Methodological diversity as an asset for transition‐focused higher education research with students from refugee backgrounds

Sally Baker, Evonne Irwin, Mary Taiwo, Sonal Singh, Shelley Gower, Jaya Dantas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This paper discusses the methodological and logistical complexities that underpin multi‐method, multi‐sited, multi‐phased research with vulnerable communities. The project on which we draw was a 3‐year Australian government‐funded, longitudinal and cross‐sectional exploration of students from refugee backgrounds (SfRBs) as they moved into, through and out of higher education from three different contexts, educational pathways and localities in Australia. While all students entering and participating in higher education may experience challenges, for SfRBs these are compounded by their linguistic and cultural diversity, instability, possible trauma and disrupted schooling. In the project presented in this article, these complexities and their relationships with transitions to higher education were captured through diverse methods and methodologies at three research sites, including longitudinal research with repeat interviews and cross‐sectional, explorative methods. The opportunities provided by this methodological approach far outweighed the ethical and practical difficulties navigated by each of the research teams. The ‘thick’ data produced through prolonged and repeat engagements with a small cohort of participants at one site were made richer through explorations of differing social and geographical contexts across all three sites. Further, our collective interpretations of the data were made more robust through the reciprocity and reflexivity inherent in ethically researching with (not on) SfRBs and through multiple cross‐site research team interactions.
LanguageEnglish
Pages5-32
Number of pages28
JournalReview of Education
Volume7
Issue number1
Early online date18 Oct 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2019

Fingerprint

refugee
assets
education
student
reflexivity
cultural diversity
reciprocity
trauma
linguistics
interpretation
methodology
interaction
interview
community
experience

Cite this

Baker, Sally ; Irwin, Evonne ; Taiwo, Mary ; Singh, Sonal ; Gower, Shelley ; Dantas, Jaya. / Methodological diversity as an asset for transition‐focused higher education research with students from refugee backgrounds. In: Review of Education. 2019 ; Vol. 7, No. 1. pp. 5-32.
@article{b91c195c42a44786ac1b475c9b1873bb,
title = "Methodological diversity as an asset for transition‐focused higher education research with students from refugee backgrounds",
abstract = "This paper discusses the methodological and logistical complexities that underpin multi‐method, multi‐sited, multi‐phased research with vulnerable communities. The project on which we draw was a 3‐year Australian government‐funded, longitudinal and cross‐sectional exploration of students from refugee backgrounds (SfRBs) as they moved into, through and out of higher education from three different contexts, educational pathways and localities in Australia. While all students entering and participating in higher education may experience challenges, for SfRBs these are compounded by their linguistic and cultural diversity, instability, possible trauma and disrupted schooling. In the project presented in this article, these complexities and their relationships with transitions to higher education were captured through diverse methods and methodologies at three research sites, including longitudinal research with repeat interviews and cross‐sectional, explorative methods. The opportunities provided by this methodological approach far outweighed the ethical and practical difficulties navigated by each of the research teams. The ‘thick’ data produced through prolonged and repeat engagements with a small cohort of participants at one site were made richer through explorations of differing social and geographical contexts across all three sites. Further, our collective interpretations of the data were made more robust through the reciprocity and reflexivity inherent in ethically researching with (not on) SfRBs and through multiple cross‐site research team interactions.",
author = "Sally Baker and Evonne Irwin and Mary Taiwo and Sonal Singh and Shelley Gower and Jaya Dantas",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1002/rev3.3133",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "5--32",
journal = "Review of Education",
issn = "2049-6613",
number = "1",

}

Methodological diversity as an asset for transition‐focused higher education research with students from refugee backgrounds. / Baker, Sally ; Irwin, Evonne; Taiwo, Mary; Singh, Sonal; Gower, Shelley; Dantas, Jaya.

In: Review of Education, Vol. 7, No. 1, 02.2019, p. 5-32.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methodological diversity as an asset for transition‐focused higher education research with students from refugee backgrounds

AU - Baker, Sally

AU - Irwin, Evonne

AU - Taiwo, Mary

AU - Singh, Sonal

AU - Gower, Shelley

AU - Dantas, Jaya

PY - 2019/2

Y1 - 2019/2

N2 - This paper discusses the methodological and logistical complexities that underpin multi‐method, multi‐sited, multi‐phased research with vulnerable communities. The project on which we draw was a 3‐year Australian government‐funded, longitudinal and cross‐sectional exploration of students from refugee backgrounds (SfRBs) as they moved into, through and out of higher education from three different contexts, educational pathways and localities in Australia. While all students entering and participating in higher education may experience challenges, for SfRBs these are compounded by their linguistic and cultural diversity, instability, possible trauma and disrupted schooling. In the project presented in this article, these complexities and their relationships with transitions to higher education were captured through diverse methods and methodologies at three research sites, including longitudinal research with repeat interviews and cross‐sectional, explorative methods. The opportunities provided by this methodological approach far outweighed the ethical and practical difficulties navigated by each of the research teams. The ‘thick’ data produced through prolonged and repeat engagements with a small cohort of participants at one site were made richer through explorations of differing social and geographical contexts across all three sites. Further, our collective interpretations of the data were made more robust through the reciprocity and reflexivity inherent in ethically researching with (not on) SfRBs and through multiple cross‐site research team interactions.

AB - This paper discusses the methodological and logistical complexities that underpin multi‐method, multi‐sited, multi‐phased research with vulnerable communities. The project on which we draw was a 3‐year Australian government‐funded, longitudinal and cross‐sectional exploration of students from refugee backgrounds (SfRBs) as they moved into, through and out of higher education from three different contexts, educational pathways and localities in Australia. While all students entering and participating in higher education may experience challenges, for SfRBs these are compounded by their linguistic and cultural diversity, instability, possible trauma and disrupted schooling. In the project presented in this article, these complexities and their relationships with transitions to higher education were captured through diverse methods and methodologies at three research sites, including longitudinal research with repeat interviews and cross‐sectional, explorative methods. The opportunities provided by this methodological approach far outweighed the ethical and practical difficulties navigated by each of the research teams. The ‘thick’ data produced through prolonged and repeat engagements with a small cohort of participants at one site were made richer through explorations of differing social and geographical contexts across all three sites. Further, our collective interpretations of the data were made more robust through the reciprocity and reflexivity inherent in ethically researching with (not on) SfRBs and through multiple cross‐site research team interactions.

U2 - 10.1002/rev3.3133

DO - 10.1002/rev3.3133

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 5

EP - 32

JO - Review of Education

T2 - Review of Education

JF - Review of Education

SN - 2049-6613

IS - 1

ER -