nothing would be more important than anything else. The other is that we are aware of everything at the same time, albeit not in the same way. Awareness is layered. Some things make up the core; they are objects of focal awareness; they are figural. Other things belong to the field, or fields, surrounding the core. Yet others belong to the fringe that extends indefinitely. Although we are not consciously aware of most things, we are aware enough for them to be pulled into the core if the changing here and now were to make them relevant (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 123).
“The totality of a person’s simultaneous experiences, her relatedness to the world, I will call her awareness. The term ‘awareness’ is used interchangeably with the term ‘consciousness’ (Marton, 2000, p. 109).
“Our awareness has structure to it. Certain things come to the fore, they are thematised . . . there are different degrees of how figural, thematised, and explicitly things or aspects are in our awareness” (Marton, 2000, p. 110).
Discernment
“We find that in various situations people manage to different degrees to discern and keep all relevant aspects of the phenomenon and of the situation in focal awareness simultaneously. What happens is that single aspects are abstracted or separated out, while others are left undiscerned” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 102).
“The variation between different ways of experiencing something, then, derives from the fact that different aspects or different parts of the whole may or may not be discerned and be objects of focal awareness simultaneously” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 112).
“It is necessary that something varies, some aspect of the situation that surrounds the person, for change to be experienced, in the least case something changing from one state to another. This change may happen to the learner or be brought about by her. It is through variation that aspects are differentiated within the experience of a phenomenon” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 145).
But, what has this to do with interviewing? That is the topic of my next blog posting.
References
Bowden, J. (2000). Chapter 1: The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Bowden, J. (2000). Chapter 4: The experience of phenomenographic research. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Dall’Alba, G. (2000). Chapter 6: Reflections on some faces of phenomenography. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-49.
Marton, F. (2000). Chapter 7: The structure of awareness. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Patrick, K. (2000). Chapter 8: Exploring conceptions: Phenomenography and the object of study. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Prosser, M. (2000). Chapter 3: Using phenomenographic research methodology in the context of research in teaching and learning. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Walsh, E. (2000). Chapter 2: Phenomenographic analysis of interview transcripts. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
Trigwell, K. (2000). Chapter 5: A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 19-33). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT Publishing.
At first glance, this idea does not seem altogether that new. Yet, to my knowledge, no one other than Dr. David Morgan, a sociologist at Portland State University [oops! I thought he was from the U of A!] has conceptualized and named this form of interview format. Dr. Morgan acknowledged that other authors have mentioned “micro groups” and “mini-groups”, but there is not much in the literature. Please post a comment if you have seen any literature about this kind of interview.
To understand it, I will first outline the similarities and differences with regular one-person interviews and focus groups. This will be grossly simplified, but it allows a point of departure for an examination of TPIs.
One-person interviews
In a conventional one-to-one interview, the interviewer communicates with a participant.
Focus group
In a focus group, the interviewer facilitates a conversation. But, the participants then carry on, sometimes forgetting about the presence of the interviewer. Focus groups allow a researcher to accomplish at least two things: 1) ask questions, and 2) observe interactions among focus group members.
Two-person interviews (TPIs)
TPIs represent a hybrid of the focus group configuration. Naturally, the number of participants is more limited which reduces the logistics problems of gathering four to six people (or more) together for a meeting. TPIs also allow the interviewer to observe the interactions between the two participants. As such, one of the main goals is to encourage a conversation between the two participants.
According to his presentation, each time you add another person to the interview setting, you add additional complexity. In a dyadic situation, the participants exchange views bi-directionally. If a researcher adds an additional conversant (triad), there is a possibility for three separate conversations. The conversation can split.
Dr. Morgan illustrated how time is (possibly) shared within the three configurations above:
Interview time
Configuration
Time
Data
1 hour session
One-person
1 hour for the participant
Questions answered; one perspectiveObservation of individual only
1 hour session
TPI
30 minutes each
Questions answered; two possible perspectivesObservation of interaction
1 hour session
Focus group (6 people)
10 minutes each
Questions answered; six possible perspectivesObservation of interaction
Next, I will write about some of the interesting issues that Dr. Morgan mentioned including: heterogeneous groups, homogeneous groups, under- and over-disclosure, interview structure, relationships and rapport, and backchannels. And, I will discuss how this might help my phenomenographic study.
Gee, J. P. (2011). An Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed., p. 224). New York, NY: Routledge. http://www.amazon.ca/gp/reader/0415585708
I am exploring the use of discourse analysis (DA) alongside the constructionistt phenomenographic methodology that I will be using on my PhD thesis. So, I have started with what has turned out to be a nicely written introductory text by James Paul Gee.
As my first love in academia was languages and linguistics, I feel very comfortable with Gee’s text. In fact, it feels much like a homecoming. I now understand why social constructionist philosophy has become, quite unintentionally, so significant in my doctoral work. In this book, Gee’s own philosophies about language are made clear:
In the broadest sense, we make meaning by using language to say things that, in actual contexts of use, amount, as well, to doing things and being things. These things we do and are (identities) then come to exist in the world and they, too, bring about other things in the world. We use language to build things in the world and to engage in the world building. (p. 16)
To an extent, I try to contain my excitement upon reading this until I can fully ascertain that Gee does not cross the line into critical realism—the idea that there is a reality out there, but we can only see it from our own limited perspective. (I know that this is an oversimplification.) The danger of this crossing could have been perpetrated in Gee’s treatment of the other “stuff” related to language such as non-vocalized behavours, appearances, enactments, social institutions, and props—the context of language (p. 35). However, Gee appears firmly rooted in the social constructionist camp. Consider, for example, how he refers to knowledge:
. . . the physics that the experimental physicists “know” is, in large part, not in their heads. Rather, it is spread out (distributed), inscribed in (and often trapped in) scientific apparatus, symbolic systems, books, papers, and journal, institutions, habits of bodies, routines of practice, and other people. Each domain of practice, each scientific Discourse . . . attunes actions, expressions, objects, and people (the scientists themselves) so that they become “workable” in relation to each other and in relation to tools, technologies, symbols, texts, and the objects they study in the world. They are in sync. (p. 36)
In this example, a given discourse exists and creates and recreates itself including the scientists who engage in the discourse. This recognition of the cyclical relationship between language and perceptions of reality is, in my opinion, a cornerstone of social constructionism. Later on the same page, Gee uses the word instantiation with reference to the power of language to create a constantly shifting and abstract world. This, too, dramatically buoys a social constructionist position. (Interestingly, Gee suggests reading Bourdieu, Clark, Engeström, Foucault, Hacking, Hutchins, Latour, Lave & Wenger, and Wittgenstein—all of whom have constructionist leanings or whose work has been foundational to constructionism.)
Before I outline how I will use DA to support my phenomenographic research, I will first post my notes on the main concepts of Gee’s book. But, that is for tomorrow.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gee, J. P. (2011). An Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed., p. 224). New York, NY: Routledge. http://www.amazon.ca/gp/reader/0415585708