CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.4. Methods of data collection
3.4.1. The interview process
With the emphasis on learners’ identities, it seemed that interviews would be the most direct way to access these. I view the process of interviewing,
as not simply about the giving and receiving of information but at least as much about speaking identities into being, solidifying them and constantly reconstituting them through the stories we tell ourselves and each other (Epstein & Johnson, 1998, p. 34)
Feminists have written a great deal in an attempt to theorise the role of the interviewer and the focus of this work has been power, understood in terms of the relative positioning of the interviewer and interviewee within social structures, notably those of gender, class, age and race. In research focussing on gender it is significant that I am a woman and Finch (1993, p.
35) argues “that in woman-to-woman interviews, the fact that both parties share a subordinate structural position by virtue of their gender makes a special interview
relationship possible”. It was unavoidable that I took my age, race, professional position, class, gender and bias into every interview.
I sent out letters to each participant three weeks prior to the week in which I wished to conduct the interviews. The letters detailed the time, date and venue of the interview (see Appendix 9) and I asked each participant to ensure that this specific date and time suited them and did not interfere with any extra curricular activities they were committed to. This was important as I had undertaken as far as possible not to disrupt their educational programme in any way. I refer the reader back to the introduction chapter for full details of the six participants aged between fifteen and sixteen. The interviews varied in both length, ranging from twenty five minutes to fifty minutes, and in formality.
I decided to conduct the interviews in the Learning Resources Centre, away from the main academic buildings and all but one of the interviews was conducted there. My reason for conducting the interviews here was that this was the most neutral, environment in the school and there was a small sound proof room that could be utilised without risk of interruption. One of the interviews I conducted in my classroom as the centre was closed for the day and I did not have an alternative venue. I was reluctant to use my own
classroom or office as these are my personal spaces and I was conscious of making the participants more uncomfortable than was necessary. In retrospect, the room I chose did not present a very warm or attractive environment as it was sparsely furnished and the walls were bare. In each interview, both the participant and I sat informally on the arc of a round table, with a comfortable distance between us. We faced each other and placed the tape recorder between us. This seemed to be the most comfortable and informal way to conduct the interview. I did not want to sit at the square desk as I would be facing the participant directly and as it was, the room felt very clinical and sterile and I did not want these interviews to resemble an interrogation.
At the start of each interview, I reminded each of the girls that their participation in the study was voluntary and that they were free to withdraw at anytime if they so wished.
Ensuring confidentiality and explaining to the participants how their anonymity will be maintained are crucial for an ethical research process, and I explained this in detail to each of them. However, when I suggested the use of a pseudonym as a means of ensuring
anonymity five of the six participants firmly stated that they wished to use their own names as “they were proud of them”. The other participant was ambivalent and said that either way she did not really mind. One of the participants expressed a concerned that her teacher would have access to the audiotape of the interview and I assured her that under no circumstances did anyone other than myself have access to the audiotapes. She accepted my assurance and happily continued with the interview. It was at this point that I decided not to use the real name of the school, although the principal had been adamant that I should.
Although the girls had given me permission to use their names, I was concerned that they were not making an informed decision and did not really understand the depth of what the consequences might be. I could not be certain about offering them protection once this research had been made public. I felt that I had an obligation to protect the identity of my participants and that meant hiding the identity of the school and them, although complete anonymity would be difficult and almost impossible to achieve as I teach in the school.
The interviews were semi-structured (see Appendix 10) and I felt this was suitable as this type of interview allows for a greater depth that is otherwise difficult to attain using other methods. They allow the researcher to probe answers and to involve the participants more in the interview process. I explained that there were no right or wrong answers to any of the questions, but that I was interested in hearing their thoughts, ideas and opinions.
Semi-structured interviews also allow for more flexibility during the interview process for both the interviewer and the interviewee and my aim was to facilitate and guide the interview process rather than to control it. I decided that writing while the participant was talking would interfere with the conversational quality of the interview and would be a distraction for them and inconvenient for me as I would not be able to give her my full attention. I decided to tape the interviews as I felt that this would enable me to record the interview whilst being fully involved in the interview itself. Recording the interviews would allow me to transcribe them at a later stage and I could return to the taped interviews many times in order to get the full picture of what was shared in the interviews. I explained this to each participant and they all granted me permission to tape the interviews.
The interviews started with very broad questions about the participants’ experiences in their mathematics classes, exploring what they had enjoyed most and least both this year and last year, narrowing the focus down to more specific questions about the participants’
families. By starting with this broad question, it gave the participants a chance to direct the interview, although I was mindful of the danger of moving away from the focus of the interviews and collecting data that would not be of benefit to my research. Once the interview was complete I thanked the interviewee for their time and valuable contribution, highlighting that without them this study would not be possible. I undertook to show each participant and their parents the findings of my study once it was complete.
I was satisfied with all but one of the interviews. The participant arrived ten minutes late and throughout this interview it felt as if I was painstakingly extracting information from her and she often responded in short answers even when I attempted to probe further.
Her interview was characterised by a number of “I don’t know responses” interspersed with long pauses and sighs. I noted after she left that it appeared as though she was regretting her decision to participate in the study. This showed me that power pervades the interview and that power, although disproportionately on the side of the researcher, is not fixed there.
The participants and I collectively planned a debriefing session and this took the form of an informal dinner at the end of the year. The research findings were shared and a discussion ensued around the participants’ feelings, involvement in and general thoughts about the research process and findings. I also discussed my feelings and thoughts about the entire research process with them. The participants offered some very insightful comments about the structure of the interview process and ways in which I could have improved on this. Collective they agreed that they had enjoyed being part of the research process and looked forward to reading the findings of the study. I then offered them the opportunity to read the complete thesis when it came back from the examiners and I had made the necessary corrections. According to De Vos (2002, p.73) debriefing sessions are essential as the participants “…get the opportunity, after the study, to work through their experiences and its aftermath, [and this is one possible way] in which the researcher can assist the
[participants] and minimize harm”. The easiest way to debrief participants is to discuss their feelings about the study and to explain to them that the study should have been a learning experience for both them and me. De Vos (2002) states that the debriefing session is the ideal time to complete the learning experience that began with agreeing to participate.