The merits and limitations of differing research tools (6B)

'Using several tools of inquiry to examine the same issue is called ‘triangulation’. This approach allows the comparison of data and the presentation of more cohesive and considered research findings in social research (Bell, 2005)'.

I propose that my inquiry will be a mix of research tools.   I will interview dance practitioners about their experiences and creative process working with mixed groups.  Meanwhile I will be keeping a journal on the insider research I will be experiencing as at the same time I will be commencing rehearsals with a group of mixed dancers for a show.  With this method I will be able to reflect on the experience and practicality of the interviewees, while also practicing some of their techniques in my own rehearsals.  Of course I must be careful to not cross the line of this practice in action turning into an experiment, so will act with circumspection;  analysing my own research journal must be as reflexive as possible.   Acknowledging my own biases is essential, as they will have become default in my own teaching method.

Interviews

I project to use a semi-structured interview process with my participants. This is for the descriptive nature of an interview, also descibed as qualitative research.  'Qualitative approaches are more explanatory and exploratory in nature, basing inquiries on elements like development, operations, or relative comparisons (Mason, 2002).

The process will be 'purposive' as the questions asked will be answerable by practitioners in the field of choreography / community dance.  Although I will start with a guide and ask all the participants the same questions,  I want the flexibility for participants to answer wholly;  if we get on to an interesting subject I want them to feel comfortable enough for their explanantions to be comrehensive.    Afterall the inquiry is a discovery for me and an invaluable opportunity to find out how other choreographers work.  However, in asking the same questions to everyone I will be enabled to compare similarities and differences.  Are there trends in how choreographers begin their creative process?   Are the patterns in the shortfalls of working with non dancers?  Or there patterns in the correlation between the scientifically 'proven' scenarios of learning dance that I will present to the practitioners, and their own experiences?

The downfalls of interviews are largely based on my own subjectivity.   I must be aware of my biases in the questions I ask.   For example terms such as 'professional' or 'novice', could create tension as not all practitioners will have the same definition for these terms.   The interview will be anonymous.  The reason for this is I wish to include some quotes I have found in my reading on neuroaesthetics and dance and see if their experiences are synonymous with the scientific findings.   Professionals may  not want to openly disagree with a research project, so I want them to feel free to answer honestly.

On researching further the implications of interviewing as my primary tool, I looked at the issue of power in the interview as discussed in 'Doing work based research' Costley, Elliott and Gibbs (2010). They quote 'Although the qualitative interview is often considered emancipatory, it is not without power issues. For instance, although friendship, trust and empathy may facilitate the interview, its main purpose may be to glean unguarded confidences. Wray-Bliss (2003)'.  

I found this table (Costley, Elliott, Gibbs 2010) of significance of my awareness of the power of interviewing someone.   We must be aware not to exert conscious or unconscious power on the interviewee.   The problems that may occur for me from power imbalance could be that interviewees feel pressured to answer on their creative process which they infact wish to keep private.   Or, conversely they feel they have power over the interview as they come froma  place of authority.  there are many factors that could relate to a power imbalance; experience, age, stature. etc.

Table 4.2 
Key power dynamics and forms of relationship in research interviews 

The interviewer rules the interview 
The interview becomes a one-directional questioning event. The research often determines the time, place and topics, poses the questions, critically follows up the answers and then closes the conversation. 
The interview is a one-way dialogue 
The roles are clear, the interviewer asks the questions and the interviewee answers them. To challenge the authority of the interviewer in the process of the interview may even be considered impolite. 
The interview is an instrumental dialogue 
The interview is never intended to be a dialogue with the interviewee, but is clearly a means to an end for the interviewer. The interview is an instrument for providing the narratives and texts needed for research goals and interests. 

The interview may be a manipulative dialogue 
The interview may have a hidden agenda for the researcher, one that they do not wish the interviewees to know about, as they might frame their answers accordingly. 

The research interview may follow a more or less hidden agenda 
The interviewer may want to obtain information without the subject knowing what they are after. 

The interview as monopoly on interpretation 
Differing from true dialogue, where an interpretation can be developed through engagement with the purpose of fi n ding such an interpretation, interpretation in social research is usually the researchers’ privilege. They are the ones who assign to the research what the interviewee really meant and frame it in their own theoretical scheme. The power asymmetry may not be one-sided. 

Consider the following situations: 

Counter-control
 Interviewees may opt not to answer questions or to deflect them. They may seek to go beyond the proffered relationship and try to turn the interview into a counselling session, or they may even withdraw from the interview. The different counter-strategies depend on the context and the type of interview subject. 

Membership research 
The interview transcript and the interviewer’s interpretation can be given back to the interviewee for checking. However, there may be real issues directly related to the value of the interviewee’s interpretation in this approach. The interviewee might not accept any critical or sensitive interpretation and there may be issues of the interviewee’s competence to understand any theoretical issues which arose. Indeed, Kvale (2006) argues that few researchers let their subjects have the final say on the interpretation made and what goes into a report. 

Focus groups

Hypothetically, the success of my interview process is based in the reflexivity of my participants and of myself.   I need to be true to the aim of my inquiry, in exploring creative processes and the participants should answer with unbiased self reflection.   I believe that using a focus group is not practical for this.  Professionals in the same networks may feel uncomfortable explaining their work in front of peers and there is not the time to create an environment where individuals are comfortable enough to express themselves.  Also, on a literal level I will be interviewing people in other countries.
I appreciate however the benefits of a focus groups over interviews in different settings.  For example, given the time and skills to create a confidential setting a focus group could be beneficial for children. They may express themselves more easily discussing a topic with their peers rather than with an adult.  However, I feel that this approach borders more on a social experiment framework rather than a work based inquiry.

Surveys and questionnaires

Surveys and questionnaires are of course beneficial for quantitive research, whereby the content can be grouped into answers and compared numerically.   Although there are intricate graphs that can be used to compare qualitative answers in a quantitive way (by looking at patterns in answers etc.)  I feel that my methodology will be qualitative in it's entirety, as I hope to have more descriptive answers that I can analyse afterwards.

Observations

Prospectively, I will use the patterns that emerge from analysing choreographers creative process and implement them in my own work.  Therefore there will be a process of reflexivity in the observations I will make of my own rehearsals.  I found this guidance in 'Analysing qualitative research in psychology' helpful in determining how I will observe and analyse my own work. 'Procedures central to the grounded theory method such as constant comparison and the writing of memos promote a critical awareness of the role of the researcher and their cognitive processes. The recognition of one’s theoretical and disciplinary background should be attempted before undertaking data collection to ensure that the research agenda is open to new insights from the participants.'  (E. Lyons And A. Coyle, 2007).

In keeping an audio visual diary of the rehearsals I will subsequently be able to make notes to be analysed afterwards.   It is necessary to gain consent from the dancers in the rehearsals, but primarily I will not commenting on their behaviour, but how the influence to my process from the interviews thereafter made a difference to my own practice.  The generalisation of this is how my process will in turn change the choreographic piece and dancers experience.  As the observation will be in the natural setting of my own classes, but at a studio owned by someone else I will need permission from them as the gatekeeper.

'Analysing Qualitative Data in Psychology' Evanthia Lyons And Adrian Coyle. 2007 Sage Publications Ltd

'Doing work based research' Costley, Elliott and Gibbs 2010.  Sage Publications

Reader 6, Module 2.  Middlesex university 2014