Search

Understanding participants’ perspectives in qualitative research is contingent on unravelling the essential meaning of their speech. When data are collected in native language and translated into English language, the underlying sociocultural meaning of participants’ speech can be missed. This paper discusses a new contextual coding approach and illustrates its application in research. The technique was used in a phenomenological study in Pakistan and a mixed methods study in Europe. Contextual coding entails a preliminary coding stage involving data reading in native language, choosing socially and culturally relevant words and phrases, and developing preliminary codes. The concluding coding stage focuses on creating a sociocultural query list, seeking answers through discussions among multilingual individuals, and finding a common language for code description. Contextual coding can enable researchers to understand sociocultural meaning of their data at an early stage, rather than waiting at the later stage of theme development to contextualize the findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to focus on empowering migrant voices. While many write about researchers struggling to be more ethical, few write about specific methods that might improve the processes of researching multilingually (Temple and Edwards, 2002). The paper reports on one method, the handing over control of the running of the focus group interviews to the Korean parent research participants. In considering the outcomes, the paper examines the resultant situated interactive discourse patterns, the data produced and the cues given for data interpretation. Analysis suggests voice can be empowered in co-ethnic settings pushing back constraining conventions of public face. Design/methodology/approach - The issue arose during the author's PhD study. As an outsider, a monolingual English speaker interested in cross-cultural participatory research in a school setting, the author sought to empower participant voices. The research was informed by pragmatic critical theory; used an ethnographic approach (Charmaz and Mitchell, 1997); relied on Charmaz's (2006) modified grounded theory for thematic analysis; and, in this paper, drew on linguistic ethnography's contextualised approach to linguistic analysis, and Brown and Levinson's (1987) patterns of verbal interaction. Findings - The hands-off approach activated an interview genre with more culturally familiar talkin- interaction and therefore richer sense making. Analysis showed that constraining cultural norms may be challenged in a host setting when a dominant group member subverts familiar boundaries of silence in public discussion of education. The co-constructed group talk provided clear guidelines for data analysis and for memoing, the foundations of theory building, when using modified grounded theory. Issues around the artfulness of sensitive interviewing were also raised. Research limitations/implications - Translating and analysing concepts across languages is not within the scope of the paper. Practical implications - The paper informs practice for monolingual researchers conducting focus group interviews in cross-cultural settings. The paper valorises time spent, commitment and reciprocity in ethnographic research. The research also suggests ways researchers can work with schools and their communities to hear migrant voices and imagine new practices and polices. Originality/value - The paper studies an under-researched field - specific methods that might improve the processes of researching multilingually (Temple and Edwards, 2002). Few have written about qualitative interviews as interactive events in cross-cultural settings (Talmy and Richards, 2011). The paper is valuable to qualitative researchers interested in methods of ethical knowledge production in cross-cultural settings. It is of value to educational groups, and others, that wish to explore methods of engaging in dialogue with migrant communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]