Challenging methods for Literacy research:

reflections from our methodsIbrar Bhatt

Queens University Belfast@ibrar_bhatt | i.bhatt@qub.ac.uk

#acadswriting

Theoretical perspectives A literacy practices approach: researching what

people are doing, not what they ‘should’ be doing or what skills they should have (Barton 2007; Hamilton 2012; Tusting 2012).

A sociomaterial perspective: researching how people’s writing practices are shaped by social and material tools and contexts, resources including the digital (Fenwick et al. 2011)

Phase 1: working with individuals

• Focussed interviews with staff about their work practices, technobiographies, and typical days’ practices.

• 3 different Unis• 3 different

disciplines

Phase 2: detailed study

of writing processes

• In situ recordings of the writing processes using a screen-in-screen method.

• Taking specific writing tasks (e.g. examiner reports, writing papers)

• Digital pens for note taking.

Phase 3: understanding the community

• Interviews with managers, administrative staff, colleagues and collaborators

Research design

Phase 1Three kinds of focussed interviews with staff about their work practices: A walk-around interview A techno-bio interview A day in the life interview

Each discussion yielded different points of focus within the data

Phase 2: Videography Screen-in-screen method (see Bhatt, 2017; Bhatt

et al. 2015)

A screen shot of an academic working at his desk, taken from the screen-in-screen recording of his writing session. Recording then rendered into logs.

Being innovative Researchers are often encouraged to be

innovative in their methods (Travers 2009). A novel or innovative methodology can yield

new ways of addressing problems and generating knowledge, BUT must be purposeful.

‘Innovative’ research can be: Adapted from existing methods (e.g.

Wiles et al., 2011) Study a new area of social life, ‘methods

gaps’ (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2008: 4).

Innovative methods For us, this was about providing insight into

an aspect of academic professional life that is difficult to access via other (‘traditional’) methods.

Phase 2 extract Segment 2:00-5:00 from Robert Bennet’s

session where he wrote his Maths paper: https://lancaster.app.box.com/files/0/f/7321386749/1/f_60094543685

Phase 2 extract (video log)

Phase 2 extract (video log)

What we found Some refused to be recorded. People set up their environments in different

ways (rooms, screen, food, etc.). Interruptions – human and non-human (e.g.

notifications) The amount of time ‘searching’, including

through email as a kind of repository The rapid and cyclical nature of texts = the ‘underlife’ of academics writing

(Goffman 1961)

Innovative methods Researchers are often encouraged to be

innovative in their methods (Travers 2009). A novel or innovative methodology can yield

new ways of addressing problems and generating knowledge, BUT must be purposeful.

‘Innovative’ research can be: Adapted from existing methods (e.g.

Wiles et al., 2011) Study a new area of social life, ‘methods

gaps’ (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2008: 4).

Ethical & practical issues Questions posed by the institutional process of

ethical review were not specific enough to address what we faced.

E.g., other people brought into writing tasks: co-writers, emails, diary entries, raises issues about the core ethical issues of consent, confidentiality and anonymity.

Can ethical challenges be resolved through generic principles? (Hewson et al. 2016)

What are the key issues we need to engage in order to research the ‘Digital University’?

The problem with being innovative There are often tensions between research

ethics and research innovation (Nind et al. 2012.

Tensions apply to Qual and Quan approaches.

Do ethical regulatory procedures limit research innovation?

Innovative methods require critical reflection, for Qual research to remain inventive and authoritative.

Phase 3 interviews Moving outwards from the focal participants

to: Heads (of Deps, Teams, etc., co-ordinators) Academic colleagues Admin personnel

Broader insights into the departmental and disciplinary writing culture are vital to our findings.

Phase 3 example“The vast majority of my work is done on campus. Particularly with the Athena SWAN, it’s physically walking around the campus going and seeing people. I actually have another desk that normally I’d be at on a Monday in the HR building. That’s in an open-plan office, which is of course not conducive to doing what we’re doing at the moment. I’m finding that really quite a difficult shift of culture. I’m so used to having my own space. I have previously shared an office with one other person, and that’s very, very different to having a big office. I think there are eight of us in there and that’s very strange....“

Holly - Admin

Phase 3 interviews"I really try to boundary. Because I’m part time, it’s extremely easy to get yourself in a situation where you’re doing a full-time job on part-time hours. So I’ve made a conscious decision not to have the virtual private network at home. I will access my email, but I’ll do it through webmail. So I can’t access any documents from home, and I think that does help a bit." 

Holly - Admin

Discussion

Barton, D. (2007) Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. Oxford: Blackwell, Second edition.

Bhatt, I. (2017) Classroom digital literacies as interactional accomplishments, In ‘Researching New Literacies: Design, Theory, and Data in Sociocultural Investigation’, Knobel, M. and Lankshear, C. (eds.), New York: Peter Lang.

Bhatt, I, de Roock, R & Adams, J. (2015) Diving deep into digital literacy: emerging methods for research, Language and Education, Vol 29 (6) 477-492

Fenwick, T., Edwards, R. & Sawchuk, P. (2011) Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. London: Routledge.

Goffman E. (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Doubleday

Hamilton, M. (2012) Literacy and the Politics of Representation. London: Routledge Hesse-Biber SN and Leavy P (2008) Pushing on the methodological boundaries: the

growing need for emergent methods within and across the discipline. In: Hesse-Biber SN and Leavy P (eds) Handbook of Emergent Methods. New York: Guilford Press, 1–15.

Travers M (2009) New methods, old problems: a sceptical view of methodological innovation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 9(2): 161–179.

Tusting, K. (2012) Learning accountability literacies in educational workplaces: situated learning and processes of commodification. Language and Education, 26 (2), 121-138.

Wiles R, Crow G and Pain H (2011) Innovation in qualitative research methods: a narrative review. Qualitative Research 11(5): 587–604.