Data collection methods

Flick (2002 in Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p.7) states that ‘qualitative research is inherently multi-method in focus. He also states that the use of multi-methods ensures triangulation, protects an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question and adds rigour, breadth, complexity, richness, and depth to an inquiry. Accordingly, I employed interviews as the principal method and documentary reviews and observations to supplement the interview data.

3.2.4.1 Interviews

Guided by the research questions, literature review, philosophical foundations and my own professional experience I prepared semi-structured interview guides for interviewing participants. This pre-preparedness was extremely useful in collecting essential data from a number of participants, to have an insight into data analysis and to be clearly focused on the purpose of the study (Bryman, 2008, pp.439-440; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p.190). These guides (see Appendix 3.1) also helped in deciding the structure for data analysis and the cross-case comparison of the school case-studies. The pilot interviews which I had with two policy officials (i.e. PO3 and PO6, see Table 3.2), the principal and two teachers of a school (i.e. Type2/rural school, see Table 3.1) and the principal, two teachers and three parents of another school (i.e. Type2/urban school, see Table 3.1) helped to improve the guides.

Kvale & Brinkmann (2009, pp.17-18) state that

interviewing is an active process where interviewer and interviewee through their relationship produce knowledge. Interview knowledge is produced in a conversational relation; it is contextual, linguistic, narrative, and pragmatic.

I conducted interviews attempting to maintain close relationships and interpersonal dynamics between my participants and myself, while also being reasonably critical in obtaining relevant data. Practically all the interviews were converted into in- depth, more conversational, qualitative ones, since semi-structured questions were combined with cognitive-based, broad and open-ended, un-structured, situational questions (Bryman, 2008, p.438). In them, I was a partner and active listener and I felt that they were enriched by my professional experience and ‘experiential learning’ too. In fact, they helped me to acquire ‘tacit knowledge’ in the research context (Drake & Heath, 2011, p.15). For example, to reveal the reasons for the initiation of SBM initiatives, I had to converse on the critical moments of the process of policy-development over time. Further, when certain complementarities between PSI and CFSI were revealed, I entered into in-depth discussions with school-level participants on how exactly these were being practised in the schools, despite the fact that such complementarities had never been advocated. I was careful to not bring in my own views or written evidence in the interviews, and I attempted to learn the meanings that my participants held about various issues of the topic. Therefore, on the whole, my ‘interpretivist stance’ (Bryman, 2008, pp.15-17) persuaded me to gather meanings and interpretations that flowed from my participants’ experiences, making the nature of knowledge created through this study ‘more subjective and experience- and insight-based’ (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p.1). However, a very few interviews were found to be not very informative, and those were due to participants’ inadequate exposure to the issues under study.

Since I myself conducted all the interviews, I kept the objectives and questions in mind and found that the rate of return was higher in the interviews than in a survey using questionnaires. Interviews with policy- and school-level participants were conducted in their own workplaces while interviews with parents were also conducted in the respective schools. I found interviewing was a challenging task since they required me to be knowledgeable about theories, concepts, policies and guidelines as well as an expert in communication and interaction. Sometimes, I had to raise questions differently

and with clarifications for some participants in order to obtain their views on particular issues. Those challenges were well received, since my intention was to learn about the problem to the maximum. Therefore, I adopted the ‘traveller’ approach (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p.49), which ensures that the knowledge created by this study is socially constructed and ‘thus owned by me as well as by the participants’ (Creswell, 2009, pp.8-9, Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p.28, pp.54-55).

In my sequence, I first conducted in-depth interviews with school-level participants and subsequently with policy officials at zone, province and national level. The interviews with Development Partner Agency Representatives (DPAs) were highly focused on how they contributed to the policy and implementation processes. The number of visits I made to each research location ranged from one to three. I conducted five interviews in each school. Interviews ranged from 45 minutes to nearly two hours. Data from some participants were collected on two different days. All participants participated willingly and enthusiastically and I felt they were happy to share their experience and opinions. Some policy-level participants claimed that the interviews helped them to look at the subject in an analytical manner; for example, zone-level official interviewed on CFSI appreciated the opportunity the interview gave him to reflect upon the strengths and weaknesses of his own work. Some of them were exceptionally helpful and provided even subsequent clarifications on certain important matters. Many school participants considered that their participation in this research added a rich experience to them. With all these experiences, I feel that I received their ‘genuine responses’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p.381) and that these improved the quality of this study. In order to further enhance the quality and to verify the data, I shared the draft analysis with participants.

3.2.4.2 Document review

In this study, I reviewed MoE circulars and reports, aide-memoires and documents of the WB and UNICEF to enrich the analysis on the implications of PSI and CFSI for policy (Chapter 4) and analysed school plans, SDC minutes and reports to corroborate the interview data of school case-studies (Chapter 5).