CHAPTER 8 TEACHING AND LEADERSHIP
4.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.4.4 Individual interviews
Semi-structured, flexible and informal one-on-one interviews were conducted. These interviews were between one and two hours in duration. These teachers had been identified by their principals as teachers who display leadership abilities when teaching their classes (see section 4.4.1 above on respondents).
The interviews took place at the school of each teacher or at a place of the teacher’s choosing and were expected to provide indications of their understanding of the concept of leadership, of what it involves in the context of teaching and learning, and of the possibilities and potential of the teacher’s leadership role. Whilst each teacher was interviewed once, there was also continuous interchange between the teachers and myself, as we met before, during and after the lessons that I subsequently observed. (I observed each teacher teaching three lessons.)
While the focus of the interviews centred on the pre-prepared questions, issues that were of possible relevance were also explored when they arose out of the responses. This action was in keeping with the research ‘wisdom’ described by Babbie and Mouton (2004, p.
289):
The basic individual interview is one of the most frequently used methods of data gathering within the qualitative approach. It differs from most other types of interview in that it is an open interview which allows the object of study to speak for him, her or itself.
The semi-structured and informal (see above) nature of the interviews allowed for further questioning and discussion as inspired by the initial responses, with the conversation yielding rich insights as it deviated from the original question. Goodson (2008, p. 37) warns against over-structuring interviews:
98 As researchers (and like all human beings!) we like to be in control,
to feel we are getting the data we want. Paradoxically, this often leads to poorer data, so let me propose a rule – The more we prescribe our questions, the more we structure our enquires before the interview, the less we will learn.
My intention from the outset was to indulge in dialogue (sharing discussion, meaning and relationships), using an informal style of interviewing. It was my sense that the conducting of the interviews should resemble the conducting of effective conversations. As such, my role as the interviewer was that of (1) careful listener, sensitive to stories and feelings, (2) prompter, asking relevant questions to explore any particular focus or point, and (3) open- hearted, grateful encourager who allows for the subject’s views to provide the meaningful bulk of the interchange. Foley and Valenzuela (2005, p. 223) describe their own use of a conversational or ‘dialogic’ style of interviewing, which encouraged greater participation from their subjects:
We interviewed in a very informal manner […]. A more open-ended, conversational interviewing style generated more engaged personal narratives and more candid opinions.
Similarly, Fontana and Frey (2005) presented their well-supported argument that interviewing ought not to be merely a neutral exchange of question and answer around a topic, but rather that of people (one-on-one or in groups) involved in a collaborative effort that leads to a story within the context of the topic.
Rubin and Rubin (1995, p. 43) have made a similar comment on qualitative research interviewing design; they propose that it be “flexible, iterative and continuous rather than prepared in advance and locked in stone.” By “iterative” they mean that “each time you repeat the basic process of gathering information, analysing it, winnowing it and testing it, you come closer to a clear and convincing model of the phenomenon you are studying”
(Rubin and Rubin, 1995, pp. 46-47). I encouraged the respondents in every way possible to feel unencumbered and unrestrained in their freedom of expression and line of thought.
99 4.4.5. Focus group interviews
The term ‘focus group’ was first used in 1956 by Merton, Fiske and Kendall. They coined it to refer to the situation where a researcher asks a group of participants specific and articulate questions about a topic. With regard to group interviews, Kitzinger (1995, p. 1) writes:
Focus groups are a form of group interview that capitalises on communication between research participants in order to generate data […] instead of the researcher asking each person to respond to a question in turn, people are encouraged to talk to one another asking questions, exchanging anecdotes and commenting on each others’
experiences and points of view.
Five semi-structured focus group interviews were used as an additional data collection method. Each of these focus groups lasted between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half hours. One focus group took place at each of five different schools. The focus groups were comprised of a mixed set: in each group there were between three and eight post-level-one teachers as well as teachers operating in promotion posts (e.g. principals, deputy principals and heads of department, all of whom are still actively engaged in teaching).
It was my experience that the focus group interviews benefited the research greatly through the flexibility of discussion that they allowed. In addition, differing views as well as certain consensuses were provided. The focus group interviews offered the researcher the opportunity to draw on wide-ranging and rich experiences in his search for a response to the study’s questions of what it is that teachers understand by ‘leadership of pupils in a class’ and of what they think about how and why leadership occurs or does not occur. On a number of occasions there was disagreement, discussion and debate on certain aspects of teacher leadership, and this enriched the thought processes of all concerned. In order to allow for a completely independent set of views on the topic, the focus groups did not include any of the four respondents that were interviewed individually and then observed whilst teaching.