Data Analysis and Findings
A Diamond in the Rough
“Playing with participants, data, and representation creates opportunities for humane, profound, and pragmatic research processes” Ellingson, 2013, p, 196Within this research study, I explore the lived experiences of teacher educators in Canada with a focus on MDL and OEPr. In this post-intentional phenomenology, fourteen participants’ reveal their stories of becoming media and digitally literate within an open educational practice in the field of teacher education. The focus here is on facets of the lived experiences of participants – becoming a teacher educator, experiencing an open educational practice, modelling media and digital literacies - and how MDL influences OEPr in a teacher educators’ teaching practice. As these facets of the participants’ stories are shared, it is important to note that this research is not framed as findings in the traditionally research sense. This is my story, a generated narrative excised from the data gatherings. It is not the only story found within the participants’ lived experiences, but A story, created and crafted as a representation from the accounts and images of others.
In the research methods section, I outline the phases and sequence of data collection, coding and analysis. Over multiple iterations of listening and relistening to the narratives presented by the participants, I “pay attention to personal preferences and desires, what I care about and what excites me” (Ellingson, 2013, p. 201). Throughout this process, I struggled to make sense of the individual voices and images. At times, the participants’ meaningful moments kaleidescope together. Through these multiple and layered listenings, I pay attention to the outlines of what is important to each participant, as these need to coalesce to become my story. In order to stay true to the narratives shared, and not become distracted while writing about the participants’ lived experiences, I hold in mind a collage of images and echoes of our conversations.
This montage of phrases suggest depth to thinking about: “thinking about how learning happens” (AT); “knowledge building is a killer app” (BC); “who does it serve” (CS); “future leaning with strong foundations and eyes wide open” (ER); “ethical relationality and unconditional hospitality” (FJ); “open is part of the job ethos for servant leadership” (LL); “respect our field” (LV); “grappling with openly sharing my teaching and research” (NK); “uncovering and troubling the tech” (OW); “literacy comes first, digital comes second” (PL); “negotiations and co-design” (RB); “decolonizing learning and knowledge sharing” (RG); “beware market logics and attentional economies” (SH); and, “providing gateways to deeper thinking” (UF).
As I recursively explore and experience the video interviews, between bouts of reflective sense-making, these etches support my struggle to find commonalities and to create a unifying story of the stories shared. Despite a deeper dive into reflective thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019, 2021, 2022), the themes that should become evident from my codes and keywords eluded me. As I work toward generative themes to illuminate a common story, I realized that themes may not be the best way to share the participants’ lived experiences. I return to reflect on my stated methodology of crystallization.
The decision to examine one facet at a time allows me to focus my attention on singular components as a gemologist might, taking time to examine the façade, edges, colour, tone, and reflections found within the identified facet. My decision to hold up and examine the words, sentences, and ideas expressed by the participants creates a semi-cohesive way to uncover participants’ portrayals within my story. The answers to my research questions will emerge from this diamond in the rough.