|
|
MethodologyResearch
Design: The research study was conducted in
four parts. Phase one of the
project consisted of selecting the counties to be studied, a process that
involved the Department of Adult Education and Literacy staff. Phase two entailed compiling background data on all counties
in Kentucky in order to provide context for the sites under study and to provide
baseline data for use in future program planning. Phase three consisted of the actual fieldwork in each of the
eight sites using a four-member research team.
Phases two and three occurred simultaneously. Phase four involved analysis of the data and final write up.
Using data from available databases and information provided by the
Kentucky Department for Adult Education and Literacy, eight counties (including
the pilot site) were selected for comparative study.
These sites were chosen to represent diverse economic regions and were
geographically distributed across the state.
Site
Selection Matrix
The process of collecting background data for each site
resulted in the gathering of descriptive statistics of counties not selected for
study.
These data included brief descriptions of available adult education
programs, hours of operation, summary of services provided, and providers’
perspectives on primary reasons for non-participation.
The
purpose of this phase of the research was to complete eight independent case
studies including 10-15 in-depth interviews in each site with individuals who
have chosen not to participate in adult education programming.
In addition to these target population interviews, each case study also
included informal interviews and participant observation in locations of public
talk regarding educational decision-making.
These sites included workplaces, social service agencies, adult education
programs, career centers, and other appropriate locations.
All research activities were documented through extensive notetaking and
these records were shared between sites.
Initial contact was made in each location by early May while the bulk of
the interviews were conducted from June through August of 1999. In addition to the target population interviews, informational interviews with current adult education participants and recent program completers were also conducted when appropriate, as were focus group interviews. A total of eighty-four individual interviews with target population respondents, four focus group interviews, and five informational interviews were conducted.
All
interviews were tape recorded and fully transcribed.
Interview transcripts were then coded in two ways.
This mixed-method analysis involved both quantitative and qualitative
components.
After
being transcribed, all interviews were coded for various demographic and
descriptive information. Coding schemes were generated by the principal
investigators, and members of the interviewing team. Transcripts were
coded by one advanced doctoral student. In addition, 15% of the
transcripts were coded by one of the interviewers, using the identical coding
scheme.
Open
coding: Each set of field notes, transcripts, and documents were
analyzed by a three-member qualitative research team using open coding
techniques.
This process involved multiple readings of the transcripts. Initial
reading categories were based on economic criteria as suggested by the pilot
study (mining, manufacturing and/or service, and non-specialized).
After this initial reading, key themes emerged that suggested additional
readings of the data.
These subsequent readings specifically addressed gender differences,
age/generational differences, the influence of learning difficulties, and
work-related issues.
Given the emergent design of the study, themes continued to shift
throughout the analysis phase.
The qualitative research team met weekly to discuss thematic issues. Focused
coding Using themes selected from the open coding process, a
coding scheme was developed and each transcript was subsequently coded and
re-analyzed by the research team.
This focused coding allowed patterns and variations in relationships
between categories to emerge.
In addition, the use of focused coding allowed a more comprehensive and
thorough investigation of the interview transcripts. Write Up The final report represents a final phase of analysis as
the data were organized to elucidate the emergent themes.
For each theme, quotations from the interview transcripts were chosen to
illustrate the point.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
