BMLC learners interviews

Conducting interviews with BMLC learners required a different mind-set and skills compared to interviews with adult staff. Ethical considerations are at the forefront when preparing and conducting interviews with young, potentially vulnerable people

84 in a language that is not their mother tongue. Interviews were carried out in English which could be argued disadvantaged some interviewees and might have impacted on the constructed hierarchy of conceptions by emphasising the voice of speakers with better English language skills. The use of an interpreter was considered but dismissed to avoid perceptions to be communicated through a third person. An interview for phenomenographic analysis tries to access the account of the perception of a phenomenon. Poststructuralist thought considers the life experience of the interviewee and the interviewer as influencing the interview. The presence of an interpreter as a third person in the interview was therefore judged as an additional barrier to accessing interviewees’ accounts and more damaging to the data generation process than

possible language difficulties. It would have meant an additional layer of communication and possible distortion of data due to filtering through lenses such as language and ethnicity (Denzin and Lincoln 2011). I acknowledge that the decision not to use an interpreter had an impact on the selection of respondents as participation in the study was only open to learners with at least basic English language skills. BMLC learners who had just arrived in the country were therefore excluded from the research. They would not have been able to communicate sufficiently in English but furthermore might also not have gained enough experience yet in England and in school to reflect on what it means to be an ‘EAL learner’ in the English education system.

The BMLC learners taking part in the interviews did not seem to mind being interviewed in English. This may have been due to English being the dominant language at school or due to my being a non-native speaker of English too which was clearly communicated to pupil participants prior to interviews. Thus, I risked

85 epistemological resonance (Shah 2004) which could have affected the self-selection of BMLC learners for, or even their responses in, interviews. BMLC learners seemed pleased to be able to use their English language skills for a considerable amount of time in a conversation with an English speaking adult. They enjoyed talking to somebody who was genuinely interested in their stories including hopes, aspirations, needs and fears and who sincerely appreciated their bi- or multilingualism and knowledge of other cultures. In that sense, the interviews showed at times signs of ‘therapeutic interviews’ (Kvale and Brinkman 2009:41) changing, for instance, BMLC

learners’ perceptions of their bilingual skills as something that sets them apart from others in a positive way rather than implying a deficit. I felt humbled by my participants’ modesty and openness and emerged from the interviews as a different

person (I also learned to say thank you in the languages of the participating BMLC learners as they taught me during interviews and which I used in thank-you-cards to all of them at the end of the interview process). BMLC learners shared their often difficult and tragic life experiences with me and at the same time felt comfortable to ask questions about me and my family’s - especially my daughters’ - experiences with

EAL prior to and during the interviews.

‘Bracketing out’ would not have allowed such conversations and I would also not have

been able to support the young people at times when struggling with English. Occasionally, the interviewee and the interviewer supported each other in looking for a specific word or expression in English. Although the language barrier might at times have hindered communication, such moments helped to build trusting relationships between researcher and participants which led to more relaxed conversations. It seemed to alleviate the ‘asymmetrical power relation’ in interviews which is inherent

86 to any interview situation (Kvale and Brinkman 2009:33). Every possible attempt was made to put the young people at ease. I introduced myself as somebody who was interested in their life experiences, a researcher from a university not a teacher, and someone who shared with them ‘EALness’ and experience of immigration. My role was not to judge or assess. Academic achievement, socio-economic background or possible SEND were not part of my inquiry.

As my second research question was What is the variation in BMLC learners’ perceptions of what it means to be an ‘EAL learner’ in English secondary education,

I aimed to gain insight into BMLC learners’ perceptions of their experiences and feelings rather than ‘factual’ information such as attainment in levels or percentages, or tick boxes completed for possible SEND or free school meals. The bmlc learners’

perceptions of their experiences were supposed to be the focus of my research, not classifications of any kind. To encourage the young people to tell me about themselves, and their experiences of being an ‘EAL learner’, I considered what kind of questions I would need to ask to demonstrate my interest in their accounts, not their school’s or teachers’ impression and assessment of them. I wished to allow my participants as

much freedom to direct the interview in a certain direction as possible without losing the complete focus of my research question. However, during the interviews I realised that any personal accounts were relevant in terms of my research question which is subsequently demonstrated in the five dimensions of Outcome Space 1, a point to which I will return.

The first interview question was intended to be an ‘easy’ question to answer, almost

87 realise what a ‘loaded’ question it actually was, eliciting extremely personal

information regarding family situations or painful memories. The following question was designed to help participants to reflect on their use of more than one language in their daily life and how that made them feel. Questions 3 and 4 moved on to exploring the learners’ emotional response to ‘having to’ learn English and their awareness of

learning the language for personal, social and/or academic purposes. By asking questions 5 and 6, I hoped to gain an insight into participants’ perceptions of experiences at the start of their schooling in England and their experiences at the present time as well as possible differences, what caused the situation to change and if learners were aware of the changes or any strategies and support they used or received to improve their positions if necessary. Question 7 was included to allow the bmlc learners to reflect back on their previous answers and experiences. It also provided an opportunity to reflect in case the learners had never been asked or asked themselves the question. The question acted as a ‘pause and think’ question and an opportunity to

raise awareness of possible strategies used, dismissed or missed. Question 8 followed directly on from it in terms of possible identification of changes in feelings when using English since participants had arrived and started their schooling in England. I included question 9 to tap into perceptions of experiences of encouragement and support (or not) by teachers and self-awareness of likely improvement. Question 10 brought the interview to a conclusion with an opportunity for participants to add anything they felt was important for me to know and they had not been able to include, or to expand on a point or modify a previous answer.

Eighteen interviews with BMLC learners aged 11-15 were conducted lasting on average between 20-25 minutes depending on the participant’s keenness to

88 communicate and proficiency in English. Individual rather than group interviews were deemed appropriate in order to avoid domination of more proficient speakers of English and to enable participants to speak freely. Some BMLC learners may not have liked sharing information about their background or use of language at home with others or liked speaking in front of older pupils or pupils of the opposite gender. The shortest interview was 12 minutes and the longest 50 minutes. The design of interview questions followed Åkerlind’s (2005b) example very closely in the use of structured

and unstructured follow-up questions. Appendix 2 lists the interview questions for BMLC learners. Access to respondents was given via schools, parental and respondents’ consent. Twelve of the eighteen participants were interviewed in school

A, the remaining six in school B. The following section will provide further information on the choice of schools as research sites and the choice of participants.