RESEARCH RIGOUR

RESEARCH RIGOUR

This section outlines the measures taken throughout the implementation of the current study to ensure rigour or the trustworthiness of research. The essence of trustworthiness, according to Guba and Lincoln (1989), is the ability of research to persuade readers that the findings are to be believed and trusted. In addressing the issue of rigour in phenomenographic research, Uljens (1996) notes that phenomenographic researchers ask how well their research outcomes correspond to human experiences of the phenomenon. The focus of research rigour, therefore, is to ensure that the research aim is appropriately reflected in the research design and this includes the appropriate selection of participants, the use of appropriate questions to elicit data and the use of appropriate ways of questioning during the interview (Akerlind, 2005; Ashworth & Lucas, 2000; Bowden, 1994; Francis, 1996). Two types of validity checks are practiced in phenomenographic research communicative and pragmatic validity (Kvale, 1996). The extent to which each validity check is used in phenomenographic research, however, varies (Akerlind, 2005).

Communicative validity check

Communicative validity check refers to the researcher’s ability to put forward persuasive arguments for the particular interpretation that she or he has proposed for the data (Akerlind, 2005). In other words, the researcher’s interpretations need to be defensible (Guba, 1981; Kvale, 1996; Sandberg, 1997) and faithful to the data. In ensuring the ‘communicability of categories’ (Säljö, 1988, p. 45), Marton (1986) argues that it is not reasonable for other researchers to reproduce the same findings as the original researcher’s discovery of variation in the ways in which a certain phenomenon is experienced. However, Marton (1986) notes that it is reasonable for other researchers to identify the conceptions constituted by the original researcher in his or her categories of description (Sandberg, 1997).

Communicative validity checks were achieved in this study through several debriefing sessions with the supervisory team and PhD colleagues, and a workshop presentation of draft categories to university‐based phenomenographers. In these sessions, draft categories were meticulously presented against excerpts taken from interview transcripts to ensure a defensible interpretation of data. A refined set of categories along with several excerpts to exemplify each category of description was presented to an international symposium of phenomenographers at Sweden in May 2008 for further verification and validation (see the iterations described in pages 123‐132).

Communicative validity check is also important for the researcher to control bias in constituting the categories of description. In order to minimise bias throughout the conduct of this research, interviews were transcribed verbatim and the transcripts were used as the source of evidence for analysis. Such approach, according to Bowden (2005), is critical to minimising distortion of evidence. Bowden (2005) argues that there are possibilities of distortion when analysis is not based on transcripts, ‘…just because the researcher can ‘imagine’ a different way of looking at the phenomenon or a better way of constituting it, it is not an acceptable category if such description cannot be derived from the transcript evidence’ (p. 15).

Pragmatic validity check

Pragmatic validity check, according to Kvale (1996), is concerned with making sure that the research outcomes are seen as useful (Sandberg, 1994; Kvale, 1996) and meaningful to the intended audience (Uljens, 1996). In other words, pragmatic validity checks ensure that the investigation provides useful knowledge that can be utilised by target readers. Akerlind (2005) asserts that pragmatic validity check is pertinent to phenomenography because it originated from a series of studies that aimed at providing useful insights into teaching and learning in higher education. Phenomenography has evolved into an approach that can be used as a tool to explicate the nature of human experiences and improve the practices of teaching and learning (Akerlind, 2005). Having been used as a research approach in the current study, phenomenography enabled the gathering of data to provide useful insights into children’s conceptions of learning, particularly in the context of Pragmatic validity check, according to Kvale (1996), is concerned with making sure that the research outcomes are seen as useful (Sandberg, 1994; Kvale, 1996) and meaningful to the intended audience (Uljens, 1996). In other words, pragmatic validity checks ensure that the investigation provides useful knowledge that can be utilised by target readers. Akerlind (2005) asserts that pragmatic validity check is pertinent to phenomenography because it originated from a series of studies that aimed at providing useful insights into teaching and learning in higher education. Phenomenography has evolved into an approach that can be used as a tool to explicate the nature of human experiences and improve the practices of teaching and learning (Akerlind, 2005). Having been used as a research approach in the current study, phenomenography enabled the gathering of data to provide useful insights into children’s conceptions of learning, particularly in the context of

Ethical issues

In addition to the aforementioned criteria of trustworthiness, rigour of the current study was also enhanced through careful ethical considerations taken throughout the implementation of this study. The University Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC) provided a thorough guideline on how ethical measures could

be achieved. Important issues such as gaining ethical clearance from the university, access to research venues and acceptance, gaining informed consents and finally, confidentiality are discussed in greater detail in this section.

Conducting research with human participants, particularly one that involves children as participants requires careful ethical consideration. As argued by Lewis and Lindsay (2000), ‘research with human participants is an intrusive process’ (p. 1). It is crucial, therefore, that the researcher learns about the culture of the target Conducting research with human participants, particularly one that involves children as participants requires careful ethical consideration. As argued by Lewis and Lindsay (2000), ‘research with human participants is an intrusive process’ (p. 1). It is crucial, therefore, that the researcher learns about the culture of the target

Alderson (2005) outlined a list of guidelines on designing ethical research with children. Safeguarding the children’s right as participants in this study is a priority to the researcher. In Alderson’s (2005) guidelines, the status of children in a certain research project should be considered and their rights to be treated as competent research participants must be emphasised. In designing research with children, Alderson (2005) emphasised that researchers should be clear about their roles in the study, whether they are providing a service or, carrying out research.

In this research, it was the researcher’s responsibility to deal with, adhere to and respect the rules and regulations set out by the two main governing institutions in this study, namely: the UHREC and the Ministry of Education in Brunei. A letter requesting permission to access several government schools in Brunei detailing the proposed study was sent to the Ministry of Education on the 26th of April 2006 (see Appendix 5) as part of the researcher’s preparation to apply for full ethical clearance from the UHREC. A formal letter granting permission from the Director of Schools was received on the 1st of May 2006 (see Appendix 6). The letter was submitted to the UHREC together with an application to conduct research on the 15th of May 2006 (see Appendix 7). Full ethical clearance to conduct this study in Brunei was officially given by the UHREC on the 2nd of June 2006 (see Appendix 8).

Asmah (2001) highlights the importance of gaining access and acceptance to carry out research in a target organisation or institution. Access and acceptance were required to distribute information sheets and consent forms, and to conduct the interviews with the children. Adhering to the protocol agreed to in the ethical clearance, a letter seeking permission to access a list of government primary schools was sent to the Ministry of Education in Brunei through the Director of Schools in April 2006.

In May 2006, permission was given on two conditions: first, the consent of both children and their parents was required; and second, an undertaking would need to

be made that the research activities did not interrupt the normal running of the children’s learning activities. A list of schools selected for the study is presented on the next page, and for confidentiality reasons, pseudonyms are used to give them anonymity. Figure 13 illustrates the distribution of schools across the four districts.

Figure 13. Distribution of schools across the four districts in Brunei selected for this study

The following list outlines the names of schools (pseudonyms) selected for this study:

In Brunei‐Muara district:

Gadong Primary School

Bandar Primary School

Perpindahan Primary School

Kampong Ayer Primary School In Tutong district:

Pekan Tutong Primary School In Belait district:

Pekan Belait Primary School In Temburong district:

Pekan Temburong Primary School

With the Director’s approval and full ethical clearance granted by the UHREC, the researcher was able to access the research sites and distribute information sheets and consent forms to potential participants, their parents and teachers. Each Head of School was given a copy of the permission letter as evidence that the researcher had gained the Director of School’s approval to conduct research in their respective schools. Information sheets distributed to the teachers, parents and children briefly outlined the aims and purpose of the research. Critical ethical issues such as the children’s rights as participants in the study; for example, their rights to voluntarily participate and withdraw at any time throughout the course of study as well as confidentiality were highlighted in the information sheet. Children who were interested to participate were asked to gain their parents’ permission and sign the consent form. Class teachers played the role of a mediator between the researcher and the children. They assisted in collecting the signed forms from the children and their parents, and passed them on to the researcher. Based on the returned and signed consent forms, potential participants were purposefully selected to form the participant pool of this study. Gaining informed consent from the children signifies the researcher’s respect for ‘the children as reasoning and competent participants’ (Alderson, 2005, p. 35) and their rights ‘to be consulted and taken account of’ (cited in Morrow, 2005, p. 150). The importance of gaining informed consent from children and their parents are elaborated in the next section.

Informed consent Participants have the rights to choose whether to take part or withdraw from a

research project at any time. Researchers are obliged to clarify the participants’ rights before any measures of data collection are carried out. Prior to the implementation of this study, information sheets and consent forms were distributed to all schools involved in the study. Heads of each school were briefed on the purpose of the study and class teachers were informed about what the research project entailed.

Information sheets and consent forms were conveyed to potential participants through their respective class teachers. Alderson (1995) and Farrell (2005) highlight the importance of consent as a guiding principle ethical research with children. Alderson (1995) proposed that children should be consulted at all phases of the work, allowing them opportunities to change their minds and to refuse further involvement. Part of this process requires the children to be well informed and to have accurate information knowledge on which to make their decisions. So too, Wilson and Powell (2001) argue that, ‘obtaining the child’s consent first will help build the child’s trust’ (p. 28).

One significant issue pertaining to consent was raised prior to conducting this study. The issue was, in addition to gaining the children’s consent, was it necessary to include and obtain parents’ consent as well? Gaining consent from children to One significant issue pertaining to consent was raised prior to conducting this study. The issue was, in addition to gaining the children’s consent, was it necessary to include and obtain parents’ consent as well? Gaining consent from children to

Safest course, though it can be repressive, is to ask for parental consent and also to ask for children’s consent when they are able to understand (p.22).

Based on the abovementioned premise, consent was gained both from the children and their parents. In circumstances where a child wanted to participate but was refused permission by parents, the will of the parents, in the context of this study, was respected.

Confidentiality The participants were assured of their rights to remain anonymous, that is, to

ensure participants’ identities cannot be identified or linked to their actual data. Participants’ names were replaced with pseudonyms to protect their identities. Providing anonymity and confidentiality is a researcher’s way of protecting the participants’ privacy. According to Lyst, Gabriel, O’Shaughnessy, Meyers and Meyers (2000), privacy refers to the participants’ rights to decide on how information about them is communicated to others outside the research team. When information about participants is used in ways that participants are not aware of, privacy is breached and violated. Therefore, ensuring anonymity and ensure participants’ identities cannot be identified or linked to their actual data. Participants’ names were replaced with pseudonyms to protect their identities. Providing anonymity and confidentiality is a researcher’s way of protecting the participants’ privacy. According to Lyst, Gabriel, O’Shaughnessy, Meyers and Meyers (2000), privacy refers to the participants’ rights to decide on how information about them is communicated to others outside the research team. When information about participants is used in ways that participants are not aware of, privacy is breached and violated. Therefore, ensuring anonymity and