Qualitative research

cases, qualitative approaches⁶⁵ allow us to go beyond the statistical data and to explore and reconstruct relationships, complexities and subjective “systems of relevance⁶⁶”, thus producing a “depth of insight that quantifying approaches can not attain” (Kruse 2009: 12).

The two concepts have long been used contrastively, however it has now become standard to regard them as complementary and equivalent methodological approaches that operate in different ways and with different logical systems. Qualitative approaches have increasingly succeeded in gaining recognition in the field of social sciences, so that their establishment has been called a “qualitative revolution” (Denzin & Lincoln 2005: ix). One of the basic differences between the two paradigms relates to the claims that research can advance:

quantitative approaches believe in the possibility of accessing truth and objectivity from a

“value-free framework” (Denzin & Lincoln 2005: 10), whereas qualitative approaches challenge this claim, aware of the “value-laden nature of inquiry” (ibid. 10) and of the subjectivity of knowing in any research. As a consequence, results and findings are always considered selective and partial approximations of truth. Qualitative approaches thus do not claim statistical significance, but critical awareness (Shank 2006: 89), and a conscious reflectiveness of the researcher (Kruse 2010: 9; 14). They attempt to generate the critical differences in the data, not relying on numbers, but on the meanings that emerge through the analytical process.

3.1.2. Rationale for chosing a qualitative approach for this study

A qualitative approach and an explorative, interpretive stance seemed suitable for this study for the following reasons: firstly, it is a question of appropriateness and secondly, there is a number of distinctive traits. As for the former, appropriateness (Nunan & Bailey 2009: 5;

Flick et al. 2008: 22; Steinke 2008: 326), the research approach should be apt, adequate and should fit the object of inquiry rather than be a methodological a-priori credo: we, as researchers, need not adhere a-priori to a research paradigm because of its assumed superiority, as Nunan & Bailey (ibid. 5) propose, but should “choose data collection and analysis procedures that are appropriate for answering the research questions we pose” (ibid.

5).

Both, quantitative and qualitative research approaches, have demonstrated that they can offer valuable insights – although different in nature – to explain phenomena. Both aim at generalisations and explanations (Oswald 1997: 73). And both, psychometric and naturalistic

65 For an overview of the different approaches understood under the term, cf. Denzin & Lincoln 2005: xiv; 2-6.

66 The “systems of relevance” are believed to be at the basis of the actions and interactions of individuals (Schutz 1970: 321).

inquiry, fall under the same cover term of “empirical research” as “research based on collection and analysis of data”, as Nunan & Bailey (2009: 9) point out⁶⁷: they only represent

“different families, or cultures, of empirical research”. However, the distinctive traits that, according to Flick et al (2008: 22-24) and Steinke (2008: 326-331) characterise qualitative research, are additional grounds for choosing the qualitative approach for this study. A selection of them will be discussed in detail in the following⁶⁸, along with the reasons why they seem more appropriate.

Sensitivity towards everyday knowledge of the participants and the specific context - Qualitative research has demonstrated a strong sensitivity towards the everyday knowledge of the participants and the specific contexts in which it naturally emerges. The setting of the present study (cf. Chapter 3.2 The context for more details) is naturalistic, not created for the research purpose. Within the Teacher Development Program KommUNIkation, as a point of departure, it was pertinent to ask: How do the teachers participate in the professional development programme? How do they behave as learners themselves? Do they perceive any benefit from the workshops for their teaching practice? As “learners of teaching” – (Johnson 2009) – to what extent are the teachers aware of their own learning process? How do they approach their own professional development? In addition, teachers are talkative people, this was another reason why the interview approach (cf. Chapter 3.5.3) was considered appropriate for the current study.

Sensitivity towards the different perspectives of the participants – Another important characteristic of qualitative research is the sensitivity towards the different perspectives and

‘meanings’ of the participants. Qualitative research is “a form of systematic empirical inquiry into meaning”, as Shank (2006: 5) defines it. Applied to this study, it led to questions such as:

What does professional development mean to the teachers? What do they attribute value to?

What are their priorities and goals? And what affects their decisions and actions? Focusing on the subjective interpretations and attitudes of the teachers towards their own professional development was one of the central questions within this study. Denzin & Lincoln (2000: 3) argue that qualitative research involves an interpretive and naturalistic approach: trying “to

67 In line with Nunan & Bailey (ibid. 4-5), I am also “not willing to take sides in what has historically been the quantitative-versus-qualitative debate” and I share with them the belief that “no single approach to Language Classroom Research is superior to others”.

68 To make these traits explicit, I refer to some of the quality criteria mentioned by Flick et al (especially Nr.2 to 8, cf. 2008: 22-24), by Steinke (2008: 323-331) and also considered by Ehrenreich (2004: 136-138).

make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them”. From this perspective the researcher made every effort to guarantee that these meanings came to the surface, and that the teachers expressed what they saw or perceived as chance or challenge or any other aspect they felt as relevant to them⁶⁹.

Still, one has to consider that it is not possible to elicit an objective knowledge about these subjective perceptions. Rather, the research process is one of an active co-construction of meaning. In this sense, in qualitative research the participants’ views complement the researcher’s perspective and the participants can be seen as co-researchers. Flick et al. (2008:

17; 23) note that qualitative research integrates the views of the participants as "social constructions" and point out the active co-construction of knowledge (cf. also Kvale &

Brinkman 2009: 18) that results from both the contribution of the participants and the researcher’s decisions. Qualitative research is the place where “the process of knowing through conversations is intersubjective and social”, as Kvale & Brinkman note (2009: 18).

Openness and flexibility – Since Glaser & Strauss (1967) conceptualized the Grounded Theory⁷⁰, the aspects of openness and flexibility within the research process have been further strengthened in qualitative research. Glaser & Strauss’s (1967: 40) main concern was to broaden the researchers’ task, from verifying theory - which they saw as restricting - to discovering novelty “that might change the theory”, as qualitative research is primarily data-driven. Also according to others, Steinke (2008: 327) and Reichertz (2008: 281-4), for instance, being prepared for surprises is a major aim of qualitative research, which depends on the stance of the researcher towards the data and their own previous knowledge. The focus in this study was kept open and broad from the beginning and the researcher’s background knowledge was intended not as a limiting lens, but rather – similar to Mason (2002: 17) – as a springboard for launching the research “puzzle”, so that data are connected with current debates (ibid. 17). Certainly, openness in qualitative research depends heavily on the way we design the search for newness. For the current study, this is reflected in the way the researcher designed the interviews and in the way the resulting data were analysed, both in the effort to bring to the surface teachers' reasons and understand them whithout imposing external criteria. This is explained more in detail in the section about the research process (cf. Chapter

69 The research questions had not yet been fixed when conducting the interviews (cf. Chapter 3.3.1). This contributed enormously to adhering to the criteria listed above, especially when considering the criteria:

"Sensitivity towards different perspectives" and "Openness".

70 As Shank (2006: 129) notes, Grounded Theory is a “method of building theory from the ground up”, as an attempt to understand complex phenomena “by starting at ground zero” and by “letting the data themselves guide the growth and development of the theory”.

3.3; cf. also Chapter 4).

Contextuality and complexity – As Flick (2009: 15) points out, the openness of qualitative approaches to complex phenomena is best suited for tackling complexities in their contexts and not in artificial situations. Thus, depth and multifaceted research objects are the very domain of qualitative research. Many critical voices have pointed out the limitations of quantitative research approaches, when it comes to exploring new and very complex aspects, and language learning and teaching are excellent examples of complex phenomena. It can easily be argued that the research questions posed in this study are too complex to be explored only through quantitative data collection and analysis. Qualitative research seems here more appropriate for achieving depth in these complex and barely quantifiable aspects. From the perspective of the current study, the researcher's concern of guaranteeing complexity is reflected in the researcher’s decisions (for ex. choosing open-ended questions) and in the 'breathing space' conceded to the participants and to their subjective perspectives.

Understanding the phenomenon⁷¹– “Depth, nuance, complexity, rather than surface” (Mason 2002: 65): going beyond the surface and the merely quantifying level is another strength of qualitative research. The epistemological principle behind this approach is understanding the phenomenon under examination. There is some disagreement as to whether qualitative research should describe rather than explain. Flick et al. (2008: 23) advocate “understanding”, whereas others claim that qualitative research should “produce explanations, rather than claiming to offer mere descriptions” (Mason 2002: 7; cf. also Oswald 1997: 73). The attempt can be made to explain, but at the same time we must be aware of the limitations of all kinds of actions in research; therefore, any claim must be considered in its context, which does not necessarily mean that the explanatory potential of research is diminished or must be excluded beforehand.

In this sense qualitative research creates a tension that involves all participants, including the researcher. For the present study this relates, on the one hand, to the views of the partipating teachers, and to the willingness on the part of the researcher to understand experiences, meanings, expectations and feelings that accompany the teachers' professional development as they are. On the other hand, the criterion of 'understanding' relates to the reflexivity of the researcher (cf. Flick et al. 2008: 20), which ranges from being explicit about her own prior knowledge, expectations and all decisions in selecting and designing the research project, to striving to be open enough to guarantee that the voices of the participating teachers come

71 For this quality criterion of "Nachvollziehbarkeit" cf. Flick (2009: 384-385).

through. As Steinke (2008: 324-6) cautions, all this influences the results.

To conclude, qualitative research advocated from its beginning the ability to discover

“unknown aspects in known worlds” (Oswald 1997: 79⁷²), providing “groundbreaking work”

(Glaser & Strauss 1967: 15). Because of its potential to discover new concepts that have epistemological value⁷³, a qualitative approach was believed to be better positioned to help discover in this study “a previously little researched reality domain⁷⁴” (Blumer 1973 quoted in Flick et al. 2008: 25; author’s translation). The relevance of this procedure for this study is reflected in the resulting theory, more specifically in the empirical, data-grounded nature of the theory that inform teachers and researchers about barely investigated aspects of teacher professional development. Specific research desiderata in relation to lack of theory development for teacher learning have been expressed (cf. for example Wilson & Berne 1999:

203-4) and the present study is an attempt to help explain which teachers' characteristics matter in teacher professional development, why and in what ways.