Data Collection

In collecting life history stories, the sample is usually small as interviewing, or accounts of lives, can be lengthy (Bold, 2012; Squire, 2008). Hence due to the small-scale of the project as an EdD, and the awareness of narrative and life-history interview data as voluminous, as noted earlier, it was decided to work with no more than three participants. Interviews were the primary method of data collection and each participant took part in three separate individual research interviews with me spread between November 2014 and February 2015, as will be explored below (interviews).

3

The overall aim was to explore the identity construction of education professionals through their narrative accounts of lived experience of leadership practice in educational organisations. Therefore, as the focus was on oral histories in a biographical sense, established practitioners with a career history as long-serving education professionals who had held formal leadership roles in education institutions were the primary selection criteria. The rationale for this was to capture a range of career stages from early career through mid-career to late career as a way to explore what Holland et al (1998) argue is an important aspect of identity construction, the sociohistorical context. Overall, I was looking to recruit a maximum of three participants who shared these primary criteria. The sampling rate was kept to a small-scale in appreciation of the breadth and scale of life history research (Bold, 2012), as noted earlier in the chapter. It was also felt that selecting participants who have had work experience across more than one organisation, and / or sector, may also add an interesting sociocultural dimension in terms of cross-institutional or cross-sector experience to offer a variety of accounts that may appeal to practitioners from across different education sectors. Overall, the participants shared the primary criteria as well as the additional cross-institutional and cross-sector experience and also had some interesting differences, which will be discussed in chapter Four (data analysis) when introducing the participants.

As discussed earlier, I knew the participants professionally, resulting in a somewhat double-edged position on the continuum between insider and outsider researcher position (Josselson, 2011;2007; Mercer, 2007; Bulmer, 1982). As such, due to prior professional relationships having been somewhat established, albeit on different levels, there were degrees of acceptance and trust already established historically, however this was not without its benefits and tensions, as discussed (See 3.3.2 and 3.4).

I approached the participants for an informal discussion about the research focus and purpose and what would be involved in terms of data collection, time-frames and commitment. After initial interest was secured by the three approached, I followed up with participants by asking them to provide some basic contextual information about their career history by completing a short information form in preparation for the interviews. This was to confirm the context of the education institutions they had worked in and clarify the different roles they had undertaken during their career to confirm suitability for the study beyond what I knew about them historically, which resulted in their suitability being confirmed based on the above criteria and I sent them an information letter about the project to gain their informed consent, as discussed in section 3.4. Out of the first three participants identified and approached, all extended their acceptance and volunteered to participate and interview dates were then schedule directly with each participant at their convenience between November 2014 and February 2015.

3

As Mercer (2007) suggests, small-scale qualitative research is more likely to use unstructured or in-depth interviewing as a means to construct participative knowledge. In this type of interviewing which is often used within narrative and life approaches as Josselson (2011) argues, discussion is understood as developmental during the interview through ‘questions that evoke stories from participants (Jones et al, 2014:85). Indeed, Czarniawska (2004) argues that narrative interviews are manipulated conversations potentially able to generate knowledge about social practice. Bell (2014) also emphasises the importance of probing to encourage further storytelling and narration on particular stories offered. Furthermore, as Mercer (2007:11) argues, in social

constructionist narrative inquiry, interviews are influenced by not only the perspectives of participants involved but also by the research approach, paradigm, focus, and questions. Therefore, as the data was gathered in a reflexive way, through a process of developing discussion between me and the participants through a life history interview and two generic thematic in-depth interviews, following an unstructured approach with the interviews helpful in allowing discussion to develop in the way Mercer (2007) argues. Overall, the approach taken reflected that suggested by Riessman (2002:671) in terms of giving up structure and control of the conversation throughout the entire interview and to follow the participants down their ‘associative trails’. This was important as the co-production of narratives occurs through the dialogic exchange between interviewer and participant, as Mercer (2007) argues, which was situated within the interview context and through the review of interview transcriptions afterwards. The interviewee predominantly held the role of storyteller, as the interviews were a rather complex space of meaning making (Bruner, 1986; Riessman, 2008). As a participatory set of discussions, we shared an understanding of various discourses, artefacts and cultural scripts that inhabited the worlds of the English education system, HE and other life worlds, such as family, social clubs and religion (Holland et al, 1998). Therefore, although the interviews followed the participants’ stories from the outset, they were interactive; the questions I asked were in response to what participants had said as well to ask what had happened to them next or to how a certain event had influenced them, or returned to an interesting narrated event to ask more about their understanding of it or for further stories about it. As noted earlier, the interviews were thus complicated as narratives were co-constructed and there were often assumptions of meaning made in relation to my position as researcher, as section 3.4 of this chapter discussed. Therefore, in a dialogic sense as Holland et al (1998) offer, as discussions developed, particularly where points were raised that sparked my interests around the research questions, the interviews were highly developmental as the participant narratives of lived experience were co-constructed through our mutual dialogue.

Interview process undertaken

The first interview was an unstructured life-history interview, with the second and third interviews based on a particular theme of discussion as well as building on initial areas

of interest from interview one and two. The interview themes were shared with the participants prior to commencing the schedule, as below:

Interview One (life history): Exploration of how the participant became a ‘leader’ Interview Two (theme): Stories of being a newcomer to workplaces/roles Interview Three (theme): Stories of challenging situations in practice

The three interviews were conducted with each participant separately over a two to three-month period at quiet private locations and times preferred by the participants. The interviews were recorded via digital Dictaphone with the permission of the participants (see section 3.5: Ethics). Each interview was estimated to last around approximately 90 minutes; the actual range was from 85 minutes to 105minutes across participants and interviews. As discussed earlier in this chapter (section 3.3) to aid reflexivity and trustworthiness and support ethical consideration, after the first life- history interview, the transcripts were shared with each participant individually before the next interview (Connelly and Clandinin, 1991). The second interview, although unstructured and opening with one question in the context of the interview theme, as above, aspects from the first interview were further explored in relation to the theme. The transcript was again shared afterwards in preparation for the final interview. The third interview occurred in a similar way to the second interview in terms of drawing in on interesting points for further exploration, both from the first life history interview and from the second interview, around the overarching theme of the third interview, as noted above. The transcript of the third interview was also shared afterwards and it was agreed that if either I, or the participant, had any points of uncertainty after the transcription process, email communication would be acceptable. This process allowed for the participants’ narratives to grow and develop during the interview process through reflection, discussion and questioning (Mercer, 2007; Etherington, 2004; Connelly and Clandinin, 1991). Beyond the acceptance and approval of the third transcript the research participants did not have any further data to add to the process. Overall, participants commented that reviewing the transcripts and reflecting on their career history had been influential to their thinking about practice and was overall a positive experience for them.