3. Research process
3.1. Phase 1: Preparation phase
3.2.1. Data collection process
3.2.1.1. Data set 1: Primary voices
The data sources included audio diaries or journals, unstructured interviews as well as artifacts, such as school reports, paintings by informants and collages constructed during the data collection phase. The usefulness of diaries is well documented in the literature (Cole & Knowles, 2001, Goodson & Sykes, 2001, Plummer, 2001). Audio diaries/ journals were used as reflective journals, where the child recorded his/her experiences on a random basis. This method was selected rather than a written journal due to the negative feelings and difficulty children with learning disabilities may have with written language.
Each informant was provided with the necessary resources to keep an audio journal. S/he was encouraged to record initially by a reminder telephone call from the researcher and a reward system (tangible reward such as sweets or movie tickets) for recorded entries. Attempts to get regular entries were abandoned as I did not want to compromise the purpose of the journal.
It was important that it serve as an outlet, or an opportunity to discuss something at any point, rather than become a chore. The informants were made aware of the fact that all recorded information may be used as data for the study. They were however assured of anonymity and confidentiality.
Artifacts (Cole & Knowles, 2001) such as photographs, school books and artwork selected by the informants were included as data sources, where these were introduced by the informants during interviews or requested by me to support or supplement comments made in audio journals. Each informant was asked to provide a “life-map” (Gray & Ridden, 1999) or a collage depicting the way they see their school experiences as a supplementary form of data. Alerby (2003) stresses the importance of using more than just verbal or written forms of expression, particularly in a study about experiences. I found this resulted in some powerful data. What did not emerge or was even denied in the interviews, emerged in the collages, audio journals and miscellaneous written submissions such as a short essay submitted by informant H. after her second interview, and a written journal
Data collection instruments were developed and refined during phase one. Scott (1997:157) suggests that using interviews, document analysis and observation enables the researcher to “construct events through the eyes of key informants” which is what I set out to do. As the researcher I was the primary instrument in that I guided and influenced different aspects of the research (Cole & Knowles, 2001:10, Creswell, 1994:145, Harry, 1996:292). Denzin and Lincoln (2003:48) stress that the interview “is not a neutral tool, for at least two people create the reality of the interview situation.” I am aware that I too contributed to the dialogue, and was not merely a neutral observer (Meier, 1998).
Strategies included unstructured interviews or guided conversations conducted with informants to elicit biographies. Occasional prompts or
“pointers” were necessary to focus the interview (Scott, 1997:165). In other words interviews were conversations, or what Salter (1998) describes as “interviews as chat,” bound only by time and context (Cole & Knowles, 2001, Goodson & Sykes, 2001). The informants and I therefore produced what Bargdill (2000:193) refers to as “individual situated narratives.” This was an inductive research process, where issues arising out of the data shaped future interviews (Creswell, 1994, Guterman, 1995, Meier, 1998).
The interviews were organized according to Oplatka’s (2001) stages, that is an opening stage, a discussion stage, which focused on school experiences, and then developed into more detailed conversations elaborating on specific experiences. An interview schedule was prepared in order to provide prompts to guide the conversation.18
The importance of an appropriate entry to the interview and the need to develop a trusting and nurturing relationship between the researcher and informant is stressed by Connelly and Clandinin (1990). I set up each initial interview by giving my own brief biography and revealed my own interest in their stories. As most of my informants were pre-adolescents during the data collection /interview period, I found that the narration of their “life
with LD” stories was not as flowing and without interruption as suggested by Kazmierska (2004). However I attempted to keep the probes broad, such as “tell me more” and “let’s chat about that a bit more,” particularly where a specific event or experience was described. My feeling was that if this was something the informant had chosen to include in the telling of their story, even to exemplify a feeling, then the incident could be viewed as a
“pinpoint” in the narrative. I listened to my informants first and gave them
“the time and space to tell their stories” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990:4).
However by virtue of being a listener I became a co-author of the stories (Kazmierska, 2004, Meier, 1998). My nonverbal responses to their stories, agreement, interjections and even questioning for them to elaborate on or clarify points would all have shaped the narratives to some extent.
A “feminist interviewing ethic” was used which Denzin and Lincoln (2003:48) describe as requiring:
… openness, emotional engagement, and the development of a potentially long-term, trusting relationship between the interviewer and the subject….[ as well as transforming]
interviewer and respondent into co-equals who are carrying on a conversation about mutually relevant, often
biographically critical issues.
I therefore attempted to present myself as a caring co-equal with the informants, with equal power between us. Graaff, Reed and Shay (2004:63) describe the qualities of a researcher thus: “researchers must be resilient, patient, persistent, meticulous, passionate, personally involved.” My own personal characteristics of compassion and empathy, and my training in a so-called “helping profession” were an asset in this process. In fact Denzin and Lincoln stress the benefit of such a background:
… the clinically oriented qualitative researcher can…
create spaces for those who are the studied ( the other) to speak. The evaluator becomes the conduit through which such voices can be heard (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003:38).
There was however a conflict within me at times as I tried to tread the fine line that separated me as therapist and me as researcher. Meier (1998) mentions the tension he experienced being a researcher/ interviewer and his training as a therapist, that resulted in him wanting to help and provide support or intervene rather than just interview participants. I felt this too, especially with A. who had such difficulty expressing himself due to his word finding difficulty and his dysfluency. The speech-language clinician- Me had to listen quietly while he struggled, and not give in to the temptation to provide phonemic and semantic cues to help with word retrieval, or to suggest fluency techniques when his fluency broke down.
This tension was also evident when M. reported an incident of cheating in a school test and the interviewer-Me just wanted to capture this data; the therapist-Me wanted to reassure her that all would be alright and it was understandable that she felt so pressurised, and the mother–Me wanted to reprimand her for her dishonesty!
There were two types of interviews due to my differing relationships with the informants. Certainly the interviews with my daughter, with whom I have a “primary relationship” (Bailey, 1987) can be described as
“phenomenal interviews” (Massarik, 1981) in that there were often no clear boundaries to the interviews – they were ongoing, because of our access to each other. In addition to this there were times when her behaviour was used either as a cue to an interview or where I could ask her to record an entry in her audio journal. I was more privy to her day to day experiences and therefore was able to ask questions and “collect data” at unexpected times. In addition to this the trust between myself as interviewer and M. as interviewee, particularly the trust that I would tell her story, was apparent when she recounted an incident where she cheated on a test at school. This is discussed in detail in Chapter Four but I mention it here as evidence of the “maximal mutuality of trust” described by Massarik (1981) as typical of this type in interview.
The interviews with the other informants could be described as “depth
the interviewer is genuinely concerned with the interviewee as a person, going beyond search for delimited information input. In turn… the interviewee sufficiently reciprocates this feeling, valuing the interviewer’s motives and seeking to respond inappropriate depth (Massarik, 1981:203)
With these informants I have what Bailey (1987) refers to as a “secondary relationship,” one which had a specific purpose and that was to elicit data for this research.
There were at least three interviews with each of the informants over an 18 month period, the first two covering a specific scholastic phase and the third focusing directly on the LD. The extended period was selected to allow for the development of a relationship between the researcher and the informants. The time spent interviewing each participant varied, as three submitted more detailed audio and/ or written journals and even collages.
However on average I had 5-6 hours of recorded data (including interviews and audio journals) per participant, ranging from 5 hours for the most reticent informant (2 interviews and 3 audio journal entries) to over 10 hours (3 interviews, 6 audio journal entries) plus visual representations/
pictures from the most garrulous informant! For one informant scheduling of the third interview became difficult and when it was cancelled after being re-scheduled three times, I decided that for this participant this seemed to mark the end of the data collection process and further interviews were not pursued. Data collection from the informant who was my daughter is difficult to quantify, as although she was also interviewed and kept both an audio and written journal for a time, interviewing often happened on an ad hoc basis.
The data were collected in different contexts, as the setting in which communication takes place dictates to some extent the nature and type of information that may be forthcoming (Cole & Knowles, 2001, Kazmierska, 2004, Van der Gaag & Dormandy, 1993). Interviews therefore took place at the informant’s home, as well as on one occasion a coffee shop. I was aware that the informants’ responses could be shaped by my age, gender,
race, dress as well as the interview setting (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). There was little I could do about my age, being at least 30 years older than my informants, but I believed it was important that I conduct the interviews myself due to my background and relationship to some of the participants. I therefore had to pay attention to “my presentational self” (Fontana & Frey, 2003:77), establish a rapport with my informants and gain their trust. I consequently attempted to dress “down” (Bailey, 1987) that is, as informally as possible, usually in jeans, and wore minimal make-up. I stressed that I wanted to learn from my informants, that they in fact had the answers and the knowledge I sought. I believe that through the data collection process there was a gradual shifting of the balance of power between me and the informants, particularly the older ones and those where I had a pre-existing relationship. True, I remained an adult, but beyond that they were aware that they held the power in terms of what they told, how much they told, and for M. in particular, this extended to when it was told.
Elbow (1986, cited in Connelly & Clandinin, 1990:4) refers to a researcher playing “the believing game.” I am critical of this terminology, because by implication it does not support an equality of power: by referring to a
“believing game” Elbow seems to suggest there should be a winner and a loser, a move out of reality and truth into fantasy. I believe this is the ultimate disempowering of the informant or narrator of the story, to say the listener/ researcher is playing a believing game. There was in fact a mutual shaping of the data (Meier, 1998); I was therefore as culpable as my informants in this process. I am also aware that the informants and even I as researcher have “multiple selves”(Connelly & Clandinin, 1990) and as a researcher these different selves may elicit different responses to questions.
Although I certainly found that with my daughter I got a different level and perhaps quantity of data, I found all the informants provided data of a similar nature, in other words the areas covered and the stories told echoed each other.
Data emerged in a linear process (Meier, 1998) with stories being told in a chronological fashion. I found that experiences were not unique and there was a similarity in the way the stories unfolded.