Methodological framework

The research was done in the framework of constructive epistemology and a sequential exploratory strategy (Creswell, 2003) was applied for a mixed method approach. The views of young people on religion and religious diversity are interwoven with the value systems held in school, society and in the youth culture and influenced by developmental issues, and there is also an inter-relation between educational and personal interests. Such a complexity requires using varied methods in order to triangulate the outcomes from several researches. The need for this approach has been pointed out by Campbell (1957) and more recently by Creswell (2002), Flick (2004), and Niglas (2004). For me, as a novice researcher, it has been a challenge to deal with such an over-whelming amount of data. However, each set of methods was appropriate to the studies, and the triangulation of data has increased the reliability and validity of the findings. The findings obtained through different instruments could be compared and triangulated. In some cases different studies have illustrated or clarified, in other cases put under the question or added information to findings of different sub-studies. Mixed methods approach has enabled also to fine-tune instruments of data collection (as described in paragraph 1.3.2).

1.3.1.2. The framework of social constructivism

By relying on a social constructivist approach, I cannot assume that the data gathered during study consists of given facts, but data results from social interaction, during what meanings are constructed and reconstructed (see Blumer (1986), Searle (1995), Gergen (2002), Burr (2003). In the framework of social constructivism the person cannot be seen as separated from his or her

context. In interviews, the interviewees oppose, for example, the critique raised against religious education, even if I do not ask about these topics directly. They bring thoughts, dilemmas, emphases and controversies from their daily dis-courses at school or in media. On the other hand, the interaction of thoughts is working not only between the context and person, but indeed also between the interviewee and interviewer, data are often created during the interviewing process, as scholars like Garfinkel (1967), Cicourel (1974), Silvermann (1993), Alasuutari (1995), Holstein and Gubrium (2002) etc have pointed out. In several interviews, respondents said explicitly that they had not thought about the issue before, which does not mean that they did not have an opinion. They constructed their meanings during and thanks to the interview, so the results were not ready-made constructions but as the collaborative result of an interview.

Similarly, just as meaning is constructed by mutual influence, the object of study cannot be separated from the analysis. Data are always results of inter-pretations in constructivist epistemology.

Positioning of the researcher

I positioned myself as a ‘stranger’ (Simmel, 2002), without identifying myself with any group in the school (i.e., teachers, students, staff). This enabled me to move between various groups without having super- or subordinate relations to any of them and to have beside emic perspective gained from participants more distanced and analytical etic perspective (Pike 1967; Headland et al 1990) as well. It allowed me, as the researcher, as well as participants to look at situations from another perspective. I presented myself and approached lessons from the perspective of a university researcher, and did not claim to be able to blend into the group of students as the difference in age was too obvious.

Moreover, I found it impossible to identify more with children than with adults, although I could still empathize with the way in which students were thinking.

My role as a researcher could not be defined as a non-participant, given that mine and the camera’s presence, unofficial, informal talks before and after lessons, and official interviews surely had some influence. For example, by asking students and teachers about the way in which they or others behaved in class, I forced them to analyse and verbalise their behaviours and their impact on others. In this sense, I was not a person who simply collects data, but rather one who participates in creating ‘reality’ under study. Such ‘subjectivity’ as part of the research process is an advantage of qualitative study. To be subjective does not in this case mean presenting unreflective presuppositions, but rather revealing as much argumentation as possible to support the conclusions and give others the opportunity to refute those (Pink, 2001).

1.3.1.3. Interpretive approach as a stimulus

In the constructivist framework the essential role as a stimulus and a point of constant reflection played interpretive approach, as worked out by Robert

Jackson (1997). Three key concepts, as described below assisted in clarification of issues in theory, methodology and pedagogy. The approach was seen in terms of questions to be reviewed throughout the research.

The interpretive approach was initially developed during ethnographic studies of children and young people (e.g. Jackson & Nesbitt, 1993; Nesbitt, 2004). The interpretive approach draws on methodological ideas from cultural anthropology, recognising the inner diversity, fuzzy edgedness and contested nature of religious traditions. Individuals are seen as unique, but the group tied nature of religion is recognised, also the role of wider religious traditions providing identity markers and reference points is recognised.

The interpretive approach, as described by Robert Jackson (1997; 2004a;

2004b; 2005; 2008a and elsewhere) is equipped with three issues, – the repre-sentation of religions in their inner diversity, developing skills of interpretation and providing opportunities for reflexivity. How these principles influenced my methods is discussed more in detail in the following subchapter (1.3.2). Here I present briefly the most important principles used in my study derived from the interpretive approach.

The first principle is concerned with representation: this means seeing religion as a part of living human experience which responds to the present context and develops throughout the lifetime (as opposed to unchangeable, homogeneous and uniform systems of belief). Representation involves also understanding that religions are represented by unique members, who are affected by many influences, cultural and personal. Often, these individuals, although unique, belong to groups of various kinds (such as sects or deno-minations, or ethnic groups), and group membership may be very influential on the individual, for example as a source of concepts and attitudes. The broadest reference point is the religious tradition, with its multiple sources of authority.

Religious identity may be analysed in terms of the relationship between unique individuals, groups and the wider tradition.

The questions under this section I asked myself included: How well am I portraying the way of life of those I am studying so that I avoid misrepre-sentation and stereotyping? Am I giving sufficient attention to diversity within religions? How far am I aware of the perceived relationship (or lack of relation-ship) of individuals studied to background religious and cultural traditions?

(Jackson suggests how the key principles of the interpretive approach might be expressed as a set of questions in Jackson, 2008a, 9). In my study I paid attention to inclusion of different perspectives and respondents with diverse cultural and personal backgrounds. The respondents were viewed as unique individuals not only in their social context but also in the particular time, what means that in another situation and time they could answer in another way than they did at the moment of my study. Different parties of the study contributed different perspectives and created a mosaic of readings. In school-based fieldwork, interviews were used to reconstruct students’ personal approaches to religion. Classroom interaction was also studied from the perspective of the learners and teachers. To avoid misinterpretation I decided to include interviews

and to use method of stimulated recall for analysing videotaped lessons. It gave voice for the interpretations of those involved in lessons.

The second principle is concerned with interpretation: this means under-standing that I (in this case as a researcher) cannot set aside my own presuppo-sitions, but rather should compare them constantly with new concepts gathered from the fieldwork. The questions under this section I asked myself included:

How well am I ‘translating’ the other person’s concepts and ideas (or com-paring the other person’s language/concepts with my own nearest equivalent language/concepts) so I have a clear understanding of them? How far am I able to empathise with the experience of others after I have grasped their language/

concepts/symbols? Have I considered the impact of power relations on processes of interpretation? (Jackson, 2008a, 9) This aspect had a central role as well in choosing specific data collection and analyses methods as well in interview techniques which asked for explanations and arguments from respondents, not only in the phase of data collection but also their feedback was asked during data analyses. The religious language used by those whom I was studying has been in a centre of my concern. At the first phase of the fieldwork the key term ‘religion’ is not imposed on respondents but rather asked about their views and understandings. During interviews possible interpretation of understanding was asked from an interviewee (“Did I understand you right that you meant …”).

The third principle is concerned with reflexivity: this means being self-aware in relation to the data, being both sensitive to the meanings expressed by others and maintaining critical distance towards my own thinking and the material under study. The questions under this section included: How far am I aware of the impact of my own cultural background/values and beliefs/gender/

research role/power etc. on the research process or development of pedagogical ideas? How far am I relating the data of the research to my own current understandings of difference? How far am I giving attention to the evaluation of my research methods? (Jackson, 2008a, 10). A combination of ethnographic and educational approaches to religious education, bringing together hermeneutical and empirical methods, and starting from qualitative study of views about religious diversity, has given space for reflexive analysis of material and methods used. Reflexive activity is intimately related to the process of interpretation. To ensure reflexivity, I “interviewed” first myself on the topics are being interviewed, to become aware of my own presuppositions and ideas.

Then these were compared and contrasted with those of interviewees. The students who were videotaped and the teachers who were interviewed were asked to distance themselves and to reflect upon their own views, ideas and values as seen on the videotape or experienced in their lessons.