cognitive world that is unseen, unheard and only indirectly knowable"(ibid.). In order to
be able to collect, analyse and interpret this type of data, Freeman opts for what he calls
second order research whose aim is to "uncover and to document (people's)
understandings (of phenomena) and not the phenomena themselves" (ibid., 365). In other
words, research is not aimed at the world but at people's ideas about the world. This way
of regarding research fits perfectly into my discussion on learner's beliefs about self-
directed learning (see p.95 and the difference between first and second order systems p.
100) and my intention to delve into this especially important part of learners'
metacognitive knowledge (see 4.4, 115).
This view also requires a well-defined position on the part of the researcher.
Thus, Freeman calls for an involved researcher whose aim is to become an insider of the
target culture, "who you are”, he says, “shapes what you get" (1997). In this sense, I
would say that interpretation is not complete without the participation of the researcher.
This is one of the most important elements of ethnographic rationale, which is overtly
opposed to the objective stance of the positivist researcher. "Ethnographic truths", says
Clifford, "are...partial -committed and incomplete" (1986). In ethnographic research, one
cannot claim to be objective or neutral, one can only be aware of, and admit, one's
involvement and subjectivity and, I will also add, take advantage of it.
Along with his emic stance, Freeman argues for an emic approach to second
language learning and teaching research, saying that the stories of the teachers are
valuable and need to be taken into consideration (This is clearly opposed to Holliday’s
anti-emic position). He calls for a “presentational approach” (1996b) for studying and
interpreting language data, arguing that the use of linguistic knowledge and its "nature,
form, and social dimensions" (1996a,l) are perfect tools for the hermeneutic researcher.
For him,
language provides the pivotal link in the data collection between the unseen
mental worlds of the participants and the public world of the research process
(1996a,365)
As the reader can see, there are several points in Freeman's ethnographic
approach that converge with my own research. However, I cannot say that I carried out
my study in the way he carries out his. Apart from the fact that he is mainly working
with teachers who work in classrooms and his focus is on teachers' thinking while mine
is on learners', there is another aspect which does not meet the special requirements of
my study. The main way in which he gathers data from his informants is through