The roots of this research process are based in the principles of action research. Stringer (1999) presented the action-research, interacting spiral of “look, think, and act” (p. 19). In this project, I set out to work with ECs, in a cycle of action research, where they look at their roles, think about what they need, and then choose to act in a manner appropriate to their life conditions. Similarly the sponsoring organization, National Indigenous Literacy Association (NILA), was expected to look at the results of this research, think about the ways they can leverage support, and take action that helps to fulfill their mandate of improving the literacy skills of Aboriginal people in Canada. This research project falls into a category described as a mixed-method approach. Miller and Fredericks (2006), in their article on mixed-methods research, were somewhat critical of the lack of procedures available for mixed-methods researchers. They did, however, claim that “of the MM [mixed-method] models available, the one that seems to be the most useful for evaluation research is the sequential mixed-method design (which could be confirmatory or exploratory)” (p. 572). Keeping this in mind, the intent was to use more than one type of data collection and compare the results to explore and confirm findings.

The primary data were collected through a qualitative research approach. Glesne (1999) confirmed this method of collection for me in the quote: “Qualitative studies are best at contributing a greater understanding of perceptions, attitudes and processes” (p. 29). This best described how I intended that the research lead the ECs toward a shared vision and a greater understanding of their jobs. By engaging the ECs in significant dialogue and reflection, there was greater benefit and more opportunities to present issues within a meaningful context for all stakeholders.