Qualitative data gathering in two school settings: A reflection on processes and problems in exploring student perceptions of technological design experience.

by

Lyndon Butcher

The University of Newcastle

Presented at the conference

Hilton International Hotel, Brisbane, 30 November – 4 December 1997

The aims of this study were to explore and describe how students perceive, organise and give meaning to the design experiences encountered within the context of their Design and Technology classes. Design is defined here as "the concept which links human ingenuity to selected activities in order to meet needs and find solutions" (NSW Board of Studies, 1991). The intention was to explore how students design in a classroom setting and to examine issues that enable, facilitate and constrain the process from the student point of view. Considerable research has been conducted on experts designing within the fields of architecture, engineering, and computer software.(Archer, 1984; Broadbent, 1984; Coyne & Snodgrass, 1991; Cross, 1986; Dark, 1984 and Jeffery, 1990.) However, there is a paucity of research into school based technological design activities. A thorough understanding of this phenomenon is essential for curriculum developers and teachers of Design and Technology in secondary schools.

The method of case study reporting is suited to the two sites that were ‘purposefully’ selected for this study. One site is located in the Sydney North Shore region and the other is within the lower Hunter Valley. Personnel at these two schools indicated their willingness to participate in this case study and both schools demonstrated a ‘design’ based approach to teaching their year 10 Design and Technology elective classes. The methods for data gathering involved participant observation, depth and focus group interviewing techniques. These generic methods of qualitative data gathering were well suited to questions that focus on people’s ‘lived experience’ (van Manen, 1990) and are therefore appropriate to the questions for this study.

The following represent some of the questions that were explored at the two research sites. Why do students choose to study Design and Technology? How do students recognise design problems, opportunities, or needs? What organisational strategies do students employ when they approach design activities? To what extent are students dependent on the teacher? How does the folio inform the design activity? What is the role of significant others in student design? What is the role of reflection in student design? What roles do chance, creativity, and instruction play in student design activities? What do students bring to design from outside of the classroom environment? What is the influence of the wider community on student design perceptions? Why do some students appear to know exactly what they want to do in a design sequence whereas others require more direction? What constitutes a successful design experience from a student perspective?

Two private schools were ‘purposefully’ selected and the sample was comprised of one complete year 10 group from each site–15 students at the Hunter Valley site and 16 students at the North Shore site. The data from the students were gathered over an extended period of time. The choice of two sites and an extended involvement were considered an important part of the study design in order to ensure the robustness of the study and to facilitate triangulation. (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Erlandson, Harris, Skipper and Allen, 1993.) Being able to observe two groups of students engaging in school based design activities facilitated a complementary perspective for the study in much the same way that keeping two eyes open assists with the perception of depth of field–a sort of methodological stereopsis. The analyses are essentially emergent and are derived from 120 field observations and 46 interviews. The present paper focuses primarily the data from three depth interviews with the focal teacher of the study (Garry). The main study focuses on the students’ perspective but a thorough analysis or them lies outside the scope of this paper. Twenty-eight students agreed to be interviewed in thirty-minute sessions toward the end of the school year. The student interviews became interactive discussions that canvassed some of the main research questions and gave the students an opportunity to discuss those aspects of their design experience which were most interesting to them. The transcripts of these interviews are currently being prepared for a database entry that will be analysed with the assistance of NUDIST software.

I first met Garry when I was doing my undergraduate diploma in Applied Arts. Garry was teaching Industrial Arts at the Maranatha College laboratory school at the time and he had a reputation of being a sort of unconventional character who did things with verve. His enthusiasm for keeping abreast of his students’ interests made him a popular teacher, particularly amongst the ‘technologically faithful’ students who chose to spend lunch times and after school time in his workshop. There were stories about of how he would throw things at students when they really got under his skin and it seemed that everyone who’d been taught by him had a story. These stories would be told at gatherings where his past students might happen to meet each other. It seemed to me that these stories were about one-upmanship rather than horrific stories about a teacher. But I did have some reserve, as a practice teacher, about my first meeting with Garry some twenty odd years ago. There were some elements about the stories that did ring true but other elements that aroused my curiosity to understand more about his unconventional approach to teaching.

He was a character who seemed larger than life and in spite of his small stature his voice could reverberate fearsomely across the room at a student if he deemed it necessary. I suspect he was a bit deaf like many of his ilk who gave little thought to the cumulative effect of industrial noise. He reminded me of a garden gnome or perhaps one of the seven dwarfs from Snow White, with a measure of all of their personalities at various times. Everything else about Garry was larger than life. His ‘design converts’ declared him to be a ‘legend’.

Twenty years passed without much thought about my very early practice teaching experiences but Garry remained with the laboratory school that had subsequently been relocated to a new site just a few kilometres from the old location. The new location provided a tranquil rural setting with much larger playing areas for the students and a new Industrial Arts facility. Prior to moving to the new premises Industrial Arts programs were conducted in a large tin shed.

Two significant curriculum developments occurred in the area of technology education during these twenty years. The Technics syllabus was reviewed in 1986 and implemented with clear prescriptions regarding project design, planning and construction. These three activities were organised around the traditional materials of wood and metal with objectives for the appropriate skills required for working these materials. The more recent development in 1991 brought about the introduction of Design and Technology as a school subject into New South Wales schools. The new subject ceased to have a specific materials basis and featured ‘making’ as merely a part of the Design and Technology process. The change of program emphasis away from the primary focus on making things marked a significant trend away from the way things had been in the past. My professional interests in these changes and the cooperation of a very engaging veteran Design and Technology teacher led me to inquire into the nature of the school based design activities with a particular focus on student’s perceptions of these experiences. Students’ perceptions of their school based designing experiences comprise the major focus of the study, however, Garry’s unique interaction with his year ten Design and Technology students provides a contextual backdrop for inquiry into design classroom culture in secondary schools.

I asked Garry, one afternoon in July of 1995, if he would allow me to observe one of his classes with the view to understanding more about how students engage in designing in school based Design and Technology classes. Garry’s eyes lit up, "I haven’t got a problem with you being around if you can fit it in. I just hope you can make some sense of it". I thought about his reply for a while afterwards because there seemed to be a mixture of enthusiasm and scepticism in his response. I wondered at the time if he may have felt that my inquiry may be impossible or pointless. As it turned out Garry had a keen interest in student’s perceptions, ideas and approach to school based design activities, and indeed a whole range of design activities outside the school.

For the remainder of that year (1995) I met with year 9 Design and Technology classes just as often as I could integrate the visits into my own teaching schedule. During this time I conducted preliminary observations and some focus group interviews. The focus group interviews with the year 9 Maranatha Design and Technology students yielded disappointing data. The students acted in a self-conscious manner and tended to defer to each other’s ideas rather than providing individual responses to the discussion questions. For these sessions to be productive I realised that more time would be required to get to know the students better and that some sort of briefing or stimulus would be required to generate more voluble discussion. The individual interviews (which took place late in 1996 with the same students) were conducted in a more relaxed manner and sequenced with greater sensitivity to the limited time available to students toward the end of the school year. These interviews yielded useful data that focused on the preliminary research questions and gave each student an opportunity to reflect on their own school based design experiences. The more satisfactory results can be explained in terms of the students’ maturation, the extended participant observer role of the researcher that enabled a closer working relationship with the students and an intimate knowledge of their projects. A close working knowledge of the students’ projects frequently provided opportunities for researcher insight into the students’ perceptions of important aspects of the designing experience. Students reflected on their achievements, the things that helped and hindered their designing, and spoke enthusiastically about the times during the process when they really felt engaged with the design project.

It’s the end of the year and the Design and Technology teachers exhibit the signs of fatigue and relief that typically characterises the end of a school year. Garry willingly agrees to chat and he does so with enthusiasm. For him the chance to sit and talk is a bit like a staff meeting. It’s a forced break away from the tension of meeting exam and testing deadlines and students clamouring to complete their projects and bargain for the best possible marks for their work.

Garry has just completed 30 years of teaching and uses the interview as an opportunity to reflect on his early childhood, his schooling and working life. Fond memories of the beautiful wooden toys that had been secretly crafted by his father around Christmas time provided a starting point for our conversation. Garry’s dad was a refrigeration engineer with very broad practical interests in radio electronics, motor mechanics and making toys. Garry speaks with fond reverence about his father’s positive influence on him as a child.

As Garry grew older he became known as a person who loved to build things. He focused on the theme of wind so it was not at all surprising that he built kites, sailing boats and gliders. His love for these things was fostered mainly at home and he was annoyed with his primary school for not permitting him to engage in similar practical activities. When they did make things at school they were frequently made from cardboard. This was particularly frustrating for Garry because he was already using wood and other gathered materials at home.

Significant in Garry’s memories of school is the frequent canings that were administered by teachers with callous disregard for the severity of the crime. Much of this tendency for teachers to resort to the stick as the first line of defence Garry attributes to the rapid influx of students and an inability of the teachers to cope with them. For Garry, the extra work for the teachers meant that he was left to his own devices for much of the time. This was a mixed blessing because he was able to do the extra little things that took his fancy and he was able to work at his own pace, but frequently without a teacher’s guidance. The Meadows school was a small, quiet, country school that had become inundated with students as the community grew and the housing followed the urban sprawl westward from Sydney. Trestles were set up at the back of the room and students sat on them and under them, with 60 or 70 students per classroom. The teachers were occupied with maintaining order that was achieved primarily with the cane. Garry suggested that it never took much to warrant getting the cane. "You didn’t have to do anything terrible but just enough to annoy". Garry claims that he was a fairly typical child.

There were no technology related subjects in Garry’s senior high school year when he attempted his leaving certificate. He did enrol for some trade related building construction studies at the post secondary level before entering Teachers College to prepare for Industrial Arts teaching. He had not fully completed his carpentry trade training at that time so he wasn’t considered for the journeyman’s course. The journeyman’s route to teaching involved tradesmen in the wood, metal and drafting trades being encouraged to complete one year of post-trade training before being sent to high schools as Industrial Arts teachers. Garry had to complete the full two years of teacher training, for which he was very nearly not admitted. He was left- handed. Probably the only positive result of the beatings and bribery that occurred at times during his primary school education was that he learned to write with both hands. So on the day he enrolled at Newcastle Teachers College he did not attract unwarranted attention to his ‘handicap’.

Whereas the Industrial Arts teaching course compressed many aspects of the skilled materials trades into a 6-month block for four hours per week, Garry claimed that the ideas were useful and tended to shine a light around on the many possibilities represented by the trades. The enthusiasm for the compressed courses was not shared by the trade teachers, who had acquired their knowledge and skill over a much longer period of time. But none of the knowledge imparted by the tradesmen could be equated with the expectations of a process driven subject such as Design and Technology as we know it to day.

Garry’s first inspection as a rookie teacher came as a rebuke for, what was in his thinking, a clear attempt to engage his young charges in activities that captured their imagination and a good deal of their active waking moments. Garry’s headmaster valued his innovation which consisted of making model boats, bowls and boomerangs, when other Industrial Arts teachers seemed content to make wooden joints. Garry had formed a sailing club by the end of his first year of teaching and he made sure that every student had a little boat of some sort to sail when they went to the lake which was near the school. Despite all of Garry’s enthusiasm for his teaching his inspector failed to readily identify the itemised skills that were demanded by the syllabus. The knowledge and skills required for making model boats were evident in the careful crafting. However, the skills were not evident in recognisable forms required for school inspectors. It seems that inspectors needed their wooden joints made separately otherwise they became confused. Garry commenced his teaching career on a disparaging footing, but the rebuke was not coming from his students. Some 30 years later a similar pattern persists. In spite of his apparent capacity to engage students in the processes of design and entice them into enjoying these experiences, apparently he failed at playing the ‘game of school’ by the school rules.

Garry has always had a healthy contempt for what he calls ‘playing school’. This type of behaviour manifests itself in a variety of ways. Garry first encountered it in his early teaching career. Boat construction contained all of the tasks necessary to demonstrate that his students had experienced a broad range of skills associated with woodworking. But it seems that these skills should have been demonstrated only in particular and easily recognisable ways. The ironic conclusion of this kind of assessment driven design was a table with a different joint on each corner. Such regimentation Garry found contemptuous.

Garry reflects on the remarkable similarities between ‘playing school’ then and now. Twelve months transpire and Garry happily agrees to chat with me once again. There is an obvious relief about his manner and he is eager to reflect on many of the themes that he had touched on in earlier interviews. Garry is very pro student and his keenness to have them flourish under his care is a topic that he mentions frequently in conversation. My observations of Garry’s pedagogical concern were evident during observations throughout the year. His students corroborate this as well.

However, observations taken out of context tend be to misleading. The incident in room 13, the ‘theory’ room or ‘design’ room as it was known at the other school, illustrates this point. Students did not appreciate long sessions in theory classes when the alternative was to be out in the workshop. Indeed they did not appear to appreciate any formal or structured design sessions. But it seems that some formal sessions were essential for the ‘game’ of school. I have to admit that at the time I felt that the class seemed largely a waste of time and something that the students neither appreciated nor respected. This is despite Garry’s urging that such experiences were necessary which he argued on the basis of syllabus requirements. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that events such as the incident in room 13 can be placed into a perspective of the larger picture of a design classroom and the culture surrounding school based designing activities. My original and hastily formed feelings about Garry’s cynicism (which he admits is essential to his survival) have ameliorated and given way to a more generous explanation of Garry’s action in room 13 and other classes like it.

It would seem that there are at least two levels of operation that occur within the design space. And of course the design classroom is the most obvious place to attempt to observe these levels of operation. My discovery of these two dimensions was not the main intention of my research. I had intended to understand more fully about student’s perceptions of their experiences with Design and Technology in school based settings. And while my own experience is with Design and Technology I did not wish to anticipate what is or should be going on in these settings. However, one of my concerns related to a feeling that students rarely have input into the curriculum in ways that would give them a sense of ownership or empowerment about their interests and directions. So my focus was to be on student’s perceptions. I had not anticipated that I would gather so much of the teacher’s perceptions as well. This may have been naive on my part, because it would have been unrealistic to attempt to understand student perceptions without being aware of the complexity of the interaction taking place between teachers and students in practical settings where the intent and outcomes can be variously interpreted and enacted. In fact one of the benefits of visiting two research sites and focusing on similar issues in each separate setting was to sensitise my understanding to the emerging themes that may be overlooked when researching in a setting which is all too familiar. The following extract is typical of a design theory class.

Garry confesses that he thinks it’s all a ‘big game’. He reflects on his recent reading on Design and Technology and concludes that technology education will have to move away from the nebulous idea of technology. By this Garry means that we can’t function with such broad definitions and is indeed doubtful if we even have useful definitions of what technology teaching is. Garry does not suggest that we need to retreat to earlier positions and approaches to teaching technology in schools but he is not pleased by the reactionary swing away from more traditional approaches which embrace these nebulous ideas about design and solving the world’s problems. His own personal approach to teaching Design and Technology has a strong student focus. He is critical of the approaches that are driven by ‘educational faddism’ or the needs of teachers and society for that matter, or even the need to explain every action in terms of a model and align it with some specific philosophy. He believes that students’ needs just are not considered anywhere near enough, if at all.

I ask Garry to contemplate how he addresses student’s needs. He explains this by projecting the question onto his own experience as a student and his subsequent teaching career. He covers many of his school stories that he had revealed during earlier discussions. Garry sees himself as a person who has great empathy with the experience of school students. His empathy is drawn from his own loathing for the ‘game’ of school and his love of the extra curricular activities that the institution of school provides.

Garry reiterates his love for things practical and attributes this to his early childhood and adolescence. His fond memories of his father emerge again and he describes his weekends as euphoric. As a child this euphoria would surge through his thinking the moment he realised that it was the weekend and his brain became aware of the implications of that. For him the weekends meant making things and he would wish for a ‘month of Sundays’. Garry developed a penchant for boats, kites and planes, anything driven by the wind. His real passion involved boats and this love remains. Garry tells eagerly of how other kids would come to him for help and guidance with their kites. It was during these times that Garry realised that a large part of the enjoyment of making things was to do with the social interaction of making things with other people. Garry never felt that he was a designer and the idea did not enter the thoughts of Garry and his enthusiastic band who devoted their weekends to making things. They had very little money to purchase materials but they made their kites, gliders and boats from the materials that could be gathered and with the remarkable ingenuity of kids with a mission and a desire to have something. Something that they had made themselves. The desire for the product out weighed any reflexive notions about the abstract concepts of design. "We would be flying around wanting the product and working around what money we had, what materials we had and what processes we knew about. We were pretty keen to use what we could in the best way we could".

Garry claims that he did not distinguish between design and making as an adolescent and feels today that it is all part of human nature. It’s part of what is built into us and seems to drive some more than others. The link between human hands and brain is what drives design in humans according to Garry. But also he believes that the satisfaction of making things is innate for all girls and boys. This firm belief reinforced by his own insatiable interests in making things formed a major part of his personal philosophy on teaching Design and Technology.

Garry’s feels that his colleagues have tended to criticise him for his students enjoying Design and Technology classes. He chuckles as he reveals that enjoyment seems to be an unacceptable criterion for learning in the thinking of some of his colleagues. "It seems that it’s got to be onerous to be educational." This has never been the way Garry has valued teaching and learning. Connecting, marrying or matching the tasks with student needs, abilities and interests are the main challenges for him in teaching Design and Technology. I remind Garry of the two girls in his year 10 group last year. Karen and Natalie became very involved with a luge project they worked on during the third term. But both girls spoke contemptuously about a model boat project that had frustrated them earlier in the school term. Natalie confessed she just couldn’t get excited about it at all. The project had failed to capture her interest. Garry grins and admits that he hadn’t done a particularly good job of ‘matching’ the boat project with the girls’ interests. He concedes that they did enjoy the luge project even though it may have been more difficult for them in some parts of the construction of the project. Garry describes the successful engagement of an individual with a design project as ‘conversion’. This concept as it is related to design activities in schools is revisited later in the paper.

There was no getting away from the stigma of being associated with craft and design. The connotations of ‘boffin’ and ‘hobbyist’ added to the baggage that Garry took with him into the classroom and Garry currently feels uneasy because he enjoys ‘making’ things. A keener awareness of this unease emerges in times of conservatism when education is trying to rid itself of the ‘fun’ subjects and get back to the three R’s. So being associated with hobbies, craft, modelling and making things all take on pejorative connotations. Garry claims that these ideas are given strength at inservice courses and conferences and eventually make their way into the thinking of teachers and educators.

Garry recounts with some irony that teachers are up in arms if kids are not enjoying drama or maths, yet it seems wrong somehow to enjoy making things. This perception comes from teachers, schools, and boards of study. Or perhaps it comes form nervous Design and Technology teachers wanting to 'play the game of school’ and feel accepted by the others. It is not an idea that students bring along to practical classes like Design and Technology. Almost without exception, the students observed by the author said that they liked making things and that was one of the aspects about the subject of Design and Technology which made it attractive to them as an elective in year 10. But they did seem quite disenchanted with many of the requirements that now seem to be annexed to Design and Technology.

The folio requirement, which many students admitted to doing the night before it is due, and the mandatory three alternative sketches, with evidence of research are just some examples of the impositions design has brought to technology. From a logical and rational point of view one may expect to find the aspects of design such as research, folio and sketching could be useful to students by informing the design process. Yet all too frequently students spoke about the folio as if it was a necessary evil for the teacher expressly for gathering assessment marks.

"Don’t get me started on assessment", Garry urges me during the interview because it epitomises the ‘game of school’ and the ‘game of school’ is counterproductive to Garry’s notions of ‘design conversion’. I have heard Garry use the rich metaphor of ‘conversion’ on several occasions during my participant observation at Maranatha High School. The metaphor of conversion has strong religious connotations and I was curious to discover how Garry was using this idea with respect to design. In religion conversion there is a willingness to participate, presumably of an individual’s own volition. Garry uses ‘design conversion’ in a similar fashion.

I am curious as to how a teacher converts students to design but not at all prepared for the revelation. Student conversion to design is achieved essentially by subverting the ‘game of school’. Once conversion is achieved the teacher’s job becomes easier. Garry describes how the process works in his thinking.

A key stage in the process of design conversion is to invert the distaste for school and get students to reverse their morbid preoccupation with marks. At times Garry has refused to mark students’ work. They frequently reveal their obsession with marks by asking if they can throw the project in the bin if it’s not being marked. At these times Garry attempts to elevate the motivation for engaging in design. He will ask, "Aren’t you going to make it to enjoy it or to give to someone, or play with it?" By doing this he attempts to disassociate marks from the design experience while not essentially divorcing assessment from the process.

One of Garry’s proselytising techniques recognises that a lot of valuable learning takes place outside of school time. Students will often ask if they can work on a project of their own during the lunch hour. They do this because they are keen and want to work on making something without the apparent and ‘irrelevant’ requirements of school based design. Then during scheduled class they will seek advice from their teacher about the project, or even ask if they can work on it during class. Garry knows that at this point students are hooked. They have made the transition. They are keen to make things which are not ‘contaminated’ by school and will often do more on their projects during their own time than during regular class time. These students are the top converts according to Garry and have a real sense of ownership over their design projects. They think about their projects, dream about them and wake on them. But the dilemma for these students is the school requirement to acquire marks to progress through the system. In these cases Garry admits to teaching the student how to ‘fudge’ marks. By this he means fulfilling the syllabus requirements to produce projects and products with accompanying written work (folio) in an easily recognisable form. (The incident in room 13 demonstrates this.) In the case of the senior students the presentation of work in an ‘easily recognisable form’ is specifically for the examiners.

Not all students come with expectations. Many come in a ‘vacuum’ and this requires more work by the teacher to ‘marry’ or match them with a design project. Several students did take Technics at Maranatha High as well as Design and Technology and some took the Design and Technology elective because they didn’t fancy taking History. Coercion is not the sort of motivation that students respond to. Garry firmly believes this and at times unwittingly demonstrates this perspective. They have to have ownership of their project and develop an interest in it that transcends merely ‘playing school’.

Garry believes that his role in helping students to own a design project is to show sensitivity to individual differences within a class group. Design and Technology classes cannot be taught as a block and individuality must be encouraged. Furthermore, if students’ expectations cannot be realised their enthusiasm will wane. This can be exacerbated if the development of the project is unnecessarily prolonged or the problems are too great. Perhaps it is not reasonable to expect students to undertake ‘wicked’ problems(Rittel & Webber, 1984a) (those type of problems where the outcomes are not reasonably attainable within the scope of the resources available). Positive encouragement that the student can do it and that the task is not beyond the young designer is another card up the sleeve of this veteran teacher. He sees himself like a parent who is positive and nurturing with encouragement and keen to help demystify the expectations of the syllabus rather than confound the expectations and try to make the subject appear more complex and more difficult than it actually is. Garry is not clear on the motivation behind teachers who want to complicate the expectations of the Design and Technology syllabus, but he suggests it is driven by insecurity. In fact he claims that he would be fearful of reading sections of the syllabus to his students because of the nebulous nature of the document.

Garry describes times when syllabuses undergo review and teachers demand examples to assist with implementation. "Year 7s were supposed to be solving the world’s problems. The examples they gave us, to me, were ridiculous. They were just high fallooting; playing the game." Again this extra layer of ritual emerges where students engage in design activities that self-respecting engineers and architects might undertake with a certain measure of humility. Water filtration systems, and garbage disposal systems. Confronting young Design and Technology students with such problems presents a frightening spectre for Design and Technology educators because these approaches according to Garry will fail and most certainly fail to engage the nubile minds of children who just want to make something…

The attempt to colonise or domesticate school based design activities seems to be the thing that destroys the very essence of the creative component of design. This teacher is a legend because the students sense that he is more interested in them falling in love with making things than perpetuating the ‘game of school’. The quacking barking and farting could be construed as disruptive adolescent behaviour or alternatively an overt expression of distain for the ‘game of school’ and a clear desire to get on with the real business of design. For the ‘convert’ design implies making things that have relevance to the individual and place the least number of obstructions in the pathway to that goal.

Bibliography

Brannen, J. (1992) Mixing Methods: qualitative and quantitative research, Avebury, Aldershot.

Delamont, S. (1992) Field Work in Educational Settings, The Falmer Press, London.

Lawson, B. R. (1979). Cognitive Strategies in Architectural Design. Ergonomics, 22(1), 59-68.

Mathison, S. (1988) Why Triangulate? AERA.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1989) Designing Qualitative Research. London: sage

Minichello, V., et.al., (1990) In-Depth Interviewing: researching people,

Longman Cheshire, Sydney.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating The Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Woods, P. (1991) Inside schools: Ethnography in educational research. London: Routledge.

Yin, R.K. (1993) Applications of Case Study Research Design. London: Sage.

Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research Design and Methods. (Second Edition). London: Sage.