According to Tuomi and Sarajärvi (2011: 165), it is increasingly common to draw from different research approaches rather than strictly using a specific one. The empirical part of the present study is qualitative, and is largely inspired by the phenomenographic approach (Limberg 2008, Marton 1994). The present study uses data oriented content analysis (Tuomi and Sarajärvi 2011) in which the data is not tied to a framework of any kind, but instead it is simplified, clustered, and finally abstracted with the help of previous literature (Tuomi and Sarajärvi 2011:
108-113, Limberg 2008: 613). In this type of analysis previous theory and the researcher’s own conclusions and theories are always tied together. The researcher connects theoretical concepts to the empirical data and creates a new model or presents the central themes in the data (Tuomi and Sarajärvi 2011: 112-113). Compared to pure phenomenography the interviews were a little more structured and because of the various topics covered, the outcomes are not as hierarchical as in a normal phenomenographic study (Marton 1994). However, the objective of the study is the same: to describe the students’ perceptions of the interview topics.
In phenomenography all the interviewees’ responses together make up the data –
“the borders between the individuals are temporarily abandoned” (Marton 1994:
4428). This was done in the early stages of the examination of the data when the focus were the emerging themes rather that individual responses. After the transcription process, the interviewees’ utterances were roughly divided into three categories depending on which of three research questions they related to.
Each category was then examined in more detail. As a result, clear themes emerged and the utterances were further divided according to those themes. It became clear that chapter 7 should be arranged on the basis of the central themes that emerged from the data rather than discussing each research question individually.
After careful examination of the data it became evident that Aro’s (2009) model (figure 1) would be a suitable tool in the analysis process. Aro (ibid.) examined primary school children’s utterances from the perspectives of content, voice and agency. In contrast to her study, however, the terms voice and agency are not the centre of attention in the present study. Instead, they work as tools in describing and conceptualising the data.
THE SPOKEN
What? How? VOICE
Whose actions? Whose voice? AGENCY FIGURE 1 Aro’s model of analysis (2009: 63)
Similarly to Aro’s (ibid.) model, content, voice and agency are all thought of as connected in the data analysis of the present study. The content of an interviewee’s utterance communicates what is said and its formulation expresses how this is said. The content and the formulation together show the voice of the speaker, and the analyses of voice and the content are connected with agency. Detecting voice and agency in the participants’ utterances in the present study is largely inspired by Aro’s (ibid.) research. Voice and agency are not, however, presented in their own, dedicated sections in the analysis, but the terms appear when they are of use in describing the content of the interviewees’ utterances.
There is no one way of defining voice, and similarly to Aro (2009: 61), it was not possible in the present study to discover what exactly the participants’ parents, teachers and friends had said over the years to detect exactly the sources of the voices that the participants expressed. Aro (ibid.) conducted a longitudinal study and was therefore able to describe changes in her interviewees’ voices as language learners. That was not possible in the present study, either, and therefore one can argue that the analysis is rather speculative in nature. One can, however, try to look for hints of others’ voices in the interviewees’ utterances and argue, for example, that an utterance sounds like a ready-made opinion. Naturally this type of argumentation and analysis can never be guaranteed as correct, but the nature of a qualitative study is that the researcher can draw his or her own conclusions when attempting to describe a phenomenon at a deeper level than what a quantitative study can reach.
As mentioned above, qualitative research has its problems if we want to aim at subjectivity. According to Tuomi and Sarajärvi (2011: 96), qualitative content analysis is even more problematic because there are no objective observations but the researcher is driven by previously defined concepts and methods, analysing
the data from his or her own, subjective, point of view. A qualitative approach is always chosen for a reason. Already by deciding on an approach the researcher shows his or her subjectivity, and a qualitative study should be read with this in mind. Because the researcher always examines data from his or her own point of view, it can be argued that since the analysis is not written by someone affiliated to the Language Centre pilot programme or the physics students participating in the study, it is more objective in examining the pilot than if it was written by a developer of the programme. However, concerning the topics related to languages and language learning in general, the data was studied from a language student’s and teacher’s perspective, which is bound to have an effect on the analysis.
Drawing from Dufva and Pöllinen (1999), the present study describes students’
voices with a voice of a language student and teacher. The present study does not claim to be objective: data oriented content analysis is purely qualitative. However, lack of objectivity does not mean that research could not be trustworthy. In the analysis of the present study all the data was concerned. As Alasuutari (2011: 42) states, if one interviewee says something else than all the others, it must be taken into account even though it does not “fit” with the rest of the data. The beauty of a phenomenographic study is that the variation can be shown; there is no need to discover one single truth.
Finally, the obvious must be stated: the results of the present study cannot be generalised due to the limited amount of participants and the subjective nature of the analysis. In fact, Marton (1994: 4429) argues that “the analysis is --- not a measurement but a discovery procedure. Finding out different ways in which a phenomenon can be experienced is as much a discovery as the finding of some new plants on a distant island.” The present study does not claim to make huge discoveries but it aims to conceptualise something that has not previously been studied. Furthermore, it can serve as a starting point for further research.
7 PHYSICS STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
The purpose of the empirical part of the present study was to examine first year physics students’ perceptions of foreign languages and their role in the students’
lives as well as their perceptions of language learning in general and in university.
Chapter 7 describes and discusses the findings from the nine conducted interviews. The analysis is divided into thematic sections. Section 7.1 describes what kinds of perceptions the students have of language learning. Section 7.2 takes a more detailed look at the different languages mentioned by the students. Section 7.3 discusses the students’ perceptions of language studies in university based on their first year communication and language studies.
Tuomi and Sarajärvi (2011: 22) argue that using extracts from the interview data in a research report cannot be done in order to make the report more reliable and that their place in the report should be carefully considered. The present study uses extracts from the data in the following chapter as illustration of certain themes. The extracts are chosen to exemplify the students’ perceptions; the reader can get a glimpse of the interview data and see how the analysis is constructed.
The interviews were conducted in Finnish and the interviewees’ words are shown in their original form apart from dialectal features which have been erased in order to guarantee the students’ anonymity. Every extract is translated into English, and the translation is always written in italics under the original Finnish quote.
7.1 Physics students’ perceptions of language learning: “The teacher