CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research approach employed in this study is the qualitative approach. This research approach tends to be associated with the constructivist or the transformative-emancipatory (critical theory) paradigm which is qualitative in nature (Armitage, 2007). However, the methodology chosen depends on what one is trying to do rather than a commitment to a particular paradigm. The research topic, the research aims and main research questions are key inputs dictating that the study falls in the critical theory paradigm. This entailed choice of the qualitative research approach and case study design. Consequently dialogical /dialectical analysis which is the feature of the critical theory paradigm (Voce, 2004; Guba, 1994) and a fundamental procedure in Marx’s dialectical method (Mills, 2010) has been chosen as major pertinent analytical method.
One major factor that dictates the choice of a dialectical analysis is the feature of criticlal theory depicting power relationship in terms of push and pull factors and its ability to form structural principles. Both globalization and multiculturalism involve global and local knwoledge while clustering related theories and structuring both dimensions into their specificity brings this research methodology into a multilevel dialectical analysis. Clustered similar theories to be analysed are the dialectics between global and local dimensions (globalization vs multicultural theories at macrolevel phase). The microlevel phase of the dialectical analysis lies at the heart of the dialectical structural principles between universalism and localism, modernism and traditionalism, internationalization and indigenization.
The research employed an interpretive case study methodology (Yin, 1994; Zainal, 2007). “Within the critical theory philosophical stance case study research is appropriate for collection and analysis of data on social values.” (Mills, 2010: 842). From the two levels of teacher education programs (the university level and regional college level) two representative samples were chosen. One out of 31 universities and one out of 54 regional colleges of teacher education were taken as cases to be studied.
Currently, the Ethiopian Teacher Education Program is implemented at two levels. At the university level student-teachers are prepared for high school teaching after qualifying for a first degree. At regional teacher education college level student-teachers are prepared for primary school teaching after obtained a diploma. The Ethiopian Teacher Education at university level runs the “add-on” program. After being qualified in a BSc or BA degree in pure academic areas, the candidates are expected to specialize in the teaching profession for one extra year through the Post Graduate Diploma for Teaching (PGDT).
Among the 31 currently functioning Ethiopian universities, only five including Addis Ababa University [AAU], have been selected to run this add-on teacher education program. Addis Ababa University (AAU) is the first university in Ethiopia and has rich experience in teacher education programs. The AAU College of Education, Department of Curriculum and Teacher Education and the PGDT program coordinating office were selected as one case study unit at university level.
Likewise, Kotebe College of Teacher Education (KCTE) is the oldest and most diverse college of teacher education among the 54 regional colleges of teacher education. It has the richest experience in training student teachers in the diploma at national level. KCTE was selected as the other case study unit from among the 54 regional colleges of teacher education.
In order to address the problem case by case, the dialectical/dialogical analysis was conducted at different categorical levels of global and local agendas of teacher education programs. Different embedded methods were employed to accommodate the peculiar and specific differences in the dialectical ideological views (Mills, 2010). Specifically, the study employed a “dialectic-critical” analysis between local identities according to a multicultural view (James Banks’ work) and global imperatives according to a globalist view (David Held’s work). The study entertains the debates on the pros and cons of the categories between internationalization vs. indigenization, universalization vs. localization, modernism vs. traditionalism through the screening devices of globaphobia and globaphilia.
The research approach of this study was designed to formulate guiding principles that could help teacher education programs to produce competent teachers qualified for global and local demands.
The following model indicates the research approach.
As mentioned earlier, the main aim of the study was to conduct a dialectical analysis between global imperatives and local identities thereby sieving the practices of teacher education programs in the findings of this dialectical analysis so as to generate guiding principles for planners or policy makers. To do this, multiple methods and models were employed. Initially, after promoters and detractors were identified, the dialectical analysis was carried out at macro level and then phase by phase at micro level. In the second place assessment of the actual practice of teacher education was conducted. Lastly, the comparative analysis between the results of both dialectical analysis and the assessment results was carried out. The comparative analysis was carried out for the refinement of findings in order to facilitate theory generation. Thus, the specific methods to be employed that match the particular phenomenon of interest were critical-dialectical/dialogical and interpretive case study methods. To endow a workable common ground for both, systematic data collection and analysis were employed. According to this study the global arguments on globalization and multiculturalism are contemporary social structures or world experiences that influence individuals and nations at large. The conflicting debates of accepting or rejecting both, the interaction between them and how they dictate the future fate of the world at the interface of teacher education is the study unit. Subsequently, in order to compare the social structures of conceptual categories (Mills, 2010) case by case dialectical analysis at different levels of abstraction took place through the help of promoters and detractors. The promoters and detractors are globophillic views (globalist’s view/anti-multiculturalist’s view) and globophobic views (anti-globalist’s view/multiculturalist’s view) respectively.
Therefore, the conceptual category has two levels: the core category level and sub-categorical level. (Strauss, 2003) The core category is globalization (global factors) under the dimensions of the globalist’s view and the anti-globalist’s view; and multiculturalism (local factors) under the dimension of the multiculturalist and anti-multiculturalist view. The sub-categories are Internationalization vs indigenization, universalization vs localization, modernism vs traditionalism. The dialectical analysis was carried out across all core and sub categorical levels within the screening devices of ‘globaphobia’ (detractors) and ‘globaphilia’ (promoters) perspectives. “Globaphobia (detractors) – ideas or practices that attack globalization while Globaphilia (promoters) – ideas or practices that celebrates globalization” (Kellner, 2007). Theoretical samplings i.e. the selection and identification of literature available on the two dimensions (Strauss, 2003) was carried out at the two categorical levels until theoretical saturation took place. The units of analysis were teacher education programs. The dialectical analysis was a debate on textual data derived from individual or group contributions. It was carried out not only on what was said, but also on what was left out, not only what is present in the text, but what is absent. Textual data such as empirical and theoretical data of global arguments related to the ‘global factor’ and ‘local factor’ were collected and categorized. The theoretical samplings were done on the basis of hierarchical dichotomy of study units (global imperatives vs local identities), core category (globalization vs multiculturalism) case by case or sub- categories (Internationalization vs. indigenization, universalization vs. localization, modernism vs. traditionalism).
In the course of the debates, analyses on the conflicting ideas of the dialectics were examined rigorously phase by phase to refine the findings and filter out assessments tools of teacher education practices. Hence, as one major tenet of the research, contemporary Ethiopian teacher education practices were sifted in the findings of the dialectical analysis. To ensure verification of the findings comparative analysis was carried out between the findings of the dialectical/dialogical analysis and the assessment results of contemporary teacher education practices in light of the research tenets. Experiential subjectivity, such as analysts’ technical knowledge and experience derived from research and respondents’ personal experiences (Strauss, 2003) were technically minimized.
Finally, the identified gap or resemblance between the results of the dialectics and the contemporary practices of teacher education were listed. In the conclusion, theory/ guiding principles that can help teacher education programs to produce competent teachers who can meet global and local demands were proposed.
AREA OF THE STUDY
The main study units are the teacher education programs at the expense of global vs. local dialectics. The nature and practice of contemporary Ethiopian teacher education programs were examined through principles and guidelines in the selection criteria, the curriculum guideline, profiles of graduates, profiles of instructors, teacher education policy documents with respect to ESDPIV and Education and Training Policy (MOE, 2008: 26; MOE F, 2005: 18)
The main sources of data for this study were:
Literature focusing on globalization vs. multiculturalism, internationalization vs. Indigenization, universalization vs. localization, modernism vs. traditionalism; within these the articles: ‘The Lexus vs. The Olive Tree’; ’McWorld vs. Jihad’ and ‘The Clash of Civilization: The West vs. the Rest’ (Friedman, 2000); (Gogstad, Jihad Vs Macworld, 1998; Huntington, 1993). The selection of relevant articles was based upon the logical sequences of major and minor premises of core and sub-categorical levels of their promoters and detractors and abstractions.
Documents written on contemporary higher education programs, especially teacher education programs: the Ethiopian Education and Training Policy document, ESDPIV document, teacher education guiding manuals, curricular packages and the teacher education program donors’ manual (MOE, 2008: 26; MOE F, 2005: 18)
Teacher educators, teacher education personnel, student teachers, retired key individuals in the field of teacher education and Ministry of Education and Teacher Education Department higher officials of the programs.
SAMPLES AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The sampling technique employed was non-probability sampling and this is multifaceted (Trochim, 2003): judgmental, purposive, representative and availability (Best, 2002; Trochim, 2003). Since the dialectics was on the literature of the pros and cons of the two polarization categories of global and local factors, ‘theoretical sampling’ was employed. Theoretical sampling “is primarily concerned with choosing a sample that will contain data suitable for answering research questions and allowing for the construction of convincing interpretations of [relevant promoters and detractors]” (Mills, 2010: 290) According to Wayne (2010: 6), theoretical sampling is a “‘means that insights from initial data collection and analysis guides subsequent data collection and analysis.”’ The determination of the next data to be sampled was based on prior analysis so that the unit of analysis, main category and case by case categories led the choices of samples, which are also called purposive samples. Articles and publications that favor globalization – globaphilia and those which oppose globalization but favor localization – globaphobia were sampled through the judgmental technique (Kellner, 2007).
Currently, the Ethiopian Teacher Education Program is running at two levels: the university level which is training student-teachers for high school teaching; and the college level which is training the student-teachers for primary school teaching. The university level is known by the “add-on” program. Academically competent undergraduates who are qualified in applied sciences and interested in joining the teaching profession are trained in two consecutive summer programs to qualify for the postgraduate diploma in pedagogy. Among the 31 currently functioning Ethiopian public universities only five of them including Addis Ababa University [AAU] have been selected to run this add-on teacher education program. AAU is the first university in Ethiopia and has rich experience in teacher education. To this end, purposive sampling has been employed in selecting the AAU College of Education, Department of Curriculum and Teacher Education.
Contrary to the university goal, that is, training student-teachers for national consumption, the regional Colleges of Teacher Education (CTE) are dedicated to educate student teachers only for regional consumption. Currently, there are 54 regional colleges of teacher educations qualifying student teachers in diplomas in an integrated mode of delivery. Kotebe CTE is the oldest and most highly experienced teacher education institution next to AAU while others are either newly emerged CTE or upgraded from the so called Teacher Training Institutions [TTI]. Hence, Kotebe CTE is the most representative of this regional CTE for two main reasons. Primarily, it has been training student-teachers coming from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia and different emerging regions. Candidate teachers who are from Addis Ababa City Administration have a local attachment to their respective families’ culture. In the second place it is the most highly experienced college and has diversified programs including training of student teachers for special needs education. For these two main reasons Kotebe College of Teacher Education was selected as a representative sample of regional CTEs.
Since policy documents, donor’s programs, teacher education guiding manuals are limited in number, sources of data were collected through available sampling techniques. Teacher educators, teacher education personnel, student teachers and key individuals were selected through representative sampling techniques (Best, 2002; Trochim, 2003).
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
The main data collection tools are basic dialectical questions under the established ‘system of norms’ (Eemeren, 1986), observation checklist protocols, interview and focus group discussion (FGDs) questions. Data collection techniques were through encoding dialectical debates, interviewing key informants, focal group discussion, conducting observation on glocal agendas of teacher education practices and document reviews (Bogdan, 1998).
Hence, the following four parameters were utilized to assess the current status of Ethiopian teacher education programs in terms of its practices of the global and local agendas.
• Adopted parameter for collecting dialectical arguments
• Structured interview questions
• Guided questions for focus group discussion
• Checklist protocols for observation
• Content analysis checklist for document review
The basic dialectical questions are used to generate data from basic dialectical assumptions (Freeman, 1985).
As stipulated in the research design, respondents were from different categories: the college deans, university department chairman, PGDT coordinator, teacher educators and student teachers.
Interviews were conducted in two categories with student teachers from the two groups: two from the PGDT attendees and two from the teacher education college diploma program attendees. Interviews with student teachers were conducted in Amharic and translated and summarized.
Interviews were done separately with the college dean, academic and research development dean, teacher educators and student teachers in the following areas. Different structured interview questions were utilized for collecting data from interviews.
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION
Participants were teacher educators (one from the university and one from the CTE), two experts from the Ministry of Education (MoE) and two experts from donors (USAID/AED). Discussion was supported by induction and led by the researcher. It lasted three hours in the USAID/AED guest room since both the MOE and USAID/AED share same campus.
It was assumed that observation of practical activities such as cultural ceremonies, entertainment programs, printed materials, posters and ‘reclame’ posted in the campuses would manifest local and global agendas. Observation checklist protocols were used to collect data.
The checklist protocol for the content analysis was developed and documents were reviewed. The following documents were used as sources of information:
Education and Training Policy (ETP) document [primary source]
Education Strategy Development Program IV (ESDP IV) [primary source]
Teacher Education System Overhaul (TESO) Program manuals [primary source]
International donors’ program on teacher education [secondary source]
University and college’s teacher education programs [primary source]
VALIDATION OF THE INSTRUMENT
The validity and reliability of each instrument were piloted and tested before being used. Each instrument also possessed its own unique validity and reliability. For instance validity and reliability of the ‘system of norms’ adopted to collect dialectical arguments from the articles derived from its nature (see under research ethics).
A phase by phase analysis within and across the research process was believed to strengthen the analytical result of the research and subsequently contribute to the validity of the instruments. The result of one phase analysis was expected to justify the limitation of the next analysis.
In the end the comparative analysis made between the dialectical analysis and discussion analysis best enhanced validity of the instruments (Trochim, 2003; Woodside, 2010).
DATA ANALYSIS PLAN
Qualitative data analysis was employed in all aspects of the study. There were three macro phases of data analysis: the dialectical/dialogical analysis, the primary and the macro phase. To this end, the first analysis carried out was the dialectical/dialogical analysis. Primarily thematic areas were drawn from the basic research questions and based upon these thematic areas, data were generated from each of the four articles and encoded accordingly. The global vs. local dialectics of the four articles were encoded under each thematic area so as to maintain symmetry of each argument. In due course of encoding and analysis, categorical representation of each article was made in order to test assumptions made in the research hypothesis.
In order to do satisfactory analysis, a ‘system of norms’ (Eemeren, 1986) was employed and categorization such as universalization vs. localization, indigenization vs. internationalization and modernism vs. traditionalism, were made. The critical dialectical analysis was made to pass through the following stages (Eemeren, 2008: 149-151):
Confrontation stage – during which the dispute is externalized; discussion of difference of opinion was conducted dialectically. This stage consists of identifying the type of disputes:
differentiating between single and multiple disputes ; o distinguishing between simple and compound disputes o simple single disputes
composites of simple single disputes
Opening stages – during which agreements are reached concerning the manner in which the dispute and the discussion are to be conducted
Argumentation stage – during which argumentation is advanced and reacted to
Concluding stage – during which it is established how the discussion is concluded.
Findings drawn from the dialectical analysis were reorganized to align with the basic research question in order to test them in the teacher education program practices.
The discussion analysis was the second macro analysis or phase 2 analysis. This discussion analysis includes interview, focus group discussion, observation and document review analyses.
The third phase of macro analysis was the comparative analysis in which the results from the dialectical analysis of glocal articles and discussion analysis from teacher education practices were compared with one another to identify the gap between the theoretical evidence and empirical evidence. A comparative analysis made between the two in the last macro phase was to enhance conclusion validity (Trochim, 2003; Woodside, 2010).
A phase by phase analysis within and across the research process would strengthen the analytical result of the research and subsequently contribute to academia. Therefore, the results of one phase were expected to deepen the findings. In order to complement the result of the findings of either the phases at micro and macro levels, consecutive analysis was done.
As common to any research, this study was governed by general research ethics and particular ethical considerations to the nature of the study. Confidentiality, anonymity, informed consent, resolution of conflict of interest and intellectual ownership were the major ethical considerations observed. Particular to this study, dialectical analysis focused on the ethical principles of the methodology such as: The principle of argument scheme rule (Eemeren, 2008:149-151): (Populist fallacy (symptomatic relation) (= argumentum ad populum) – fallacy of confusing facts with value judgments (causal relation) (= argumentum ad consequentialism); Incorrectly applying an argument scheme – Fallacy of authority (symptomatic relation) (= argumentum ad verecundiam) – fallacy of hasty generalization (symptomatic relation) (= secundum quid)
– fallacy of false analogy (relation of analogy) – fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (causal relation) – fallacy of the slippery slope (causal relation). (Eemeren, 2008: 149-151).
Validity rule (Eemeren, 2008: 149-151): Fallacy of denying the antecedent; and– fallacy of affirming the consequent. Reasoning that confuses the properties of parts and wholes – fallacy of division; and – fallacy of composition. Closure rule: A failed defense of a standpoint in the protagonist retracting the standpoint, and a successful defence of a standpoint in the antagonist retracting doubts. Taken from (Eemeren, 2008: 149-151)
Reliability rule: ‘parallel-forms of reliability’ (Best, 2002: 98) will govern the data collection procedures for theoretical samplings where two logical forms of question constructs will appear. It is to construct the large set of questions from the core category to address the same promoters or detractors and then divide randomly the questions into next subcategories. This procedure is followed as common to qualitative research study to check the “consistency between recorded data and what actually occurs” (Bogdan, 1998: 36).
The research approach employed in this study is the qualitative approach. The research topic, the research aims, and main research questions are key inputs dictating the study’s location in the critical theory paradigm. This entails choosing a qualitative research approach and case study design. Consequently the features of critical theory of depicting the power relationship between push and pull factors and its ability to form structural principles dictated the choice of the dialogical/dialectical analysis (Voce, 2004; Guba, 1994). Both globalization and multiculturalism demonstrate the power of global and local knowledge while clustering related theories and structuring both dimensions into their specificity brings this research methodology into multilevel dialectical analysis.
The research employs interpretive case study methodology (Yin, 1994), (Zainal, 2007) on teacher education programs by selecting one out of 31 universities and one out of 54 regional colleges of teacher education. Specifically, the study employs a dialectic/critical analysis between local identities under the multicultural view (James Banks work) and global imperatives under the globalist view (David Held’s work). The study entertains the debates on the pros and cons of the categories between internationalization vs. indigenization, universalization vs. localization, modernism vs. traditionalism through the screening devices of globaphobia and globaphilia. Subsequently, in order to compare the social structures of conceptual categories (Mills, 2010) case by case dialectical analysis at different levels of abstractions took place through the help of promoters and detractors. The promoters and detractors are globophillic views (globalist view/anti-multiculturalist view) and globophobic views (anti-globalist view/multiculturalist view) respectively.
Therefore, the conceptual category has two levels: the core category level and sub-categorical level (Strauss, 2003). The core category is globalization (global factors) under the dimensions of the globalist view and the anti-globalist view; and multiculturalism (local factors) under the dimensions of the multiculturalist and anti-multiculturalist view. The sub-categories are internationalization vs indigenization, universalization vs localization and modernism vs traditionalism.
The main sources of data are literature, contemporary teacher education programs, and teacher education personnel. The sampling techniques employed were non-probability sampling and is multifaceted (Trochim, 2003): such as judgmental, purposive, representative, and availability (Best, 2002).
After promoters and detractors have been identified, the dialectical analysis was carried out at macro level and then phase by phase at micro levels. In the second place assessment of the actual practice of teacher education was conducted. Lastly the comparative analysis between the results of both dialectical analysis and the assessment results was carried out.
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
The previous three chapters were dealt about back ground of the study, theoretical and conceptual framework, review of related literatures, and research methodology and design. This second part has distinct features and if dedicated to reporting the study work. It is segmented in three chapters which focus on presentation and analysis of data; discussion and results; and recommendation and further implications.
Valid data were collected through articles’ encoding; interviews; focus group discussion; observation and document analysis. Anchored by adopted tools the collection of dialectical views underpinned in four selected articles under the major global vs. local categorical levels were processed and transformed into relevant wisdom through appropriate dialectical analysis. The dialectical data were analyzed categorically and tested by the practices of teacher education programs. The results were piloted or tested in the actual field: the contemporary Ethiopian teacher education PGDT program at AAU and TESO program at Kotebe CTE by identifying study units for the purpose of the study.
Major findings were refined, processed and transcribed into meaningful information. Finally a comparative analysis was made and the research produced new findings about a world order by categorizing nations into four quadrants. Accordingly, a body of knowledge has been constructed from the validated information suitable for future use in teacher education and further research.
Chapter four presents discusses the nature and scope of data and the analysis made. Chapter five focuses on discussion of the major findings. Chapter six presents a summary and recommendations.