Chapter 3 Research methodology
3.4 Life story interviews
Chapter 3 Research methodology
Teachers’ memories are important tools because it is from these memory banks that the teacher-learner is constructed and reconstructed. “Memory is made as a quilt is made.
From the whole cloth of time, frayed scraps of sensation are pulled apart and pieced together in a pattern that has a name” (Stafford, 1991, p. 15). Narrative inquiry allowed the teachers in this study to “give voice to each individual form of unconscious, to every desire and need [...
to] call into play the identity and/or language of the individual and the group” (Kristeva, 1991 cited in Peters, 1996, p. 60). It also allowed me to use the tools of observation as proposed by Webster & Mertova (2007), such as documentation (certificates, letters, policies, and photographs), interviews and transcripts. I collected artefacts such as photographs, newspaper articles, letters and certificates from the teachers and, as suggested by Creswell (1996), these were used to “trigger” the memories of the participants. As teachers were sharing their stories they would make reference to a particular artefact. Teachers obtained permission from the other people in the photographs to use these photographs in the study.
Chapter 3 Research methodology
usually as a result of a guided interview by another.” The life-story interviews served an important function this study about the self and self-directed learning in that it is “interested in exploring personal truths” (Kathard, 2009, p. 19).
By using life-story interviews I was able to gain insight into the social, historical, educational and political backgrounds of the teachers which played in a crucial role in the construction of their fluid identities, as well as into the otherwise private world of the teachers which helped me to understand their learning choices and practices. By using the life-story interviews I was able to identify the character in the narrative – “who” are these teachers who are engaging in self-directed learning and change. Life-story interviews gave me insight into how teachers make sense of their lives, the shaping of their identities and the practices of their self-directed learning. I selected the unstructured interview approach because it granted me more freedom as a researcher; also the style is free-flowing and more conversational. I was able to generate and generate questions as the interview progressed and I could ask appropriate questions to get a better understanding of, and to clarify the teacher’s life and practices of learning.
During the interviews I did not offer opinions on the topic being discussed but kept participants focused on describing the critical moments in their lives by prompting them with relevant questions. Participants were encouraged to interpret as precisely as possible their feelings and behaviours regarding their learning and change, as advocated by Johnson and Colombek (2002). After the interviews were recorded and transcribed, I asked the participants to endorse the interview transcripts and then grouped the information from the interviews into themes. As suggested by Reissman (2008, pp. 53-54), I focused on “what” the research participants said rather than “how”, “to whom” or “for what purposes”. On the few occasions when I needed clarification regarding a particular issue, I contacted the participant telephonically.
3.4.1 Interpreting the field texts
I am aware of the power that I have as researcher and interpreter of the field texts so I constantly collaborated with the research participants on my re-presentation of the narratives. Whilst the research process was unfolding a relationship between the participants and myself was developing and, as Pinnegar and Daynes (2007, p. 9) point out, “both parties will learn and change in the encounter”. Being a teacher-researcher, I was constantly
Chapter 3 Research methodology
challenged to improve my practice as a teacher as I listened to the research participants. The relationship between the participants and I remained open as I asked them to share the critical moments in their lives that they felt had shaped their development as teacher-learners. As a researcher, I didn’t know which critical incidents were important to them or which incidents they would identify as being critical in the formation of their fluid identities, so I allowed them freedom in the selection of these critical moments. Had I used a more structured approach in my research I would have missed the “thick description” (Geertz, 1973; Lincoln
& Guba, 1985) that participants offered which allowed me an in-depth look into the “who”,
“what” and “why” of self-directed learning.
Both the researcher and the researched are changed through the interchange of information during the research process. It is impossible not to change, grow and be inspired as the researcher-researched relationship goes into a very private place – the participants’
memory. As teachers shared very personal information of personal struggles of suffering, abuse and failed relationships, I was allowed access into their worlds. I was challenged by their personal struggles and their unstinting commitment to learn and change as teachers.
Their stories motivated me to become a better teacher myself and gave me ideas on how to improve my own practice as a teacher.
After listening to Tasneem’s story, I feel so inspired. She has really opened her heart to the community in which she works. She actually goes into her learners’ homes to investigate the reason/s for their poor performance and non-attendance at school. Many principals will be afraid to enter into particular areas due to safety reasons and rather ask Governing Body members to conduct the home visit. It is clear that Tasneem takes her role as manager of the school very seriously and takes a personal interest in her learners and is also there to support her teachers.
Chapter 3 Research methodology
3.4.2 Retelling the stories
Narratives are a collaborative process, as Neander and Skott (cited in Riessman, 2008, p. 21) state: “the researcher does not find narratives but instead participates in their creation.” I became a participant in the narrative as soon as I invited the teachers in the study to share the critical moments in their lives with me. The questions that I asked in order to prompt them to share their stories with me also made me a participant. I became what Andrews, Squire and Tambokou (2008, p. 6) describe as “the audience for which the story was being told”.
As part of the collaborative process I requested that the research participants check the narratives to ascertain whether I had captured their stories correctly. During this collaborative process I also studied documentation and photographs that were given to me by the teachers. The documents included certificates of attendance at workshops and seminars, letters from learners, teachers, governmental and non-governmental organisations, newspaper articles, magazine articles and photographs. These artefacts aided the teachers to better articulate their stories. The choices they made in the selection of the material also signalled what was important to them as teacher-learners. In allowing teachers to select material that would be read together with the narratives and in collaborating with them on the retelling of their stories, they were also part of the “voice” that emerged in the text.
3.4.3 Trustworthiness, rigour and believability
In representing the stories, I had to take into account issues of trustworthiness, rigour and believability. I had to ensure that the narratives reflected what the research participants had said and that the “participant’s viewpoints, thoughts, intentions, and experiences are accurately understood and reported” (Pulkkinen, 2003, p. 34). In order to validate my account of the narratives I carried out member-checking with the research participants. This was done both formally and informally during the interview process, the writing process and when the
“final” version of the narratives was complete.
Member-checking was an important process for me because it gives credibility to this study. It also allowed the participants an opportunity to correct information and to challenge any of my interpretations. There was some information that the research participants offered for inclusion in the study that I felt uncomfortable listening to, for example one of the participants disclosed that she had been abused by one of her close
Chapter 3 Research methodology
relatives. She insisted that this information should be included because it had shaped her life in many ways. She attributed the insecurities that she experienced in later professional relationships to that particular abuse. Some information that was originally omitted during the interviews was later added during the member-checking process whilst other information had to be revised because some of the respondents felt it might be problematic for those involved.
Some shared very personal information with me concerning their lives, which is not included in this study because of its sensitive nature.
After reading the narratives, some of the participants offered more information or clarification regarding certain issues which they felt were important and that they had merely glossed over. Member-checking allowed participants the chance assess the narratives and to confirm particular aspects of the data. Member-checking also proved to be challenging for me when some of the participants changed their minds about including particular incidents in their story or felt that what they had said would cause problems if the people mentioned read the study.
After reading the draft copy of the narrative one of the research participant sent the following message via short message service (SMS) to me:
In retrospect I think that some of my comments would cause offense to the many people I mentioned. I’m having a serious re-think about using pseudo names [sic] in those cases. I wish I could redo so much as my focus has changed since then. So much has happened since our interviews, I have been very ill. I was diagnosed with multi-resistant TB of the eye, been on sick leave in 2009; treatment was radical and life altering. Now I have limited vision, hearing difficulties, etc. Back at school this year but I am finding it very difficult. But more than anything, I still want to be a teacher. Coming so close to death and being incapacitated has made me more reflective on my entire life and what lies ahead. I feel that the interviews reveal how naive and blasé I was about meaningful activities.
SMS: 5 March 2012
Chapter 3 Research methodology
The above SMS reveals that the near-death experience prompted the participant to reconsider aspects of her story that she had shared with me. It provoked her to rework her meanings of self, of others and of her practice as a teacher-learner. Allowing teachers in this study to change aspects of their stories, to add or delete sections, gave them “authorship”
over their stories.
The final narratives were also given to the research participants for their comments.
The final draft was peer reviewed by two critical readers to ensure rigour and believability.
Both suggested changes that should be made and posed challenges to my interpretations, which I had to defend or justify. After reviewing the comments from the critical readers and the research participants I made the final changes to the narratives.
3.5 Developing a framework for analysing the narratives: a multi-layered