Description of data sources

Although a mixed-method approach was considered appropriate in the planning phase, this was modified as fieldwork progressed, and predominantly qualitative inquiry methods were used for data collection. Qualitative research protocols included semi-structured interviews and long-form

interviews, focus groups, classroom observation and immersion in the natural setting, which is viewed as minimally intrusive but conceptually rigorous (Giorgi, 2009, p. 72). Qualitative data were

supplemented by quantitative data in a “dominant less dominant” relationship (Rudestam & Newton, 2001, p. 42), specifically using one demographic information survey (see Appendix D).

Data collected on-site took the form of audio recordings, handwritten notes of unrecorded interviews, ethnographic fieldwork jottings (see Appendices E, F, G & H), hard copies of surveys, photographs of empty classrooms and the research setting, and transcripts of voice recordings. Data were non-

identifiable, being either not labelled with individual identifiers or having identifiers permanently removed. All audio recordings were transcribed by the researcher. Identifiers were removed in the transcription process.

Interviews provided a deep understanding of participants’ views, beliefs and experiences in their own voices. The semi-structured format enabled participants to guide the conversation into areas of greater personal and professional interest. Interviews formed the basis for developing an interpretive

framework around this “rich and subtle experiential detail” (van Manen, 2014, p. 302) in the analytical stage, to discover what informs their positions, point of coherence and other interdiscursivities. Through their words, the way in which teachers spoke of the phenomenon indicated advanced levels of cultural competence. As will be discussed in a later chapter, this was in part a result of the School’s policy pertaining to the selection process for allocating teachers to Aboriginal Education classes.

4.4.3.1. Interviews

In a phenomenological inquiry, data collection protocol consists mainly of long-form interviews about a specific experience (the phenomenon) which, in this study, is the participants’ lived experience of teaching Aboriginal students. Another important element of phenomenology, from the standpoint of the researcher, is the act of suspending all judgements prior to the data collection phase. This process is undertaken in order to ensure the resultant findings and developing theory are firmly evidence- based. This approach is critical for discovering the authentic voice of participants. It has particular relevance to individuals of Aboriginal heritage, whose voices should arrive unfiltered by dominant- culture interference.

Where possible, face-to-face communication was used in preference to other forms of non-verbal communication. Utilising strategies from ethnographic inquiries, this preference supported my aim to build rapport with participants and enter into the microculture more fully as a peer and fellow

journeyman of culturally different classrooms, and thereby establish trust in the researcher-informant relationship, in an attempt to hasten progress along the continuum from outsider to insider (Creswell, 1998, p. 123). The study is partially located within the interpretivist paradigm and thereby has a strong emphasis on participant perspectives. Interview protocols enabled participants to relate their ‘truths’ unfiltered and unalloyed by preconceived theories of the researcher. When applying a phenomenological approach, questions must attempt to elicit the participant’s own truths and

experience. In other words, in the view of van Manen (2014), questions should seek only “lived experience descriptions” or prereflective-experiential moments: “Aim to capture experiences as they are lived through. Avoid asking for opinions, beliefs, or perceptions” (p. 298).

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by the researcher within a single academic year (Semester 1 and 2, 2017). Interviews ranged in length from one hour, to fit within a single ‘free’ (non-teaching) period, up to three hours, when participants expressed interest in continuing the conversation beyond the allocated timeframe of a double period. Open-ended questions aimed to elicit chronological, experiential and evaluative accounts (Santoro et al., 2011) of the lived experience. The list of proposed questions was thematic yet adapted to the narrative

direction taken by participants: chronological details included prior experience in cross-cultural settings and early impressions of the phenomenon. Evaluative, narrative-driven aspects included pedagogical approaches to the unique context, cross-cultural communication strategies and advice for early career teachers or those new to the phenomenon. (Questions approved by the ECU Human Research Ethics Committee are listed in Appendix B). Themes raised by participants themselves guided tangential portions of the conversational exploration and were interrupted only with clarifying questions or to prompt interviewees to provide examples (Luttrell, 2010a). For instance, when a teacher spoke of respecting cultural sensitivities in the classroom, the researcher asked for an example, thus they might speak of making a decision that may have appeared to be acquiescing or permissive, but which was in fact derived from an understanding of the context at the time.

In the study, the phenomenological approach sought to capture authentically voiced recollections, for the express purpose of understanding the phenomenon as it is experienced by teachers. Questions were flexible and open, deliberately devoid of overt influence by the researcher in order to encourage participants’ authentic voices for, as Bogdan and Biklen (2010) aptly point out, “approaching people with a goal of trying to understand their point of view, while not perfect, distorts the informants’ experience the least” (p. 33). Interviews, as a form of data, can draw insights and revelations that may not be brought to light if the researcher relies only on surveys or structured questioning with little opportunity for participants to tell their stories: “What people actually say and the descriptions of events observed remain the essence of qualitative inquiry.” (Patton, 2002, p. 457).

Data collection techniques were modified in some circumstances. For example, one interviewee did not give approval for audio-recording so, in accordance with ethnographic methods, handwritten notes captured many statements verbatim, ensuring the transcript incorporated this individual’s eloquent turn of phrase, adding authenticity to the analysis.

4.4.3.2. Comments about the interviews

Use of purposeful sampling reduced the potential for exclusion to have a negative connotation. For those who fitted the criteria, participation in the study could be readily explained to peers at their own discretion, and any subsequent involvement in research protocols would be accepted.

Semi-structured and long form interviews contained proforma questions, usually open-ended, in order to guide the interview in thematic directions yet flexibly, so as to convey a conversational tone throughout. In phenomenological interviews, questions are intended as a guide to draw out participants’ personal experiences of the phenomenon with an emphasis on respect, empowerment and self-expression. So, while a hard copy of the questions list lay before me at every interview, conversation necessarily diverged from direct pathways onto uncharted trails of reflection or opinion, humour, worry or contemplation based on the thoughts and ideas of participants. I, cognisant of the slowly revealing and “inductive nature” (Patton, 2002, p. 176) of qualitative methods, steered the interview through unmapped terrain, at times returning to marked waypoints, all the while hoping for discursive revelation.

The interview process encouraged participants to consider their experiences in a reflective light, particularly learnings and adaptations made during their time at the School, and any advice for early career teachers embarking on a similar journey. Semi-structured questions were amended according to the direction and content of each interview as is appropriate in phenomenological research (Rudestam & Newton, 2001, p. 95). Long form interviews uncovered participants’ views and all opinions were respected, respect for others being a tenet of humanistic values and one of the principles underpinning the study. Humour, understanding and empathy were expressed in the interview process.

Teachers and administration staff who were excluded from the study, that is, they did not meet the sampling criteria for inclusion, nevertheless often adopted the role of gatekeeper in offering advice and insight regarding the phenomenon and educational setting. While this source of information was relevant to building the researcher’s contextual knowledge of the site, all commentary was excluded from analysis.

4.4.3.3. Teacher focus group

Although mentioned earlier in this chapter, in relation to participant contribution, the two distinct focus groups will now be described in more detail.

All teacher participants were invited to attend a Teacher focus group, planned midweek around lunchtime with a flexible window of one to two hours. Focus groups are ideally held at local, safe and generally comfortable venues (Luttrell, 2010b, p. 320). In the study, the main staff room was

chairs and tables, photocopiers, toilets and kitchenette. Its oft-used familiarity diminished hierarchical cues within the group. Several participants arrived late. In each case, conversation was briefly halted to remind participants of pertinent research protocols, including respect and confidentiality, ability to withdraw from the study, and the right to request statements to be deleted from the transcript. HODs were invited to participate but chose not to attend. Four teachers attended: all male, one lead teacher and three proficient teachers from Mathematics, Science, Art and Physical Education departments.

4.4.3.4. Boarding focus group

All boarding participants were invited to attend the Boarding focus group. The staff room of one Boarding House was chosen by participants as their preferred venue, being convenient and situated away from the converging halls, offices and storerooms near the main entrance. Three Heads of House attended: one female and two males. All were very experienced and long-term employees of the School.

4.4.3.5. Comments about focus groups

Focus groups required a greater focus on logistics than interviews. A three-hour window was arranged to suit teachers’ schedules for non-teaching periods, report writing and meeting attendance. The Boarding focus group was slightly less complex, scheduled prior to the commencement of shifts, as preferred by participants.

Focus groups were semi-structured with guidance from the researcher based on a list of themed open- ended questions (see Appendix C) and audio-recorded with consent. Transcription of audio recordings ensured that participants’ voices could be quoted verbatim. Questioning techniques were drawn from the indirect approach of existential phenomenology, in which questions are open-ended, semi- structured or unstructured and applied in a conversational manner with the aim to elicit stories in everyday language that have significant meaning for the participants and reveal issues that matter to them (Somekh & Lewin, 2005, p. 126). Interactions were reflected upon in the ethnographic

fieldnotes (see Appendices G & H for samples) and during transcription by the researcher, based on handwritten notes made at the time. Focus groups as a data source have direct relevance to the interpretivist perspective of “storytelling” (Greene, 2010, p. 63, emphasis in original) and data analysis is described later in this chapter.

4.4.3.6. Direct observation

Classroom observations were arranged during site visits with details negotiated with teachers to suit their schedule and preference. On critically reflecting about appropriate observation protocols, the researcher scheduled classroom visits to follow the interview of the teacher involved, to enable the building of rapport and increase their level of comfort with my presence in class. Classroom

observation of teachers with various year levels and key learning areas (KLAs) occurred on each site visit, to verify and observe practices previously related to the researcher by the teachers in interviews. Observations began with the researcher arriving shortly before the students. This practice enabled the teacher to prepare the students outside for the presence of a visitor inside the classroom. The teacher’s preferences guided the protocols in the classroom, with the researcher taking a seat at the rear of the classroom in one instance and circulating the classroom with the teacher in another. Teachers usually introduced the researcher as a fellow teacher ‘just seeing what we’re doing today.’ I have observed teachers in other schools using this technique to transfer equivalent status to any visitor to normalise the situation and I encouraged participants’ use of this approach so as to avoid “disturbing too much the social processes through the obvious presence of the researcher” (Somekh & Lewin, 2005, p. 132). Appropriate permissions were acquired for classroom observations. Photographs of empty classrooms, taken on a passcode-protected phone, served as visual prompts and contextualisation of the data and research setting. No students were photographed or interviewed. Photographs are not intended for publication, however, sample pen sketches made during classroom observations to indicate the relative positions of teachers and students are to be found in Appendices E and F.