292
sharpen the use of concept sensitization. In this step,
the background ideas that
inform the overall research problems will be carved out. In a next (and – specific to
Grounded Theory – also parallel) step, constant comparisons need to take place: all
data has to be regularly compared in terms of:
1. Different people (their views,
situations, actions, accounts, and experiences)
occurring within the data (which we did by collecting
data from all the groups
represented at SZD)
2. Data from the same individuals but at different points of time (which we col-
lected from the same group of both teachers and students from certain grades)
3. Comparison of incidents (which we did by focusing on specific yet comparable
incidents such as the learning workshop or the Buddy Books)
4. Comparison of data within a single category (as illustrated
in the findings sec-
tion, Fig.
11.2
)
5. Comparison of data from different categories (as illustrated in the findings sec-
tion, Fig.
11.3
)
For our project, different kinds of coding were applied. Since it was not a single
person who worked on our data but rather a team, we decided to code the data via
MaxQDA, a software specifically developed for qualitative data analysis. MaxQDA
facilitated our collaboration as a research team by allowing
the digital sharing of
both (coded) data sets as well as memos (see Fig.
11.2
as an example).
Research Ethics
In accordance with our methodological approach, a wide
range of ethical consider-
ations had to be considered. Even though every research project should carefully
reflect
on ethical considerations, this is of particular importance when participatory
approaches are being applied due to the close collaboration with practitioner–
researchers. Kemmis et al. (
2014
) show the importance
of this issue by dedicating
an extensive chapter to research ethics in their book
The Action Research Planner.
Doing Critical Participatory Action Research
. Research ethics in the context of
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: