In advance of the first edonis interviews (four took place during December, of which the edited versions of three will be released at http://edonis.ning.com during January and February) and the Qualitative Analysis course which starts in January, I read ‘The Research Interview’ by Bill Gillham, published by Continuum in 2000.
Gillham is clear that, although an interview is a conversation, there is a controlling relationship which needs to be managed (p1). I will be seeking responses for a purpose; one which may not be for the interviewees benefit, although in committing to my three-year study many participants have already stated desired outcomes for themselves. Having arranged and carried out fifteen interviews over the last three years for my Booruch podcast, I feel experienced enough and competent in managing a weighted conversation.
The research interview is one way for me to obtain information and understanding around the aims and questions of the edonis project (p2). Of the six draft research questions, I chose to use the single interview as part of my research into questions 2, 3 and 4. As I prepared for the first interview (with an ASN teacher in the West of Scotland), I examined striking a balance between the structured and unstructured interviews. In the former, I would know in advance what I wanted to find out (and I could quantify responses) (p2), however I had previously decided that methods such as the now established monthly online survey would be most appropriate for collecting data. There were aspects of each of these questions which I felt could best or only be opened-up by talking to participants (p5).
In advance of the first edonis interviews (four took place during December, of which the edited versions of three will be released at http://edonis.ning.com during January and February) and the Qualitative Analysis course which starts in January, I read ‘The Research Interview’ by Bill Gillham, published by Continuum in 2000.
By moving into the, inadequately termed, semi-structured interview, Gillham suggests an increased likelihood of unexpected discoveries and the creation of new knowledge. This latter consequence becomes more likely if participants listen to edited interviews on the Ning site and are given, make use of, or create their own space to engage with myself, the interviewee and/or other participants; deconstructing, ‘mashing-up’, re-conceptualising, or building-upon interview content. This space may be extended through the yearly group face-to-face or web conference.
Following participants’ responses to Part 1a of the project, I identified those who would be interviewed during December (the pilot period). These participants had given a response to various questions regarding permission and most had responded to my initial open approach (optional question) (p3) of asking them to suggest a couple of examples of interesting, good, or innovative practice that they had been involved in and would be willing to share. This flexible approach to the planning stage would be extended by examining their responses to Parts 1b and 2. I would be able to better explore or understand some of the earlier responses. Although contested, I would be able to back-up study findings (interim and final) with direct quotations (p9). During December, a ‘bank’ of interview questions built-up, comprising at least two versions of questions relating to each substantive area/research question. This ‘bank’ as at 31st December, can be found in Appendix A. The differentiated list (agenda, as such) for each interview was sent to interviewees as part of a longer email regarding arrangements (see Appendix B). This email allows interviewees to respond to my broad, open questions and proposed examples of practice, with deletions, alteration or additions.
At each stage of planning and conducting the interview, I need to be aware of control and power; ensuring that the focus remains on the interviewee (p3). With an eye on the three research questions, I am nonetheless drawing out what matters to the interviewee (p4). This must be kept in mind right through to the conclusion. I am confident that my earlier study of ‘person-centred’ approaches (Carl Rogers), high degree of interview organisation, and at least a degree of familiarity with each interviewee helped to minimize negative connotations around being the subject of an interview. Informal conversations with each person since (including the tail-end of the interview telephone call) did not highlight any issues with my conduct, though I did, on two occasions, apologise for the lack of clarity in the way I asked each of them a particular question.
By necessity, interviews within this international study must take into account the convenience of each interviewee. It is a special occasion, where people will talk more freely in their own setting (p6). They were given the choice of: face-to-face interviews at a negotiated venue, using an mp3 recorder; face-to-face interview at the participants’ workplace; telephone interview at a time of their choosing, recording using Pamela for Skype; or a negotiated alternative.
Gillham writes this at a time when there would be a significant cost involved in arranging to record a telephone conversation. He adds that too much is lost from not sitting in the same room as the interviewee, as well as difficulties around timing, length and responsiveness of the interviewer. Therefore only a short section is dedicated to telephone interviews, and this is largely out-of-date. Due to the international nature of edonis, the ability to efficiently conduct interviews at low-cost and with minimum intrusion is vital. Skype is a Voice-over-IP (VoIP) application, downloadable for free from http://skype.com, which allows users to make calls from their computer or mobile phone. Free calls can be made to other Skype users’ computers (several participants have indicated that they have, or will have, an account and would like to be interviewed via this method), and by buying Skype Out credits, low cost calls to landlines and mobile phones around the world can be made. I have experimented with many call recording applications (both free and premium), such as Pretty May, Hot Recorder and Pamela for Skype. Immediately prior to the first interview, upon realizing that Pamela (free version) records only in 15 minute slots, I purchased Pamela for Skype Premium. This allows unlimited, uninterrupted recording of calls (permission having been sought by email well in advance of placing the call). Both sides of the conversation are recorded in a single mp3 file. This can be edited and tidied-up for publication on the Ning site, if required, using Audacity sound editing software and The Levelator (both free, open-source software). The unedited recording is used within my own research.
Gillham states that interviews offer far more hope of a 100% response rate than a questionnaire (p14). One challenge has been to encourage all participants to indicate a period in one of the following three years when they may be available for interview. Inviting interviewees to use part of the conversation to talk about their involvement in a relevant area of practice is one way of allowing the process to fulfill a human need; that is to: share, receive recognition, and have space to talk and reflect. Offering to host the edited interview (with agreement) on the Ning site should communicate my own interest, concern, and desire to learn from, and with, participants. In placing myself within the study I will be responsive and familiar. Gillham argues that the easier it is to get data, the less valuable they are (p10). With around six broad, open questions, and a commitment from myself and the interviewee, they would be aware, beforehand, that I was expecting extended responses, with my natural prompts and probes (p10). To ensure insight and understanding, there must be trust.
Trust is essential for this to be comfortable and rewarding, as new, public disclosures may be made (p15). Building trust has been given priority from the first emails, so that interviewees are aware of purposes, questions, storage and usage. Mixing methods helps to include the (unknown) participants who are not as comfortable with extended written responses to, for example, emailed questions. However, the interview areas do not replicate any of the questionnaires. Although in first draft, the research questions (and the focus on questions 2, 3 and 4) informed the expanding ‘bank’ of substantive areas covered in the interview. Elaborate, reflective, in-depth responses have been made during the four pilot, semi-structured interviews. During each call, I have logged things said and followed-up insights and hunches at the time. Later, as I systematically log each part of the interview, in relation to my enquiry, there will be need for further elaboration, though this was not made explicit during the signing-up and therefore cannot be guaranteed to happen. During this short pilot phase, I am crafting questions which are distinct, refined, ordered and sensitive, and place me as the reflexive research instrument (p23). I have been economical with my presence during each interview, asking short questions (though not always asked clearly) and have, drawing on my experience, never put words ‘into their mouth’. With respect to future analysis, my lack of developed methodology means that I am unable to state, at this stage, in what ways much of the interview data will be used.
As I moved through the pilot phase, I became more confident in the type of questions I was asking, reducing the chances of anxiety within and around the conversation. I have built-up a prompt list each time; based on points, topics, documents, links and observations stated by the interviewee. I need to be aware of common components as a variation from standard themes will make comparison between interviews during content analysis more difficult (p45). Interviewees have been given time to answer, with ‘pregnant’ pauses condoned on my part. The time and space, or acceptance or promotion of a change of direction leading from a silence, shows a focus on the interviewee. I am comfortable managing this in a virtual space due to my participation in, and occasional facilitation of, a weekly web conference where the technology allows only one person to speak at a time, with extended periods of text-only chat (audio is silent).
Each conversation could be said to have had an “introductory phase, opening development, central core, and closure”, in social and research content terms (p37). Gillham talks of unobtrusive control, ensuring that the key points are covered (p45). Partly due to length, I have missed out reviewing what has been said and allowing further space for additional information to emerge. The social aspect of the call is managed like the rest of the interview. Behaving naturally conveys purpose and respect for the interviewee during their working day and avoids the start and end being more contrived than it need be. Prior to making the call, I make sure that Skype and Pamela are working and communicating with each other. I have, close-at-hand, a copy of the interview schedule (shared with the interviewee), recent emails, and significant responses from them to previous parts of the study. My open, ordered, logical questions and management of the interview allow for later questions to adapt, and for supplementary ones to be asked. Despite the need to develop the ways in which I start and close the interview, I do make use of devices such as, “Now the last thing I want to ask you about…”.
Part II to follow
Appendix A
- Brief background about you and your career in education
- your experiences of ICT-related /training/professional development: as a student teacher; during INSET; and as part of CPD
- your experiences of ICT-related training/professional development
- your understanding of (and if you are comfortable, thoughts on) web access for learning professionals provided within your authority
- your understanding of, and thoughts on, web access for learning professionals provided by your employer
- how you use email and the extent to which this supports your professional development
- your notion of 'learning network'
- uses of the 'social web' that you have been attracted to
- the extent to which you see your use of ICT as a learning professional changing over the next 3 years.
Appendix B
- X
- X
- X
No comments:
Post a Comment