There are different types of data collection to be used with participants in qualitative research. These could include observation, which may or may not involve the researcher directly, the use of interviews and analysing of documents (Cohen et al., 2011). I did not use observations because this is a life history study and I want to have a perspective on participants’ lives. The use of interviews allowed me the opportunity to talk in-depth with my participants and take leads from them.
3.5.1 Justification for the use of interviews
Interview is a qualitative method used in collecting extensive data or facts from participants. May (2011) describes it as conversation between the researcher and participant on a subject of interest. To Wellington (2015, p.138), interview ‘involves a relatively informal interactive style, which may often involve a two-way exchange of views’. This suggests a verbal exchange between the researcher and a participant on a range of issues with the intention of gaining more insight on issues. Thus, Anyan (2013) asserts that the purpose of the interviews is to enable the researcher to collect in-depth information about the interviewee, with the aim of interpreting the meaning of the interviewee’s experiences of the world. This in-depth information, according to May (2001, p.121), includes ‘insight into peoples’ biographies, experiences, opinion, values, attitudes, and feelings’ based on what the interviewee is ready to share on a given subject.
77 As a qualitative data collection technique, the use of in-depth interviews means only a small number of people can be included in the study, as compared to the use of survey or questionnaire in a quantitative method, where a larger number can be used (Creswell, 2007). Since interviews are designed as a conversation, they are seen as time consuming and difficult to generalise, due to the small sample and different opinions that may be expressed by different participants. Although many qualitative researchers use interviews as a form of collecting data for more in-depth insights, St. Pierre and Jackson (2014) appear to criticise this method, arguing that researchers tend to treat participants’ words as if ‘they can serve as the foundation of knowledge’ (p.715). In other words, qualitative researchers tend to place too much emphasis on participants’ words, as if to say they are absolute truth.
There are a number of interview techniques available for researchers interested in using this method for data collection; structured (using closed questions), semi-structured (a mix of predetermined questions) or unstructured (using open-ended questions) and the process may involve a single participant (one-to-one interviews) or a group of participants (focus group interviews) (May, 2001). For life history studies, Goodson and Sikes (2001, p.28) advocate for the use of ‘unstructured, informal, conversation-type encounters’ if possible. This style is likely to help generate an extensive dataset from participants. For this study, I decided to adopt the use of in-depth semi-structured interviews for my main participants (seven teachers), who are the subject of the study, and unstructured interviews for the experts, who contributed data to the study.
My choice of in-depth semi-structured interviews enabled me to probe and use open-ended questions. I had a few preselected questions (Table 3.3) based on participants’ personal life, language and literacy policy changes since independence and socio cultural changes in Ghana. My use of semi-structured questions in this study also allowed me to ask a number of standardised questions based on a participant’s time-line; e.g. place of birth, education, training, and work history, questions on language policy and their teaching practices, as suggested by Goodson and Sikes (2001). The use of unstructured interviews for the experts made it possible for them to discuss broader issues based on their area of expertise (Cohen et al., 2011; May, 2001). Although unstructured and semi-structured interviews have many advantages, the volume of data and associated difficulties of transcription and analysis can be challenging and daunting.
78
3.5.2 Interview guide and schedules
Before the start of my field work, I planned how to go about the interviews. This planning involved, deciding upon the questions to ask, the location for the interviews, the duration of the interview and my travelling time. This planning was necessary because I had to travel from Accra to meet my participants, who were living in different towns in Eastern and Greater Accra regions. There were three sets of interviews and we had agreed to have them on separate days, which meant I had to meet each participant on three occasions. I prepared a number of questions, which I gave participants to help them prepare for the interviews. Table 3.1 below shows the interview schedule/plan and provides a list of the main and sub-research themes emanating from the three research questions and four objectives of the study.
Table 3.1
Semi-structured Interview Plan – 7 Main Participants (Hubert, Frank, Mary, Grace, Dorothy, Jessica, and Judith)1
3 Phases of the semi- structured interviews
each 45-60 minutes
Main research themes Research Questions 1, 2, 3 and Objectives, 1
and 2
Sub-themes Example of specific interview questions Phase 1 – First interview Professional life history of participants Participant’s life history
Can you tell me about yourself?
Phase 2 – Second interview
Knowledge and understanding of specific language and literacy policies and their impact on classroom practices.
Language policies since independence English-only, local language and NALAP policies
What language policy did you use when you taught lower grades?
Phase 3 – Third interview
Impact of changes in language and literacy policies on teaching practices in the context of prevailing socio- cultural environment
Socio-cultural changes What were some of the cultural and social changes at the time you were teaching lower grades?
Note: (1) participant names have been anonymised to protect their identities
As shown in Table 3.1, the semi-structured interviews were conducted in three phases, each covering a specific main and sub-research themes linked to the research questions and objectives.
Phase 1 was the first interview of three. In this interview, participants were asked questions about themselves and their professional life. This interview was very important to the study, as
79 participants had the opportunity to talk about their families, education and professional lives as teachers. In this interview, participants reflected on their past and where they were at that moment. The second interview (Phase 2) was about participants’ knowledge and understanding of the specific language and literacy policy used during their teaching and any change that took place during the decade in which they taught in the lower grades. The third interview or phase 3, was about their experiences of using the language and literacy policy in the context of the prevailing political and socio-cultural changes within the society. All the interviews were conducted in the English language although there were occasions when participants used a local language of their choice.
All the interviews were voice recorded using an Olympus digital recorder VN-7700. Although the initial time set for each interview was forty-five minutes, most of the interviews exceeded this because of the need for more explanation and clarification on issues. My two retired participants had a lot to say, possibly because they had more work experience and a lot of time for a conversation. This accounts for the reservation of some life history researchers about time keeping. Pinsky (2015), for example, argues for a more flexible approach to interviews and for more interactive time with participants, rather than a prescribed or limited time approach. As I was able to develop a good relationship with my participants, they were able to narrate their stories and experiences freely without inhibition. I interfered when I thought there was need for clarification or if I wanted more explanation on issues.
The interview with the three experts was unstructured. The reason was to give me the opportunity to ask open-ended questions, so that I could get information about formulating or implementing, monitoring and evaluating early language and literacy policies in Ghana and about the church’s role in this process. As such, the main theme for the interview was ‘Early language and literacy policy formulation/implementation process in Ghana’. As expected in life history studies, the use of the unstructured interview method enabled these experts to discuss issues pertaining to their jobs in detail, as they perceived them, which gave me deeper insight into what they do and how they do things in their respective positions (May, 2001; Goodson and Sikes, 2001). I started the interview with only one statement i.e. Tell me about your knowledge and experience with language and literacy policy formulation, implement and implementation processes. The rest of the interview questions came from the answers each participant provided.
80 The information from the experts’ interviews were useful in validating participants’ interviews, as suggested by Gudmundsdottir and Brock-Utne, 2010). First, these interviews provided the context within which some of the findings from my seven main participants were discussed and interpreted. Second, the use of unstructured interviews enabled me to critically assess the significance of the language and literacy policy formulation process, providing the basis for thinking about the nature of any future language and literacy policy and how it might impact teaching practices in lower grades.