CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH DESIGN
4.5 METHODS
4.5.1 Interviews
"The interview is ...notjust a device for gathering information.Itis a process of reality construction to which both parties contribute and by which both are affected"
(WoodsI996:53). A research interview can be defined as " ... a two person conversation initiated by the interviewer for the specific purpose of obtaining research-relevant information, and focussed by him on content specified by research objectives of systematic description, prediction or explanation" (Cohen and Manion 1994:271). The interview is a short-term relationship that must be carefully constructed.Itis a social relationship that "gives us an opportunity to get to know people quite intimately so that
we can really understand how they think and feel" (Terre Blanche and Kelly 2002: 128).
Interviewers have to be mindful of the need to show understanding, respect, interest and attention during interviews (Woods 1996).
In this research study, use was made of semi-structured interviews. Hitchcock and Hughes note that a semi-structured interview
... allows depth to be achieved by providing the opportunity on the part of the interviewer to probe and expand the interviewee's responses.... Some kind of balance between the interviewer and the interviewee can develop which can provide room for negotiation, discussion, and expansion of the interviewee's responses. (Hitchcock and Hughes 1989:83).
The advantage of the semi-structured interview is that the interviewer is in control of the process of obtaining information from the interviewee, but is free to follow new leads as they arise. It allows the researcher flexibility and freedom to probe issues that surface in the interview. To facilitate such a process, use was made of 'open-ended' questions that do not place restrictions on either the content or the manner of the interviewee's
responses. Cohen and Manion summarise the advantages of open-ended questions as follows:
Open-ended questions are. " are flexible; they allow the interviewer to probe; so that she may go into more depth if she chooses, or clear up any misunderstandings; they enable the researcher to test the limits of the respondent's knowledge; they encourage co- operation and help to establish rapport; and they help the interviewer to make a truer assessment of what the respondent really believes. Open-ended questions can also result in unexpected or unanticipated answers which may suggest hitherto unthought-of relationships or hypothesis (Cohen and Manion 1997:277).
In adopting the above conception of the research interview, the issues of reliability and validity become 'redundant' as " ... every interpersonal situation may be said to be valid, as such, whether it conforms to expectation, whether or not it involves a high degree of communication, and whether or not the participants emerge exhilarated or depressed"
(Cohen and Manion 1994:282). The problem of partial or inaccurate information generated in interviews, may be at least partially dealt with through the process of triangulation. Walford (2001) questions the use of interviews as a sole method of data
collection. He questions whether concentration on the spoken word actually distorts the understanding of the cultures that researchers seek to describe.
As my relationship with the teachers developed, they willingly allowed me into their schools and classrooms I knew that I was 'in' or as Walford (2001:85) describes it,
" ... the natives had built me a hut." With increased access, I realised that there was no need for the second interview as the field notes supplanted interviews as a source of data collection. Most research is actually more interested in what people do than what they say they do (Walford 2001). In the case of classroom research, 'what they do' may well include spoken language, but it is spoken language in a particular context of ongoing naturally occurring classroom activity. What people say when they are interviewed should be treated with extreme care. According to Delamont (2002), interviews can produce data quickly, but they are different from, and inferior to, proper observational fieldwork. The important issue to consider is that of 'fitness for purpose', namely, what method is most suitable to achieve the desired objective.
The nature of the interview is an unusual affair in that the socially accepted rules of conversation and reciprocity between people are suspended (Walford 2001). The
interviewer selects the topic to be covered. The views of the interviewee are taken to have lasting importance, to be recorded for future analysis. There is a strong irony in the way that" '" so much modem qualitative research relies on tape recorded interviews as a main data source, for qualitative research ... grew in part in reaction to positivistic and
experimental research that once held sway" (ibid.:89). Experimental methods are castigated as setting up unreal situations, yet within qualitative research, many
researchers construct strange and artificial situations called 'interviews' and often use the results of these situations as the core of their writing.
What people tell us in interviews is often not to be trusted. People unconsciously take the interview opportunity to reconstruct a desirable or preferred identity (Walford 2001).
Identity is created rather than revealed through narrative. Because life is uncertain, people
tryto make sense of their worlds through interviews. Interviews provide an occasion to present a reasonably rational image of their uncertainty (ibid.).
Often it may be very time consuming to wait for information to be generated in naturally occurring situations. Some information might not be generated in naturally occurring situations no matter how long the researcher waits. The interview therefore gives the chance for particular questions to be asked that cannot be asked in any other situation.
This type of situation is reasonable for the use of interviews as long as the results are treated with sufficient scepticism (Walford 2001).
Qualitative researchers involved in participant observation can be easily 'seduced' by the tape-recorded interview. Participant observation can be a frustrating experience that requires patience to sit and wait for data to be generated. In contrast, a tape-recorded interview provides immediate 'hard' data in the " ... soft, uncomfortably insecure and always uncertain world of qualitative research" (Walford 2001 :93). Delamont (2002: 122) strongly supports the use of observational research as superior to other forms of data collection methods, and declares:
I am totally convinced that observational data, gathered over a long period of immersion, are superior to any others. The fashion for replacing proper fieldwork with either unstructured interviews or focus groups or the collection of narratives ... is thoroughly bad. Such data are only interesting or useful to provide foreshadowed problems before observation or extra insight after it. Proper fieldwork is time-consuming, interviewing is a quick fix. Proper fieldwork is like a casserole: it should simmer for a long time at low heat. Interviewing is a take-away chow mein; it lacks authenticity and does not satisfy for long - 'data to go'.
With regard to transcribing interviews, there can be no firm rules about transcription (Walford 2001). There is no need to fully transcribe more than a few interviews for any research study. Researchers could listen to the whole of each tape using a tape player with a counter.Itis often more useful to conduct the analysis using the original tape recordings rather than the transcripts (ibid.). The tape recording itself is not an accurate record of a conversation, as even the most thorough transcription cannot capture the
physical context, the complex body language between participants, the pace, accent, accentuation and the tone and melody of the speech. The conversation is reduced to symbols on a page (Walford 2001:94). " ...transcription can give the impression of permanence to something that is inherently transitory" (ibid.:95).Ithas the effect of turning an ephemeral event into something 'concrete' and fixed. It also encourages the possibility of the spoken word being taken too seriously and often out of context. While using tape recordings instead of transcripts may avert the possibility of this happening, it may allow the researcher to remember the" ... complexity of the human condition and the context of construction of particular discourses" (ibid.:95). Delamont (2002) concurs that using a tape recorder does not absolve the researcher from making good notes, keeping a diary and reflecting on the social context of the interview.
Inthis research study, I made use of semi-structured interviews. The interview schedules used in the Graven (2002) study of Mathematics teachers' learning proved useful.
Selected questions were adapted for use in the present study of EMS teachers. My original plan was to interview participants at three points in during the project. This would have entailed an initial interview that would be used to capture baseline
information, including teachers' biographies, their perceptions of EMS and their abilities to teach EMS, and their reasons for participation in the study. The second interview was intended to capture a mid-term review of teachers' experiences. A final interview would provide a summative view of teachers' experience. As mentioned earlier, my constant interaction with teachers as a result of the extended time I spent with them in their schools and classrooms obviated the need for the second 'formal' interview. Data gathered from observation and informal conversations were recorded in my journal.
Inorder to enhance the validity of the initial interview schedule, it was piloted with two EMS teachers who had elected not to be participants for the full duration of the project.
These two teachers were 'peripheral' members who alternated their attendance at TEMS workshops with other teachers from their schools. This piloting allowed me to check the instrument for clarity and meaningfulness of questions. This was in keeping with
Wragg's suggestion for the enhancement of instrument validity (Wragg 2001). The
interview schedule was presented to the participants one week prior to the interview so that they could think about the issues raised and provide some depth in their answers as opposed to providing superficial answers 'off the cuff'. Participants were at liberty to refrain from answering any question they deemed 'sensitive'. All participants, however, were happy to answer all questions posed. All interviews were conducted at participants' schools, except for one that was conducted at a participant's home. This was at the request of the participant. Each interview lasted for approximately thirty minutes. During the interview I used a series of prompts and probes in order to make the meaning of the responses clearer. All interviews were audio taped and transcribed. From the set of seven initial interviews, I personally transcribed the first two interviews. This process allowed me to reflect on the interview process and to begin a tentative analysis of the interview data. A preliminary interview report was compiled and presented to each participant for verification. Such a strategy enhances the 'internal validity' and accuracy of the data (Cresswell 1994). Apart from a few minor changes and initial anxieties at seeing their spoken words in text, all teachers were satisfied that the interview report was an accurate reflection of their biography, their perceptions of EMS and the reasons for their
participation in the research study.
Inthe later analysis of the interview data, I was mindful of Delamont's (2002) warning that when gathering data it is wise to lookout for 'contrastive rhetoric and rosy-trimmed nostalgia'. Participants may believe that the past was better. The researcher's task is to record such views and to be mindful of believing them.
4.5.2 .Keeping ajournal
Journal entries were made regularly, at least once a week. Field notes are an indispensable data source (Anderson 1999). These should contain everything the researcher finds worthwhile. Field notes are the researcher's detailed and descriptive record of the research experience, including observations, a reconstruction of dialogue, personal reflections, a physical reflection of the setting, and decisions made that alter and direct the research process. Delamont (2002) argues that field notes are not a closed,
completed, final text: rather, they are indeterminate, subject to reading, rereading, coding, recording, interpreting, and reinterpreting. She also notes that most researchers are protective about their field notes. They are rarely seen by anyone other than their author, and not discussed.
My journal served several purposes. Recording entries allowed me to capture and organise my observations during workshops or after informal conversations with participants. My role during initial workshops entailed making a professional input at TEMS workshops. While performing this role, I was also performing a role as researcher, observing and recording data for research purposes, adopting the role of 'participant as observer' (Merriam 1998).
This research study was characterised by an emergent design in that initial data collected influenced how the TEMS research project was to unfold, the nature of the lesson
observations, and the framing of the final interview. The journal allowed me to reflect on and analyse my observations and conversations with teachers and principals, as well as on observations during the workshop sessions. The journal was a key instrument that influenced the form and shape of this research study.
My journal writing, which I made available to my supervisor, served as a basis for discussions during supervisory sessions. Italso served as an important data source for the preparation of two conference papers.
My initial 'writings' in the journal proved to be a frustrating and painful exercise. I would often have to remind myself of the need to write. I sometimes experienced difficulty deciding what to write about. My revisiting the work of Delamont (2002), Wragg (2001) and Walford (2001) was useful in helping me understand the effective use and value of maintaining a purposeful and efficient journal. While the writing was relatively free- flowing, from my re-reading (at later stages in the research process), I could detect that my initial writing was not as free flowing as it could have been. I found that I was in fact writing in a style that would allow for easy comprehension by my supervisor. As I
became more comfortable with the research process and the requirements of an effective journal writing style, I was able to pen my thoughts and ideas as they occurred to me. I
used a system of writing up points I wanted to describe into a notebook I had especially for this purpose. I would then capture and save this onto my computer in a more
comprehensive fashion. While I did not pay attention to any kind of close editing, issues of language and spelling automatically showed up and were corrected at that point. The writing, to a large extent, became more relaxed and spontaneous as the research process unfolded. This final research report contains several extracts from my journal, and each extract appears in its original form.