Data Gathering 2: Interviews

Whilst the survey generated responses from a large number of teachers, a series of semi-structured interviews was designed, in order to explore more deeply the opinions about and experiences of information about the brain amongst a selection of teachers and to hear directly how this sample expressed their views. This was the main purpose of interviews 1 to 5, the questions for which can be seen in appendix one. Data is drawn from the interview responses of five teachers, each of whom works in a different context (though there is no intention to imply that each individual context is a ‘typical’ example of each context; the significance is in the fact that they are different).

No time limits were set for the length of the interviews and responses to the questions were explored further as appropriate. The initial question asked the teachers to consider the origins of whatever knowledge they have of the brain, regardless of how extensive they considered that knowledge to be. The

second question then sought to examine in what ways the teachers felt this knowledge influenced their classroom practice, whilst the third question searched for evidence of the impact of these brain knowledge-influenced practices. Question four attempts to delve more deeply into why the teachers believe these practices might have had the impact that they describe.

Questions five turns to the wider context of participants’ schools, asking how or whether the neuroscience of learning fits into the culture and practice of their individual schools. Question six seeks views on whether it is helpful for children to have some understanding of learning and the brain.

Finally, Question seven invites the teachers to share their views about what they believe neuroscience might most usefully assist them with.

The second series of interviews then explored the response of three of the interviewees to the survey data, as well as exploring changes in their own thinking about the brain as a result of participating in this research. In total eight interviews took place, each of which is presented in chapter four.

In designing and conducting the series of interviews, I have been conscious of the danger that has been described by David Silverman as ‘manufactured data’ (2013, p. 32). Silverman questions the need for the use of interviews in many cases and instead suggests that the data that is sought is often

available through other pre-existing means. He goes on to suggest that responses from interviewees to questions that they had not previously

considered may produce immediate answers that are not a reliable reflection of the interviewee’s views, thoughts or beliefs. Therefore, there is a risk that the process itself is ‘manufacturing’ data. In the context of my research, there is little that might be examined as an alternative to gathering responses via interview. Using the example of hospital staff, Silverman suggests that much of what a researcher might seek may be gathered more successfully through

observation of the staff at work, rather than through interviews. Classroom observation of participating teachers was considered at the data gathering design stage, but eventually disregarded through concerns that echo those of Silverman: my presence as an observer would inevitably influence the actions of the teacher, who would be conscious of my interest in the use of

approaches drawing on neuroscience and my presence would also affect the actions of his/her pupils. Observation in schools brings with it a number of ethical and practical considerations. These are not insurmountable, but I concluded that such an approach might only yield a limited amount of the data I sought and that the voices of individual teachers themselves, given time to reflect upon and discuss the questions raised in as natural and conversational manner as possible, would be more productive. This is logical and more reliable, since it gives teachers an opportunity to state their views first hand and for me to consider both what they say and how they say it, rather than trying to glean this by watching them at work. Since my aim is to further understand how teachers think and talk about the brain and educational neuroscience, it is surely sensible to afford them the opportunity to talk.

Silverman acknowledges that ‘the main strength of qualitative data is its ability to study phenomena which are simply unavailable elsewhere’ (op.cit. p.83), which I believe to be apt in the context of my data gathering.

Where interviews are used, Silverman advocates that the setting of the interview is important and should be reported. Full details of the interview settings are supplied in chapter 4. I took the decision that the interviews

choosing and was fortunate in being able to meet with four of the interviewees in their own homes. Interview participant one was interviewed in a classroom in which she undertakes some of her teaching. Prompted by Silverman again, I was eager that responses to my questions in the first sequence of interviews would come in the form of pre-existing experiences, thoughts and concerns, rather than be ‘new thoughts’ generated through pondering on my questions. The second sequence of interviews differed, since here I sought the

responses of three interviewees to the compiled survey responses, which they had not previously seen. This offered effective triangulation and the three participants reacted to the survey data in ways I did not anticipate and in different ways to each other. A final challenge from Silverman drew focus on the need to examine not just views offered by the participants but also the actions that they have taken as a result of these views. The significance of individual actions is a key factor in Cultural Historical Activity Theory and this is discussed below (chapter 3.3).