Interpretive researchers hold that data are not out there to be collected by objective
researchers, instead they are generated through the researcher’s relationships with
participants and interpretations made thereof (Graue & Walsh, 1998). Because qualitative research is descriptive, data generation takes the form of words and pictures from the field. This section considers the data generation methods used in this study.
3.5.1 Participant observation
Eisner (1998) claimed that the “richest vein of information is struck through direct observation” (p. 182). Observations in the classroom can be structured or unstructured. Structured observations are made using a schedule to record the timing and nature of events, whereas unstructured observations are jotted in a notebook to record full details of social interactions and events as they unfold. Participant observations vary in their degree of observation and participation illustrated by Glesne and Peshkin (1999) on a participant-observation continuum. At the observer end of this continuum, the researcher has little or no interaction with the people in
the setting, such as observing a classroom through a one way mirror. At the next point on the continuum, the observer-as-participant is still mainly an observer but has some interaction, such as taking notes at the back of a classroom. Further along the continuum the participant-as-observer interacts extensively with others, such as engaging in a range of classroom activities and also taking notes. At the far end of the continuum the teacher is the researcher or full participant in the classroom. For the purposes of this study, I positioned myself as participant-as-observer.
3.5.2 Interviews with teachers
The qualitative interview is used to supplement the rich descriptions from observations to ensure the interpretation of meaning is consistent with the participant’s view (Eisenhart, 2001). Interviews are categorised as highly structured, semi-structured or unstructured (Fontana & Frey, 2000; Merriam, 1998). A highly structured, or standardised interview, is an oral form of a survey in which predetermined questions are asked in sequential order. Unstructured or informal interviews are more like a conversation that explore themes relevant to the inquiry. Between these two extremes, semi-structured interviews are guided by open-ended questions, responses to which are probed for deeper meaning. The present study used semi and unstructured interviews because of their potential for spontaneity, flexibility and probing. The semi-structured interview schedule contains specific and open-ended questions of different types such as: following-up, probing, detailing, interpretive, hypothetical, direct and indirect.
Kvale (1996) wrote about interviews as “a construction site of knowledge…between two persons conversing about a theme of mutual interest” (p. 2). This perspective is based on a sociocultural premise that new understandings are embedded in an exchange of views, or dialogue; new understandings are developed between people. Interviews in this sense are a journey as Kvale explained using a traveller metaphor:
The interviewer wanders along with the inhabitants, asks questions that lead the subjects to tell their own stories of their lived world, and converses with them in the original Latin meaning of conversation as ‘wandering together with’. (p. 4)
Kvale’s ideas are shared by other sociocultural researchers who liken interviews to research conversations (Gollop, 2000), long and serious conversations (Feldman, 1999), purposeful conversations (Berg, 2001), guided conversations (Rubin & Rubin, 1995), and negotiated accomplishments (Fontana & Frey, 2000). Knowledge is shared and new understandings developed as both the interviewee and the interviewer jointly construct the conversation (Feldman, 1999), which as sociocultural theorists argue, is shaped by the context in which the interview takes place. While there is always an asymmetry of power where the interviewer defines the overall focus, efforts were made in the present study to shift this power in favour of the interviewee, by encouraging them to direct the conversation to issues that mattered to them. By restructuring traditional hierarchical research relationships, the data gained depth and reality (Rubin & Rubin, 1995), and teachers developed their voice (Gitlin et al., 1992).
While face-to-face conversation in a research community is the preferred mode of discourse, electronic mail can provide another point of connection between the participants (Chang-Wells & Wells, 1997). These writers found electronic mail to be useful when research participants worked in separate locations. Advantages of conversations through electronic mail include revisiting an event and rethinking its meaning in the act of writing to which other participants can respond. This has the potential to create a richer description of teachers’ perspectives. Disadvantages of using electronic mail include the risk of developing a culture of exclusion if they are sent between only two members of the community.
3.5.3 Interviews with children
Interviews with children are increasingly becoming a means to generate rich data about their feelings and perspectives in relation to their classroom learning. In line with the suggestion of David, Edwards and Alldred (2001), children in this study were interviewed in pairs to optimise the potential for them to “take control of the discussion and draw it off onto a number of different tangents” (Connolly, 1997, p. 171). Mayall’s (2000) analysis of research conversations with pairs or groups of children revealed their social competence to listen, respond, add points, and to support each other to speak; talking with children showcased their collaborative abilities. At the heart of successful conversations with children is the relationship and
rapport that develops between them and the researcher. Gollop (2000) suggested rapport building strategies such as disclosing information about the researcher, valuing children’s ideas, being relaxed, giving choices about talking, and creating spaces for children to direct the dialogue. The latter point is emphasised by Mayall (2000) as a means of encouraging discussion about things that matter to them.
Including children in this research created unique challenges. For instance, despite my earlier assurance that no right answers existed, having our research conversations in the school context initially led some children to respond in a traditional teacher- pupil interaction. For instance, when I probed an initial response, some children concluded that it was incorrect. As Graue and Walsh (1998) pointed out, children expect that the answers to questions posed by an adult are known by that adult: “few children have had the experience of being approached by an adult who wants them, the kids, to teach her, the adult, about their lives” (p. 113). I made a point of conveying to the children my belief in their social competence and in the expertise they had to share with me. I was also mindful of Connolly’s (1997) allegation that there can never be “one, true and definitive ‘authentic voice’ of young children” (p. 179), only voices that respond to the context and relationships therein.
3.5.4 Documents, photographs and research diary
Documents are a useful source of evidence to support themes emerging through other methods. Categorised as either: personal documents, official texts or reflections of popular culture, they can include letters, school policies and student magazines (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). While analyses of these documents can reveal rich accounts of the author’s perspective, they do not reveal the diverse perspectives and disagreements that may have transpired in their writing (Pollard, Thiessen & Filer, 1997). Consideration thus needs to be given to the possibility of their representing a sanitised version of events.
Photographs are another valuable means to enhance participant observation (Glesne & Peshkin, 1999). While there is debate about the efficacy and ethics of using photography in qualitative research (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998), it is a relatively unobtrusive way to add value to data because it enables the researcher to see the complexity and ambiguity of a situation without getting caught up in it (Wolcott,
1994). Photographic records can also stimulate later discussion about the interactions that occurred around them, this acting as a door into a sequence of actions, rather than as a window into a single time and place (Forman & Fyfe, 1998).
A research diary is a valuable means to reflect on the research process and the relationships therein. A diary is also a means to maintain reflexivity where the effect of the researcher’s values, feelings and actions can be identified (Winter, 1987). Research diaries have been used to explore responses to issues that arise in the research and to the feelings associated with these such as the “untidiness” of CAR (Lee, 2002). The process of writing can also enable understandings to emerge of the research process, and to engender strategies to cope with the anxiety which can become a constant research companion (Glesne & Peshkin, 1999).