Conducting the Interviews and Questionnaires

The range of methods was determined by ‘fitness-for-purpose’ and has been dictated by the research questions and social constructionist approach, demanding flexibility to provide necessary data. The principal method selected for ‘G&T’-students was one-to-one semi-structured interviews as ‘one of the major tools of social research’, and of prime importance in data-collection for educational purposes (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995:153). Semi-structured interviews are apt for data collection of student views and provide a degree of control as to topics covered, without undue rigidity. More factual information required from GATCOs about school systems/procedures required different approaches. This shows how design, implementation and evaluation of research tools are robust and follows those of previous studies in the field.

Semi-structured interview schedules (appendix 5) were standardised for use, and interviewer consistency was strived for within the confines of unique individual interactions. The interview process could not be completely standardised given that ‘prompts’ (to encourage participants to say as much as they wished) and ‘probes’ (to elicit detail) were used as an adjunct to main questions (Blaxter et al, 2003). Oppenheim (1992) describes ‘probes’ as giving interviews one of its main advantages over questionnaires, but sees it as a source of interviewer-bias. The semi-structured interview schedule contained closed-questions on socio-economic background, academic achievement/aspirations, before moving onto open-questions on feelings about ‘G&T’-identification, school ethos, parental/peer perceptions.

134

Research questions were designed to operationalize key research concepts. Rating-scales were used to gain perceptions of the effectiveness of ‘G&T’- policies. There were two versions of the questionnaire schedules, one for parents of ‘G&T’-students (appendix 7), and the other for GATCOs (appendix 6). The questionnaires contain open/closed questions aiming to elicit parental/GATCO views on ‘G&T’-policy, school identification processes and perceived pressures on post-16 student identities. As part of the questionnaire with GATCOs a copy of each school’s ‘G&T’-policy as documentary evidence was requested.

The questionnaires were completed in the absence of the researcher. While this provides strength in terms of reduced researcher-bias; it meant the researcher was not present to offer clarification and prompt for elaborated responses. The responses gained were dependent on time available, convenience, level of interest and participants’ breadth of vocabulary and keyboard skills. It seems e- mailed responses can be reflected on, amended, deliberated; while this may detract from observed spontaneity, it delivered a sense of mindfulness and e- mailed questionnaires were time-efficient. Ultimately, interpretation of written text from interview/questionnaire transcripts allows analysis of participants’ social constructions of ‘reality’ and ‘G&T’-identities as part of that (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). It should be noted that re/constructing ‘G&T’-identities within research situations, captures a snap-shot presentation of created identities rather than capturing the fluidity/changeability of identities, and ‘G&T’ students/parents/teachers only reveal as much as they choose and are aware of.

More information may be forthcoming in good interview situations than participants would give in writing (Best & Kahn, 1989). Interviewing acknowledges participants are unique which requires a flexibility of interpersonal skills on the part of interviewers. A successful interviewer is: knowledgeable, clear, balanced, open, gives structure and interpretation without imposing meaning; relates back to previous points, is critical and challenging, and ethically sensitive (Kvale, 1996). I aimed to aspire to this in conducting my research.

135

Some writers (Blaxter et al, 2003) refer to the importance of impressions made by interviewers in personal presentation giving signals affecting participants and influencing responses. Characteristics such as interviewer: age/gender/class/ethnicity are sources of potential bias in interview responses and there may have been some participant-reactivity to my ‘insider status’ as a teacher. However, the rapport developed because of this role, I argue, can counterbalance any lost due to interviewer-effects.

Interviewing ‘G&T’-Students and Parents

My experiences of interviewing 16 post-16, ‘G&T’-students were varied, always interesting, revelationary and fun. Inquisitive ‘G&T’-students often asked in- depth about the research and questioning was two-way, with me becoming the interviewee. I had anticipated this to an extent, with a desire to provide ethical informed-consent, but at times it felt like a viva examination, and I worked hard to steer the conversation back to my questioning. Interviewing eight of the students with their parents was fascinating too; some students presented ‘selves’ consistent with the image I had compiled through their lone interviews; others were very different, on edge, or embarrassed by their parents. Most were not guarded but open, and presented a picture of having good relationships with their parents. Having been a parent of teenage students, I could empathise with the parents during the couple-interviews. There were often raised eyebrows, asides and sighs of exasperation from parents angled at me, in response to things students were saying. This evidenced for me the frustrations some parents felt at having children who they felt were demanding, e.g. when Anne expressed her ‘failure’ at being rejected from Cambridge, her mother rolled her eyes and smiled at me ‘knowingly’.

The location/conditions of interviews can have adverse effects, causing bias in replies and being distracting for interviewers (Powney & Watts, 1987). There needs to be an atmosphere conducive to intimacy, with privacy and no distractions. The student interviews took place in school offices, in private, in contexts students are familiar with. The method for recording interview information is important (Blaxter et al, 2003); 24 interview dialogues were

136

recorded digitally with participants’ permission before transcription. Disadvantages include possible constraints participants may feel when recorded, mechanical malfunctioning, and dependence on recording leading to less attentiveness. Interview recordings were made onto computer thus the physical presence of recording equipment was minimal. Hand-written notes were taken as a back-up. This had the effect of settling students and as one pointed out, empowering them as ‘the dictator of words to the teacher for a change’. Recording has further reduced bias, since I had conversations recorded in total, rather than subconsciously selecting ‘desired’ responses for transcription (Borg & Gall, 1983). These factors were important in establishing rapport with participants, which was vital in allowing me to get full/valid responses (Oppenheim, 1992).

Follow-up couple-interviews took place in a range of locations: e.g. ‘Starbucks’, schools and three in participants’ homes. It was interesting to see students out of their school contexts in their familial settings or more relaxed in cafés. Interviews that took place in students’ homes were often supplemented with volunteered photographs/certificated evidence. These were welcomed as back- up evidence, if only seen momentarily, and aided countering bias introduced through participant memory-lapses and distortions (Grele, 1998). Students/parents together for the couple-interviews acted as a check on biases; with two voices agreeing on points, greater credence is given to reliability of recall, although occasionally there were disagreements that in a few cases bordered on arguments. Kvale (1996:3) suggests if ‘you want to know how people understand their world and their life, why not talk to them?’ The semi- structured interviews were a specific-type of conversation (Burgess, 2004), with qualitative research interviews as a ‘construction site of knowledge’ (Kvale, 1996:2). Kvale (1996) suggests interviews are ‘literally an inter view, an inter change of views between two persons conversing about a theme of mutual interest’ (Kvale, 1996:2). I attempted to gain a ‘shared understanding’ of participants’ constructed ‘social-realities’ generated in the interview contexts (Mishler, 1986).

Interviewing the students and some of their parents was a privilege, if at times taxing. All had strong characters, some were intense and serious, others

137

frivolous and quick-witted. The students at times, showed embarrassment mainly with proud parents with whom they often argued over points of detail, and where I became less ‘visible’ to them as they carried on their conversations and relaxed into the interview experience. Their ‘G&T-ness’ was evident in their degree of articulacy and use of metaphor in explanations. The wealth of data gained during this study is primarily due to participants’ ability to sustain attention, conversation and interest. For parents, it was often seen as an outlet for their ‘voices’ to be heard. What follows in the three data analysis chapters is testimony to their generosity in being so forthcoming providing rich and often profound insights into what it is like to be ‘G&T’ post-16.

As the semi-structured interviews and especially the follow-up informal couple- interviews progressed, their dialogical nature meant students/parents engaged in increasingly interpretive conversations. This approach has been considered problematic (Ruspini, 2000) in terms of interfering with objectivity but I found through dialogical interaction, characterised by trust/openness and respect, self- disclosure and discovery occurred (Eynng, 1998). The semi-structured and follow-up interviews gave students/parents opportunities for reflection on challenging issues, which in some cases resulted in reassurance and increased insight, that otherwise may not have been achieved. Eyring (1998) suggests interviews are inherently therapeutic in offering opportunities to talk about personally relevant issues to someone who provides undivided attention. However, the research literature warns against developing therapeutic relationships (Seidman, 1994) as researchers are there to learn from, not to treat participants. I felt there could be a danger of this when interviewing Becky, as she had declared her eating-disorder in the initial interview. However, apart from any catharsis felt by participants at having the opportunity to discuss their ‘G&T’ status, I did not feel I crossed the line between being an interviewer into being a therapist. Some students/parents e-mailed further insights, adding later contributions to their interview reflection. Although involvement can be problematic ethically, regular e-mail contact is advocated by Czerniawski (2007) as a method of ensuring sample attrition is minimised.

The semi-structured interviews (lasting 60-90 minutes), and follow-up couple- interviews (lasting 2.5-4.5 hours), were fully transcribed. The first set of semi-

138

structured interview questions intended to elicit biographical information enabled a sketch of socio-economic backgrounds. The second set of questions was open with the purpose of encouraging students to reflect on experiences and tell their ‘stories’ (Mattingly, 1998). Narratives became powerful analytical ‘tools’ offering a means of gaining insight into relationships between individual lives and social processes (Rappoport, 1993). Despite criticism of researcher tendencies to essentialise ‘story-telling’ (Scheurich, 1997) there is convincing support in literature (Atkinson, 1998) suggesting storytelling is a fundamental form of communication providing a means of understanding individual inner- worlds:

Stories imitate life and present an inner-reality to an outside world, at the same time, however, they shape and construct the narrator’s personality and reality. The story is one’s identity, a story created, told, revised, and retold throughout life. We know or discover ourselves, and reveal ourselves to others, by the stories we tell (Lieblich et al, 1998).

These conversations generated rich, fragmented, subjective, interrelated and multiple-identity related accounts of participants’ worlds (Brown, 2006). At times both types of interviews were ‘theory-seeking’ (exploratory), at other times, ‘theory-testing’ (explanatory). The follow-up couple-interviews provided opportunities for participants to engage in ‘identity-work’. It was often in more detailed conversations generated during these, where participants engaged in struggles over ‘G&T’/‘ability-identities’, in relation to familial/school contexts. The variety of data-collection methods was crucial for drawing out different aspects of the students’ identities.

This research began inductively as data was gathered not to test apriori- theories but to explore processes of identity constructions within school settings. Ideas generated from data collected during initial stages of research were considered alongside established theories, thus achieving ‘cycling’ between data-collection, existing theory, and emerging ideas. Questions generated from ‘cycling’ between data and literature, were taken back to the field, where further inductive, data-collection/theorising took place through the follow-up interviews. These began with gaining further socio-economic information followed by a personal profile of students, with parents contributing,

139

helping determine ‘identity significances’, providing insight into components of lived experiences (Janesick, 2000). They progressed as openly as possible; participants were invited to look back across students’ life-courses to gain evidence of ‘the inner experience of individuals, how they understand and interpret the world around them’ (Faraday & Plummer, 1979:776). The format was free-flowing and autobiographical (Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918) giving perspectives of participants’ definitions of cultural contexts and first-hand introspective accounts of processes of lives, and interrelationships between ‘critical-incidents’ and key people who had recognised students’ potentials. The interviews covered their earliest memories, aspirations, fears, analyses of ‘academic-abilities’, and how they arrived at that analysis and point in educational careers. It asked about relationships with peers, teachers and family members. Views of school culture were elicited, and what it felt like to be labelled ‘G&T’, aiming to gain insight into the ‘Weltanchuung’ (world-view) of students/parents (Lewis, 1961).

Interviews can involve the researcher being implicated in reflexive constructions (Bryman, 2008). It did feel like I was chairing conversations, facilitating rather than driving the process at times. The follow-up couple-interviews ascertained ‘incidents having special significance’ i.e. ‘critical incidents’ (Flanagan, 1954:327). ‘Critical incidents’ are accounts of significant events. Rooted in social constructionist research traditions, ‘critical incidents’ allows probing of assumptive worlds (Brookfield, 1990). However, generalizability from informal interviews is problematic (Wellington, 2000). This can be addressed as the interviews can generate theory in triangulation with other methods and provide greater reliability. Issues of sampling and external-validity, or generalizability, are related. Sample size leaves the study open to question if generalisations are drawn. However, the follow-up interviews were not searching for statistical generalisations drawn from random samples of large populations, but have provided sufficient data to facilitate exploration and interpretation of significant aspects (‘critical instances’) of cases. The total sample size (N=35) was greater than those of many ‘G&T’-studies (Freeman, 1979, 2005) and facilitated gathering of significant data.

140

Internal-validity is a hotly contested concept relating to honesty, credibility, auditability and authenticity of data. Methods triangulation provided an effective way of achieving clarification of meaning by identifying different ways in which ‘G&T’-identity constructions are seen (Stake, 2000). The follow-up couple- interviews had some structure in terms of ‘selves’ presented, as students/parents talked of ‘multiple-selves’, predominantly: ‘school-student ‘G&T’-selves’, ‘ability-selves’, ‘peer-group-selves’ and ‘family-selves’, as what I describe as ‘nested-identities’ (Shavelson, 1976; Allen et al, 1983), varying in salience at different points during the research. Students presenting parentally ‘approved’ ‘selves’ and parents presenting student ‘approved’ ‘selves’ may have impacted on the authenticity of images and performances portrayed for me. This could be a potential drawback to interviewing students and parents together.

In using triangulation (Wellington, 2000), data accurately reflects participants’ views as they had the opportunity to review, criticise and amend responses through the follow-up research stage. Yin (2003) suggests methodological triangulation provides checking processes, and I sought to ensure that the findings have internal-validity because they are honest, credible, auditable and authentic.