Adapted Interview Methods

3.7.3.1 Noah

Noah was 5 years old at the time of interview and attended School 1. Noah’s interview was designed in collaboration with his mother and school teacher. Noah used some speech and language to communicate but had a very small vocabulary. He also had considerable developmental delay as well as a visual impairment. This meant that a traditional interview was not appropriate for Noah’s access needs. An adapted interview method was therefore devised in which Noah was asked to watch and/or listen to 7 videos of different musical activities he had participated in at school during the term of fieldwork. Noah was the primary participant in all of the videos shown. The teacher regularly took videos of the pupils in her class in order to assess pupils’

progress and provide feedback to parents about term-time classroom activities. As such, the videos used during the adapted interview were not recorded specifically for use in the research but were included with the teacher’s and school’s permission. Noah’s mother and teacher felt that getting Noah to watch himself taking part in music

activities and then respond to simple questions relating to what he had viewed would be an effective way of engaging his attention and exploring his views and preferences. Where Noah was not able to comment on a video verbally, his behavioural reactions to the video material could be observed and analysed instead. In order to effectively interpret Noah’s behavioural reactions, it was agreed that his mother would be present during the interview in order to support Noah in communicating his preferences to the researcher. The interview was carried out at Noah’s home during the Christmas holidays (December 2015). The primary aim of the interview was to find out what musical activities Noah enjoyed and what activities he did not enjoy.

Whilst in principle this was an effective adapted interview design for Noah’s needs, there were several practical flaws which meant that, unfortunately, Noah’s interview data has not been included in this study. Firstly, I had concerns about the way in which I recorded data about Noah’s reactions to the videos and his responses to my

79

questions. I did not video- or audio-record these and instead relied upon my memory of his interactions and responses which I recorded in writing as soon as the adapted interview had ended. This method of data collection was not rigorous enough, in my opinion, as it left the data open to considerable contamination from my own thoughts and interpretations. It also meant that I was potentially relying on false memories of observed events when recording interview responses. On reflection, it would have been beneficial to have gained consent from Noah and his mother (who was present at the interview) to use video to record Noah’s reactions so that a more thorough and reliable account of our interaction could be recorded. However, this would have meant asking for an amendment to my application for ethical review. It is therefore important to note that future research which seeks to devise flexible adapted interviews for children and young people with complex and multiple impairments should build this need for flexibility into their application for ethical review noting that, in some instances, video recording of interviews may be necessary in order to accurately record the participant’s responses and interactions.

A second concern that I had was with regards to verification. Noah clearly enjoyed the interview. He joined in with his own singing in the videos and, at times, became very excitable. He responded positively with a “yeah” every time I asked whether he liked the song/activity being shown in the video. However, at the end of the interview there was a moment where my confidence wavered in the assertion that Noah’s energetic reactions meant that he had enjoyed his music lessons. After having watched all of the videos, Noah’s mother began to ask him whether he liked certain songs. I recorded the interaction as follows:

Noah’s mum: Does Noah like Old MacDonald?

Noah: Yeah!

Noah’s mum: Does Noah like Twinkle, Twinkle?

Noah: Yeah!

Noah’s mum: Does Noah like the Beatles?

Noah: Yeah!

Noah’s mum: Does Noah like to sing?

Noah: Yeah!

80 Noah: Yeah!

Noah’s mum: See! This is what happens. He rarely says no! [Laughs].

Of course Noah could well have been telling the truth and other researchers have cautioned against too great a reliance on searches for ‘truth’ in research with people with learning disabilities (Goodley, 1996). For example, Goodley (1996) contends that the focus should be on asking why participants are telling their stories in a certain way rather than questioning whether they are being truthful. However, this interaction made me question whether I could rely on this single interview as an accurate account of Noah’s feelings in relation to what he liked and disliked about his music lessons. In order to verify his responses and to ensure that I was not misrepresenting his views, it would have perhaps been beneficial to have arranged two or three visits to Noah’s home where the interview procedure could have been repeated. Combining this

repeated approach with video-recording would have allowed me to explore the way that Noah’s responses changed or remained the same over time, adding greater confidence to my interpretation of his responses.

Finally, as discussed in section 3.6.2.4, I had concerns about Noah’s ability to consent to his involvement in the research. These factors have all contributed to my decision not to use this interview data formally in the research.

3.7.3.2 Thomas, Mario and Luigi

Thomas, Mario and Luigi were all primary aged pupils attending School 2 (aged 6-10 years). Their interview was designed primarily in collaboration with the Class 4 Teacher at the school, with some additional input from primary care-givers. All pupils used speech and language to communicate but had additional communication needs associated with either autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) which needed to be taken into account when planning an adapted interview.

The research design for this interview was heavily influenced by the lack of time the school could afford me to lead student interviews. Primary care-givers felt that carrying out interviews at school would be best for their children as being in the

environment they were talking about might help to trigger associations and

81

school found it difficult to schedule a time and location where I could meet students separately for a 20-30 minute period in order to conduct 1-to-1 interviews with pupils. I completely understood this difficulty and agreed that students’ lessons should be

disrupted as little as possible. As such, a compromise was reached and I agreed to speak to all three pupils at the same time in a group interview. I convinced myself prior to the interview that this would not be an issue. It was my belief that a group interview might help to keep the pupils focused and to enable them to bounce off of one another when answering questions about what they liked and disliked about their music lessons as well as what they thought could be better (i.e. exploring their views of ‘best

practice’). In practice, however, the interview was very unfocused. It took place in a small office space which a member of the school’s SLT had kindly vacated so that I could carry out the interview somewhere private. I was very aware of the safeguarding implications of being left alone with three very young, male students in the room, however, and so insisted that we kept the door open so that other staff could see clearly that the students were not at risk. This meant that the pupils were frequently distracted by friends and teachers who were walking past the door and the pace of the interview slowed a couple of times as I tried to regain the pupils’ attention.

In addition, rather than ‘bouncing off’ of one another in the interview as I had hoped, it was clear that the students found each other’s presence to be distracting. Mario, in particular, was a very dominating presence. He rarely responded to my questions about music. Instead, when the focus of the interview came to him, he

preferred to ask questions rather than answer them. This would have been ideal in terms of enabling a participatory research framework whereby the students were able to direct the discussion in the direction that they wished. However, Mario did not want to ask questions about music, he wanted to ask his classmates about whether or not they had visited various local locations. My initial response to this was to try to re-focus this engagement by asking Mario if he would like to ask his peers some questions about music. Mario immediately took control of the interview. However, rather than asking his classmates about music, he asked them questions about computer games. I thought that placing the power in Mario’s hands would better engage him in the interview but in practice all this did was disrupt the interview further. This lack of focus seemed to frustrate the other pupils. Luigi commented on how noisy it was in the room and eventually asked to return to class. Thomas seemed really keen to participate and was the most responsive to my questions. However, Mario’s constant questioning and

82

interference seemed to make him slightly uncomfortable and frustrated. This frustration began to show about half way through the interview, just before Luigi asked to leave. I had asked a question about whether or not music was used as a cross-curricular tool in other lessons and Mario interrupted and tried to engage Thomas in some imaginative play:

Interviewer: So, who teaches music at your school?

Thomas: The singing teacher!

Interviewer: The singing teacher; and do you do any music in your normal classes too?

Thomas: Um, we sing two songs. Under my Skin and Keep on Smiling. In the Class 4 Teacher’s class.

Interviewer: Oh you sing two songs in the Class 4 Teacher’s class; and do you like those? Is it good or?

Thomas: Yeah, the whole songs that we’ve been doing with the singing teacher…

Mario: [Interrupting] Like if I fall like this: Thomas, help! Thomas, Thomas help! I’m going to fall. Argh!

Thomas: Oh please Mario. I’m trying to talk to someone and you’re being silly.

Overall, after about 15 minutes of trying to engage the students, I accepted that the interview format was inappropriate. I thanked the two remaining students for their participation, let them choose their pseudonyms, and then escorted them back to class.

This interview experience demonstrates how important matters of time and space are to a successful adapted research interview. In hindsight, whilst the

compromise to carry out a focus group interview was suitable for the school, it was not suitable for the pupils. Rather than convince myself that it would be OK, I should have perhaps insisted that one-to-one interviews were needed, or perhaps asked the pupils’ primary care-givers if an interview could be carried out at each pupil’s home. If this secondary compromise could not be reached, the use of creative research methods may have been more appropriate than a spoken interview in this instance. Examples of creative research methods which have been used successfully with disabled children and young people in the past include photovoice (Cluley, 2017); draw, write, tell (Angell, Alexander, & Hunt, 2014); and talking mats (Germain, 2004). Using a more

83

creative approach in a group interview may have led to better engagement from all pupils.