MAKING SENSE OF THE DATA

(Mohd Sofi Ali. 2008. A Case for A Case: A Qualitative Experience. Kuala
Lumpur: University Malaya Press)

I returned to Norwich with a massive forty five 90 minute audio-tapes

of interviews, a stack of documents - policy, minutes of panel meeting, school
documents, two books of researcher's journal on my observations and fieldnotes, almost knocked down by "an avalanche of my own doing". A novice
researcher, nave (?), indeed, but I was convinced that one of these days, I
would require them to fully understand my case.

Managing the Data

My first step was to decide what to do with the data. The most sensible
and appropriate thing to do was, of course, to transcribe the interview data,
the sooner the better. I were worried that if I were to act late, I would miss
some important issues in the field. Strike the iron while it is still hot. So, I
decided to transcribe all the interviews I had had for the three month
fieldwork. And that of course would demand a lot of work, time and energy.
The transcribing process was slow and messy; it was indeed
painstaking. I had to listen carefully and intensely to every word, the words
uttered by my actors, as the recording tended to mingle with a lot of other
noises and disturbances. It was not a smooth sailing. I did not get all
information at one go. Most of the times, I had to move forward and
backward, decoding what had been said. Mumbled, vague and dubious
utterances forced me to listen for the second time, the third and sometimes
the fourth time. Occasionally, even after a long pondering, trying to make up
what the actor had to say, I still couldn't make what had been spoken.
I spent almost six months, six to seven hours a day transcribing those
interviews alone- buried in the data. Thanks to modern technology - the
computer and the transcriber, if not the process would have been much more
laborious and slower. The interviews I conducted in English were quickly
transcribed. I barely took three hours to transcribe an interview of one and a
half-hours. The ones conducted in Bahasa Malaysia were problematic. It was
even more problematic when the interview was in the colloquial Bahasa
Malaysia, the local dialect. I thought I would be able to perform a direct
translation, but it did not turn up that effective. It was a very delicate and
difficult process. Not only I had to spend almost six and a half to seven hours

to complete one interview; I also faced the problem of register and choosing
the right vocabulary for key words. Listening to the conversation, hence,
became very intense and torturing.
Language was a problem. The interviews were easy going; more input
gained from the interview, my actors were comfortable, they were able to
express themselves easily, but transcribing those exchanges was not easy.
As some of my actors used the local dialect, it could only be understood by
the locals only. So I had to do a `dual translation, first I had to translate the
interview into the standard Bahasa Malaysia, and later into English language.
It took me some time to ponder over the choice of vocabulary and register. It
wasn't easy as it
would mean different things when the words were
converted into the standard Bahasa Malaysia.
Facing with such a problem, I heeded to my senior research colleagues
(Rashid, Saad).
"Go for selective translation," they said. "Transcribe all, but translate
those parts you feel relevant and meaningful to your issues." [N]
That would be more practical than translating every piece of
information. After all, I thought to myself, I would not be using the whole lot.
I created folders for my three schools. A school name was written on
each folder. So I had one folder for Delima, another for Mahligai, and another
for Pengkalan. I also created another folder, which I labelled as "Others". Later
I created a folder for MOEM, while retaining the folder for "Others."
For each , I formed a special code. For Delima, it was DPS, Mahligai
MPS, and Pengkalan PPS. For the MOEM, I formed the following codes: DEO KB
for District Education Office, Kota Bharu, DEO PM for District Education Office,
Pasir Mas, SED
- State Education Department, CDC for Curriculum
Development Centre, TED for Teacher Education Division, and SD for School Division.
I decided to transcribe each case at a time. First I went for Delima,
second Mahligai, the third Pengkalan, and later the MOEM and others. This
would avoid confusion, and furthermore understanding my case would be the
more crucial piece of information.
For each interview transcript, I wrote the code of the school, followed
by the initials of my actors (pseudonym), the designation (if any), the date of
the interview, and the serial number. Hence, MPS/HOP/C/15.7.98/3 would refer
to the third interview I had with Catherine (a pseudonym) on the 15 th July,
1998, the panel head of Mahligai Primary School; a DPS/HM/3.8.98/1 was the
first interview with the headmaster of Delima Primary School. The coding was

intended to retain the confidentiality and privacy of my actors, and it satisfied

the code of practice I preached to my actors.
However, it was rather complicated for me to make my actors
anonymous within the case, the school itself. An ESL teacher would be able to
identify the panel head immediately, or the Headmaster and his deputies,
there were not many of them. The ESL teachers holding special post within
the panel were also less protected. The other ESL teachers the most
vulnerable lot would be better `protected'.
Later I compiled all the interview transcripts I had with all my actors in
the school, in the folder. I attached documentation on the school, the minutes
of panel meeting and other related materials at the end of the transcripts. I
paginated them. These formed my raw data, the case data, for my case.
Pagination helped me to get a quick access and a quick reference for the
data..
I had four folders of case data, which I labelled accordingly:
Folder 1: Case A - Delima Primary School
Folder 2: Case B - Mahligai Primary School
Folder 3: Case C - Pengkalan Primary School
Folder 4: Others - MOEM (CDC, TED, SED, and DEO) and others.
By the end of the transcribing stage, I had a fair representation of my
issues and themes I began to display them on a big `mah-jong' paper on the
wall of my study room.
(a)

(b)
(c)

ELT Curriculum: The ELT agenda, what mission, pedagogical issues

- how? Innovation and creativity in the classroom, role of
assessment and examination in ELT, the influence of the school
workplace culture and climate.
Professional Concerns: School professional workplace culture,
professional needs, school-focussed development, school as
learning organisation
Role of English language panel: Role conflicts, management
issues.

But they were still "crude", and I believed that the issues could be
refined and polished, and indeed they were as I began to build up my cases.

My Analysis

After generating my categories, I was faced with a methodological dilemma.

Should I build my case(s) first, or to 'validate', i.e., to cross- check my
interviews with my actors? To cross-check the interviews would involve me
sending back the transcripts to Malaysia, and that would take time to get
them back. I didn't have the time for that. Moreover, I felt that I had carried
out a fair triangulation in the field, seeking views from multiple perspectives.
I had compared and contrasted
the views of various parties: the
Headmaster/Headmistresses, the heads of panel, the ESL teachers
themselves and the officials at the ministerial levels, inclusive of the division,
state and district levels. I sought other views as well, that of the PTA and
other ESL teachers, operating at network (zone) level (see the discussion on
My Casts). Occasionally, I sought the views of the pupils (especially on the
pupils' activities organised by the panels and ELT at the three primary
schools). In fact I spent lot of my time seeking views from the various parties
because I was aware that I would not be able to go back to do that later. So, I
decided to, after a deliberation, to go for the former. I decided to build up my
cases first.
Reflecting on the data analysis, I wrote in my journal.
"I have been following the discussion with interest, and at times,
it appeared scary. To me, analysing qualitative research is
confusing, chaotic and full of dilemmas. Babara and Maggie used
themes; Mary Lou used metaphors. Other seemed to use a
variety of other techniques. Molly used NUDist, a computer
programme for qualitative research. But there appeared to be no
fixed method (as the quantitative researchers did). How I'd wish
someone could put the various personalised approaches on a big
chart, and say "Here, it is.". Maggie, who led the discussion, said,"
"I would if I could." (N).
Nobody would know the right way, yet it had to be done. Data had to be
analysed, interpreted and assertions made. I went back to literature; I read
and read.

Being qualitative in nature, the purpose of the data analysis is to see

how much sense can be constructed from the data in relation to a more
narrowly focussed research questions (CARE, 1994:59). It therefore involves
continuous organization, comparing and contrasting information even during
the process of data collection.

The process of analysing data through the interviews, observations,

document analyses began from the start of the fieldwork (Walker, 1985,
Hopkins, 1989). It culminates in the production of an action which enables the
researcher to plan or suggest future action on the basis of new ways of
understanding the role of the ELP in teacher professional development.
Hopkins (1989) provides four stages in data analysis of qualitative
research. These stages are immersion in the data, and generation of
hypotheses, validation of hypotheses, interpretation by reference to
evaluation questions, and action of development. In the first stage, the
researcher collects a broad spectrum of data relevant to the evaluation issues
and questions. He then generates hypotheses or categories through constant
associations with the data and by procedures which the data to be analysed
and stored according to the various categories arising within it (Hopkins,
1989). The validation of the hypotheses or categories, the second stage in the
analysis, is carried out through the process of triangulation (Elliot, J and
Adelman, 1976). By comparing his own accounts with the opportunity to test
or perhaps revise it on the basis of more sufficient data (et.al. p 76). In the
third stage,
the researcher
organises and interprets hypotheses or
categories whereby at the end of the stage he will provide the meaning to a
particular observation or series of observation that can lead to action
(Hopkins, 1989:70). Here he attempts to create meaning out of the hitherto
discrete observation and constructs (Hopkins, 1989:70). The culmination of
the process, i.e., the final stage of the analysis, is where the researcher
presents the theory or conclusion pertaining to the hypotheses or categories
identified. He is then in a position to plan or suggest future action based on
the new knowledge acquired.

Miles and Huberman (1994) mentioned three linked sub-processes of data

reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification in the analysis of data. These
processes could occur during data collection, during study design and planning, and after
data collection as final product are approached and completed.
In data reduction, Miles and Huberman (1994, pp.180-181) clarified that the
potential universe of data is reduced in an anticipatory way as the researcher chooses a
conceptual framework, research questions, cases and instruments. Once actual field notes,
inter-themes, clustering, and writing stories are all instances of further data selection and
data condensation."
Data display was , they continued, "an organised, compressed assembly of
information that permits conclusion drawing and/or decision taking. The researcher needs
to see a reduced set of data as a basis of thinking about its meaning structured
summaries, synopses, vignettes, networking or other diagrams, and matrices with text
rather than numbers in the cells."
On the final process, Miles and Huberman (1994) wrote
"Conclusion drawing and verification involve the researcher in interpretation: drawing
meaning from displayed data.compare and contrast, noting of patterns and themes,
clustering and use of metaphors to confirmatory tactics such as triangulation, looking for

negative cases, and checking results with actors" (Miles and Huberman, 1994, pp 180 181)

"Analysis is a matter of giving meaning to first impressions as well as final

compilation," wrote Stake (1995, p.71). "(It) essentially means taking something apart."
"Almost certainly there will be many more data collected than can be analyzed,"
mentioned Stake (1995). "After getting lots of good observation it is important to identify
the best and set the rest aside."
"The critical task," Wolcott (1990, cited in Stake, 1995, p.84) said "is not to
accumulate all the data you can, but to "can" (i.e. to get rid of) most of the data you
accumulate. This requires certain winnowing. The trick is to discover essences and then to
reveal those essences with sufficient context, yet not become mired trying to include
everything that might possibly be described.
Finally "each researcher needs, through experience, and reflection, to find the
forms of analysis that work for him." (Stake, 1995, p.77)
Walker (1980) argued:

The task of research is to make sense of what we know. The

investigator dismantles and reassembles conventional or
common-sense meanings, altering the balance between what
seems strange and what is familiar, striving to find new ways of
looking at the world. (Walker, 1980, p.224)

Stake (1995: 74) talked about two strategic ways researchers reach new meanings
about cases. They are through direct interpretation of the individual instances or through
aggregation of instances until something can be said about them as a class. The
caseworker sequences the action, categorises properties and make tallies in some intuitive
aggregation.
In my analysis, I relied on these "ordinary ways of making sense and by
watching closely as I can and by thinking about it as deeply as I can." (Stake, 1995). It
was the most logical and practical approach; it was a continuous search for patterns for
consistency within certain conditions.
"Keeping in mind that it is the case we are trying to understand, we analyze episodes or text
materials (i.e., the data) with a sense of correspondence. We are trying to understand
behaviour, issues, and contexts with regard to our particular case. If we have very little
time, we try to find pattern or significance through direct interpretation, just asking
ourselves "What did that mean?". For more important episodes we must take more time,
looking them all over again, looking over again and again, reflecting, triangulating, being
skeptical about first impression and simple meanings. For the evidence most critical to our
assertions, we isolate those repetitions and those correspondence tables more pertinent,
challenging ourselves as to the adequacy of these data for that assertion." (Stake, 1995,
p.78)

My first step, as I have mentioned earlier, was to understand the state of affair of
my individual case within the three case study schools. I built And developed the case at
each case study school. I let the case developed within its own context. I let my audience
observed the evolving of the case and its issues. The second step was to cross check, the
cross-case analysis, the three cases for multitudes of issues, similarities and differences, to
compare and contrast across the three individual cases, to arrive to a multitude of issues

pertaining to my single case, the English language panel in action. I called for categorical
aggregation as I wanted to see the patterns as to understand the roles of the English
language panels on the professional development of ESL teachers in the three primary
schools.
It wasn't an easy task judging at the voluminous raw data, how manageable they
were, I had from the fieldwork, the interview transcripts, the documents, the field-notes; I
had to `reduce' my data so as to access them more conveniently and quicker. I created
"case records", "an edited primary a theoretically parsimonious condensation of the
case data, produced by selective editing without explicit comment (except perhaps about
editing dilemmas)" (Stenhouse, 1977; p.33). Moreover, the case study "is an interpretative
presentation and discussion of the case, resting upon, quoting and citing the case record
for its justification" (ibid, 1977, p.33). The aim in interpretation is not "telling as it is" but
it is an attempt at "telling it as it feels to be in it that is to say, telling it as it
phenomenologically is (ibid, 1977, p.28).
I decided to use issues and themes to develop my case records of my individual
actors.
"Mentally, we perform some kinds of dissection, to see the parts separately and how they
relate to each other, perhaps to see how the part help us relate this one to another species.
We do things automatically, without conscious protocol. Researchers act in much the same
way when they encounter strange phenomena. And they have certain protocols that help
them draw systematically from previous knowledge and cut down on misperception."
(Stake, 1995, p.72)

My case records were a composite of my actors individual profile of

transcripts of audio-taped interviews, (Smith and Walker, 2000, p.144) based
on my issues and themes. I studied the whole transcript over and over, giving
themes ands sub-themes for each/ several utterances. I created, for instance,
the following case record (see Table 2), an individual profile, for Jamal
(Mahligai Primary School).
Having created the individual profile for all my actors, I looked for
recurring themes and patterns across the individual profiles within the case
against my issues/conceptual structure. I then created another case record for
the case, namely: Context, Curriculum Concerns, Professional Development
Concerns and Management concerns.

It was indeed a gruesome, and laborious task. Some probably would say I could
come up with another easier way, a more practical way. That was how I could do it, and I
relied on it.
"There is much art and much intuitive processing to the search for meaning, "
Stake( 1995, p. 72) wrote.
Indeed, I depended on my intuition to create my cases.

Table 2:
A Sample Case Record
CR32/MPS/Jamal

ELT/Year One/Examination
ELT/Skills
ELT/PD/Needs/Courses
ELT/Curriculum/Changes
PD/Courses/In-house
ELT/Examination/Pupils' Reaction
Panel/Selection of Panel Head/Criteria
PD/Teacher Experience
PD/Workplace Culture
PD/Role of Panel/Panel Head
Panel/Implementation of Activities
Panel/Workplace Culture/Teamwork
PD/Learning Organisation/Culture
Panel/Role of HOP
Panel/Implementation/Meeting
ELT/Change/Exam and KBSR
ELT/Policy on ELT and Exam/Workplace Culture
ELT/Role of Central Agencies
ELT/Curriculum
PD/Professional Status of Teachers
Panel/Role of Administration
Panel/Internal Vs External Experts

Panel/Status/Role
Panel/Monitoring/Implementation
ELT/MOEM/School/Support

Validation of Data
I validated my case data with my actors. My research ethics demanded that I do
so. When I first conducted the interviews, my intention was to send the interview
transcripts to them. I would wait for them to be sent back to me, but the move had its
disadvantages. The probability of getting back the transcripts would be very slim; I
decided to go back to Malaysia in June, 1999 to validate my data.
It would be cost consuming returning to Malaysia for the data validation
stage, but my case required me to do so. At the same time, I would be able
to:
(a) validate interviews which I had with my actors;
(b) validate my issues and case, if possible; and
(c) gather more data on new emerging issues: primary ELT
curriculum, context, professional policy documents
The validation process was again laborious, but it was very informative.
I gained an insight into the process, the agony, the frustration and despair of
being a case study worker. This first hand experience of validation made me a
better researcher, I hope.
"Ah, it looks very much different from the interviews," several actors
said. "Did I say this?" another reacted. "Indeed it looks funny." Yet, there were
others who just accepted in total. Some made changes, and I rectified them
in my case data and case records. Thanks to modern technology, which
allowed me to carry, home diskettes rather than the actual bulky case data
and case records.
I visited the three primary schools again; I went back to the DEO, and
SED to talk about the data. Some of the ESL teachers had been transferred
(two from Mahligai, one from Delima, and two from Pengkalan). I tried to
locate them; I could talk to some (Mrs. Liew and the Headmistress of
Pengkalan) but I could not contact others (Ismail, Mohamad, Karimah)
Some felt very vulnerable with what they had said to me. There were
sensitive issues they decided to change. I allowed them. To one extent, an
ESL teacher wanted me to throw away one whole interview, she was worried
that the interview would implicate her, but I managed to convince her that I
would be using it in a very general term. She agreed.

I talked about some of the issues brought by my actors, namely issues

on curriculum , policy, and implementation with the District English language
officer (DELO. Triangulation, i.e., getting views from various parties, continued
at the validation stage. As new issues emerged from the interviews, I tried to
get views from others as well.
Validating the interview transcripts with my actors was
indeed
complicated. It took a longer time than I anticipated. "I haven't read them
yet. Could you come again next week?" That delayed the whole process. A
teacher would be free on one day, another would not. Appointments made
were broken, and I had to bear with them. To some of them, everything
seemed forgotten with the end of my fieldwork in June 1998. But some took it
seriously. They added new information, modified old ones, and at the end,
they provided a description, which they were happy with. One actor even
misplaced it. "I took it to KL, and I couldn't find it now."
"Judgement about validity," stated Elliot (1990, p.50) "not only include
assessment of the accuracy of descriptions, but also assessment of their
relevance in capturing what is important in the situation."
Stake (1994) wrote:

In our search for accuracy and alternative explanations we need

discipline, we need protocols which do not depend on mere
intuition and "good intention" to "get it right"I see no reason we
in case study should settle for less we have ethical obligations
to minimize misrepresentation and misunderstandings." (Stake,
1994, p.107-109)
The protocol, which Stake was referring, was triangulation.
"There are two senses which you can understand triangulation," said
John to me during one of my meetings with him. "One you gather data from a
variety of perspectives multiple perspectives a minimum of three. It
could be four, five or six The other sense is when people talk in terms of
variety of different kinds of methods employed to gather data about the
perspectives of people you might be using questionnaire, interviews,
observation of people behaviours, document analysis and things like that. I
normally use the word "triangulation" to say evidence of multi-perspectives
in gathering evidence of multi-perspectives and in gathering the
evidence of multi-perspectives you have to use a range of different methods.
[N]
Triangulation could, therefore, be seen from the multi-perspectives of
different parties and in terms of different range of methods and instruments

used to gather data. It is the application and combination of several research

methodologies. It is the use of multiple methods to overcome the weaknesses
or biases of a single methodology taken by itself in an investigation. The
methodologies should relate in some specified ways to the theoretical
constructs under examination (Denzin, 1989).

Cross-case Analysis

Two approaches that I used to analyse my data, in order to make sense of them,
were `portrayal'" and "progressive focussing." In 'portrayal', the purpose was to maintain
complexity, a multiplicity of issues.
"(The) meaning making depends on the researcher discarding, as far as s/he can, her/his
own analysis of the data, which is based on preconceptions and previous experienceIt is
important that the researcher refrains from making her/his own ideas and categories on the
information collected and instead maintain a stance of openness and responsiveness to a
broad perspectives of participant conceptions and issues and to the complexities of the
situation throughout the fieldwork." (CARE, 1994, p.59)

'Progressive focussing', on the other hand, was to gain in-depth and becoming
more focussed. It was "to see how much sense can be constructed from data in relation to
a more narrowly focused research question." Hence, it involved "continuous
organisation, comparing and contrasting information during the process of collection.
Ideas from participants or from the researcher which make sense of data are noted
(analytic memos and diary keeping) and are followed up during the research process."
(CARE, 1994, p. 59)
Both approaches were mutually complimentary; I used both during my data
collection and data analysis stages. However, I used `portrayal' more frequently at the
initial stage, the data collection while "progressive focussing" was employed more at the
analysis stage.
I had three cases (Chapters Three, Four and Five), and these cases appeared to be
isolated within their own contexts. They, however, shared similarities and differences in
issues. And. in my continuous effort to make sense of the cases, I opted for cross-case
analysis in order " to enhance generalizability and to deepen understanding and
explanation. (Miles and Huberman, 1994; p.173)
In analysis, I considered the three cases as "a whole entity." I looked
"at configuration, associations, causes and effects within the case and then
turns to a comparative analysis of a (usually limited) number of cases for
underlying similarities and constant association, compare cases with different
outcomes, and begin to form more general explanations." (Miles and
Huberman, 1994; p.174)
I looked for themes that cut across my cases, "recurring themes"(Stake,
1995; Miles & Huberman, 1994). I looked for what the three cases shared in
common, and in what aspects they differed. I developed my Chapter Six of my
research report (Implementation Concerns) after I had analysed the

complexity of implementation in the three cases (Delima, Mahligai and

Pengkalan). Similarly, Chapter Seven (Curriculum Concerns) was done after I
had looked for similarities and differences across the three cases. Chapter
Eight (Professional Concerns) was also developed after "recurring themes" on
teacher professional development in the three cases were understood and
considered.

Conclusion
This study primarily looked into the professional roles of English language panels
in primary schools in Malaysia. I have attempted to see as things were happening. I have
tried to investigate by letting the ESL teachers themselves talked, how they perceived the
roles of the panels in the process of their own development. I tried at times to let the "data
speak for themselves," but most of the times I was doing my own analysis and my own
interpretation. I have my own biases in my analysis, though I had tried to be more
scientific, and in my interpretation. At some juncture of my analysis, I lost my direction
and I got mixed up.
Still, it was the cases, the English language panels in action in the primary
schools, that I was trying to understand.
The case existed within its context. I thought I would start and I would end it
there. It didn't end there. "Portrayal" brought along complexity to my case; my actors
brought along issues with their experiences in the interviews. It became a district level
affair; it became a state-level affair, and it spread to the national level. The panel was no
longer seen as an entity at the school level; it has now been seen to assume a multiple
role. It became more complicated, and it was impossible for me to fully understand
everything about my case. It became a management issue; it became a policy issue, and
indeed the panel was a curriculum issue.
Progressive focussing helped to "winnow and narrow" my case; it became more
focussed. My etic issues were no longer my only priority; I became more occupied with
my actors' emic issues. I probed, I triangulated the issues in the search for meaning. I
searched for themes for my issues; I looked for recurring themes; I formed patterns, and I
came up with my interpretation. I built up my conclusions.
My conclusions might not satisfy all. Some might not be happy with them, but this
is how I did it.