Task 6B

Having completed the pilot studies it is clear that I will need to use all four tools in order to complete my inquiry. During the course of the pilot studies the uses and limitations of each tool were exposed.
I will reflect on each tool in the order I employed them.
For my purpose “observation” of the children both in the audience and in the play was a vital first step in my pilot process. The behaviour of both groups of children was different, and being on stage almost continuously gave me a chance to observe both groups at key points in the play, such as when my character of “swallow” dies.
I found that the benefit of “observing” is its flexibility to focus on a single individual, or to take an overview of a whole group, and to get an impression or to log detail over time. As a tool it is quick and with some practice easy to use. It can take random snapshots of behaviour, and allows the observer to stay at arms-length from the subjects of the observation.
The limit of “observation” as an inquiry tool is that it is almost entirely qualitative. It can provide crude quantitative data such as – half the audience were shocked at this point, half were untouched. In the case of the pilot study it did however provide the basis for the interview questions for both the teacher and a fellow cast member.
The use of “interviews” as a tool in the inquiry process is very different from observation. The merits are that they can be tightly controlled through a rigid structure, or unstructured to allow as much freedom of expression as possible, and to allow the interviewee to meander around the subject as thoughts come to mind. But as I become more skilled at conducting interviews it is possible to steer the interview towards certain goals without stifling the answers.
The problem of course with interviewing is that it is inevitably time consuming, and can be more confusing than helpful if there is too much talking around the subject. It can also be tempting to “lead” the interviewee towards preconceived results.
In the case of my pilot study I did feel it a necessary step in the process of designing questionnaires prior conducting a survey. I can see that often a focus group can take the place of interview at the stage of designing a questionnaire. But in my own case I wanted the focus group to have a starting point (the Q/A) from which to finalise the questions and the overall pilot survey process.
The “focus group” is I think a crucial step towards conducting a survey. It has the merit of allowing the inquiry to be reviewed by representatives of all the parties involved. Major pitfalls can be avoided ahead of embarking on the survey. The emphasis as between open and closed questions can be balanced, and if this stage is well done it can provide key perceptions about the inquiry, to allow those perceptions to be tested quantitatively. For example if it became obvious that children are primarily interested in the entertainment provided by a play, there is little point in pursuing any other perceptions, which children might have.
The problem with using focus groups is that they are always time-consuming if real value is to be obtained. Also the logistics of getting together good representatives from all the parties can prove problematic.
A “survey” is I think a step in the inquiry process, which cannot be avoided if meaningful data is to be obtained. Even so, unless it is possible to have a statistically meaningful sample in the survey the results will have to be qualified in that respect. In the case of my own inquiry it will be impossible to have a large enough sample to be statistically meaningful, and I am already thinking about how best to qualify the results and also how to describe not only what the sample is, but what it isn’t.
The merits of a survey are that it can be very precisely defined to provide reliable data, for commercial purposes. Or it can provide a wide-ranging collection of answers, if that is required, but which are difficult to analyse if quantitative data is needed.
The limits of a survey are that it is expensive, time-consuming, and can only give reliable data on the questions asked. So the objective of the inquiry needs to be carefully defined. The questions must accurately reflect the aims of the inquiry. Failing that the results of the inquiry will be little more than a random collection of anecdotal evidence.
In the field I want to inquire about there is already a great deal of anecdotal evidence to support “Theatre in Education” (TIE). But so far as I have been able to find out, there is very little hard evidence, based on the use of systematic inquiry tools, to point the best way forward for TIE in these difficult economic times.
I hope that my inquiry will go a little way to providing some hard evidence.