In-depth, phenomenologically based interviewing

According to Seidman (2006), phenomenological studies often use multiple data sources such as documents, observations, explorations of history, experimentation, surveys, and reviews of existing literature; however, interviews alone can serve as a thorough approach for certain types of studies: “If the researcher’s goal is to understand the meaning people make of their experience then interviewing provides a necessary, if not always completely sufficient, avenue of inquiry” (p. 11). Accordingly, I designed an interview protocol for this study to elicit the principals’ perceptions about student voice practices in classrooms in their schools using a questioning strategy that permits participants to describe freely their experience on their own terms. Seidman (2006), describes an approach to interviewing that he terms in-depth phenomenologically based

assumptions from phenomenology. In this approach, interviewers use primarily open-ended questions and build upon and explore participants’ responses. The goal is for the participant to reconstruct his or her experience for the interviewer (Seidman, 2006).

Often the best way to get to the heart of the phenomenon is to ask broad or open-ended questions that will lead to rich descriptions. Moustakas (1994) suggests asking two broad questions: “What have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon?” and “What contexts or situations have typically influenced or affected your experiences of the phenomenon?” I integrated these concepts into the questions of my interview protocol.

Van Manen (1990) describes several ways to collect experiential material from others, one of which is the interview which serves two very specific purposes. First, it may be used to gather narrative material that can be used to develop a deeper understanding of the phenomenon, and second, it can be used to develop a conversation with the participant about the meaning of the experience. I utilized both of these approaches in my interview protocol, which includes open-ended questions designed to elicit a narrative description of an experience with an outstanding teacher, and more specific questions about the phenomenon of student voice designed to determine how the participants create meaning and understanding of the concept.

3.4.1.1 Three interview series

The choice to use the phenomenologically based interviewing approach was made in part because this model involves a thorough interviewing process that allows for the phenomenon to be studied completely and also allows for internal validity checks. The model suggests conducting a series of three separate interviews with each participant and is based on the work of Dolbeare and Schuman (Schuman, 1982) who designed the series of three interviews. The first interview establishes the context of the participants’ experience.

The second allows participants to reconstruct the details of their experience, and the third encourages the participants to reflect on the meaning their experience (Seidman, 2006).

The first interview uses questions that will place the participant’s experience in context and provide insight into experiences that might have influenced his or her understanding of the phenomenon. For this study, the first interview established the background of the principal. This interview provided valuable information about the participant’s philosophies toward teaching and learning that may affect the way in which he or she perceives the meaning and importance of student voice in instructional settings. Following Seidman’s model, during the second interview, I attempted to elicit concrete details of the participant’s experience with the phenomenon— student voice practices in instructional settings. Principals were not asked for opinions, but rather the details of their experience upon which their opinions may be built (Seidman, 2006). The third interview asked participants to reflect on the meaning of their experience—the intellectual and emotional connections between the participant’s work and life. They were asked to reflect on the first two interviews and to explore how the past events led them to their present understanding. This is critical to the current study as one of the propositions is that a principal’s past experiences as an instructional leader, teacher and learner will affect the way in which he or she views the meaning and importance of student voice in instructional settings.

Seidman (2006) stresses the importance of adhering to the three-interview structure and focusing only on the task of that particular interview as it takes place, so even though the inquiry may be open-ended, it does have an objective at each step. This is important because each interview provides a foundation of detail for the next interview. Dolbeare and Schuman (Schuman, 1982) suggest using a 90-minute format for each interview, although Seidman points out that “there is nothing magical or absolute about this timeframe,” suggesting that the

interviewer leave enough time for the interviewee to be able to reconstruct the events in enough detail to be sufficient.

The three-interview structure works best when the researcher can space out each interview from 3 days to a week apart allowing time for the participant to think about the preceding interview but not enough time to lose connection between the two interviews (Seidman, 2006). The three-interview structure also allows the interviewer to establish a substantial relationship with the participants over time (Seidman, 2006), which is useful in obtaining accurate data where trust is established. Seidman recognizes that the structure of the interview protocol may need to be adjusted depending on the nature of the study and the availability of the participants. He acknowledges combining two interviews into one or choosing a different amount of time between each interview and asserts that accommodations such as these are acceptable and have been successful, “as long as the structure is maintained that allows participants to reflect upon their experience within the context of their lives” (p. 21).

Given the limitations of the schedules of many building principals and the desire to obtain permission from as many as possible, it was not feasible to request that a principal devote 90 minutes to three separate interviews on three different days. Most principals would find it difficult to devote more than 60 minutes on any given day. For this reason, I chose to schedule one sixty-minute interview combining both parts one and two and a thirty-minute interview for part three. I conducted interviews one and two in person with all participants. Participants were given the choice of either a face-to-face or phone interview for part three. All participants chose the phone interview. I attempted to schedule these interviews 3-7 days apart, however, the schedules of the participants dictated when the interviews were able to occur.

Most interviews were conducted within the 3-7 day range, but in several cases, the follow-up interview was not able to occur until 10-15 days after the initial interview.