Interview Interviews in general

Interviews are considered one of the most important sources in case study research since

‘most case studies are about human affairs’ (Yin, 2003: 92) which should be reported and interpreted from the perspectives of people involved. According to Yin (2003: 90), interviews in case studies operate on two levels at the same time, by satisfying the needs of a line of enquiry while asking non-threatening questions in open-ended interviews. Therefore, interviews in case studies are usually of ‘an open-ended nature,’ in which interviewees are asked about the facts as well as their opinions about the events (ibid: 90).

Generally, ‘interviews are used as a source for understanding how individuals make sense of their social world and act within it’ (May, 2001: 142), providing ‘rich insights into people’s biographies, experiences, opinions, values, aspirations, attitudes and feelings’ (ibid: 120).

Research interview can be defined as ‘a two-person conversation, initiated by the interviewer for the specific purpose of obtaining research-relevant information, and focused by him on content specified by research objectives of systematic description, prediction, or explanation’

(Cannell and Kahn, 1968: 527). In accordance with this idea of interviews, the research conducted interviews with various people involved in the project being studied, with the aim of investigating their experiences, values and attitudes concerning peace education.

Moreover, interviews are considered most useful for an exploratory purpose of enquiry, and are more suitable than questionnaires when questions are open-ended or complex (Gray, 2004:

214). According to Cohen and Manion (1989: 308-9), interviews may be used for the following three main purposes: first, it may be used as the principal means of data collection in the light of the research objectives; second, it may be used to test hypotheses, to suggest new ones or to identify variables and relationships; third, it may be used in combination with other methods, for instance, to validate other methods. Reflecting these general purposes of interviews, this research conducted one-to-one interviews and group interviews as the prime

means of collecting data for an exploratory purpose. Since the main questions were open-ended, asking complex and detailed descriptions and explanations of the principles and practice of peace education, interviews were more appropriate than questionnaires.

For the purpose of gaining insights into the reality of peace education, all the interviews in this research were used to ask for detailed descriptions concerning specific questions or particular issues from the perspectives of the people involved. Thus, semi-structured interviews were more appropriate than either unstructured or fully structured interviews. In semi-structured interviews in general, while there is a list of questions or specific topics investigated by a researcher, the interview process is flexible and interviewees are given space in how to reply (Bryman, 2004: 321). This is because semi-structured interviews emphasise the perspectives, understandings and explanations of interviewees regarding the issues and events being studied. Since semi-structured interviews allow a researcher to clarify and elaborate on the questions in response to answers given by interviewees, and to record the qualitative data, the researcher can probe detailed responses through a dialogue with the interviewees (May, 2001: 123). In this research, the conversations were tape-recorded, then transcribed, in order to gain precise information from the interviews. Although the interview schedule, the content, sequence and wording of the questions were planned in advance, the actual interviews were more flexible by giving freedom to both the researcher and the respondents (Robson, 1993: 230-1).

Regarding the preparation of the interview schedule, which needs to reflect the research aims and translate them into interview questions, consideration was given to the objectives and focuses of the interviews (Cohen and Manion, 1989: 321). While the content of questions was developed from the research questions, the researcher had informal talks with some interviewees prior to formal interviews in order to gain basic understanding of the research context, as well as piloting and refining the interview questions. The details of the construction of the interview questions are presented in Appendix D.

In terms of major advantages, interviews are useful for exploring issues in more depth than other methods of data collection (Cohen and Manion, 1989: 308). Interviewing is ‘a flexible and adaptable way of finding things out,’ and provides ‘the possibility of modifying one’s line of enquiry, following up interesting responses and investigating underlying motives’ (Robson, 1993: 229). Another advantage of interviews is the opportunity to approach a wider range of people and situations in comparison with participant observation, in which researchers are constrained in their interactions and observations to a limited range of people, events and sites (Bryman, 2004: 341). In this research, interviewing different project workers was useful in providing the overall picture of the organisation and the principles underlying its practice, while observation was conducted in only one programme run by one project worker.

As regards disadvantages of interviewing, it is more expensive and time-consuming than questionnaires (Oppenheim, 1992: 82-3). There may be a problem of interviewer effects since the unnatural character of interviewing can be seen as a context within which reactive effects may occur (Bryman, 2004: 340). Moreover, interviewing can become subjective and biased (Cohen and Manion, 1989: 308) and, in particular, interviewer bias can be a potential threat to the validity of interview measures (ibid: 318). Thus, this research used multiple methods in order to validate the interview measure by comparing it with another measure that appears to be valid, as suggested by Cohen and Manion (1989: 318).

Group Interviews with Children

In addition to the general characteristics of interviews discussed above, further considerations are needed for group interviews and for interviewing children. In terms of the general purpose, Watts and Ebbutt (1987: 27) consider group interviews as appropriate when ‘a particular group has a status within the domain of the research inquiry and it is important that a collective view is sought rather than interviewing the group members individually.’ The purpose of the group interviews in this research was to investigate the overall impact of the

project on pupils as participants, in particular from their own perspectives. While individual pupils were asked to respond to specific questions, the interviews intended to explore general trends or patterns in the pupils’ responses, indicating their collective viewpoints.

While young people’s voices or opinions are not always heard compared to those of adults, one main reason for interviewing young people is ‘to allow them to give voice to their own interpretations and thoughts rather than rely solely on our adult interpretations of their lives’

(Eder and Fingerson, 2002: 181). On the other hand, interviewing children requires special consideration for its context and process, alongside ethical issues which will be discussed later in this chapter. While researchers’ control over the process of interviewing can occur in all interviews, Eder and Fingerson (2002: 182) state that it is essential for the researchers to take account of the power dynamics between adults and youth in interviewing children.

Regarding the issue of power dynamics and the importance of creating a natural context for interviewing children, recent research suggests that children are more comfortable and relaxed in group settings, which can also minimise the power difference between the researcher and children (Eder and Fingerson, 2002: 183).

Considering these aspects, group interviews in this research contributed to creating a less threatening and more natural setting for pupils, while interviewing all the pupils in a class for feedback on the project reflected the principles of equality, inclusion, co-operation and good communication promoted in the project. In terms of size of a group, having five or six pupils in a group seemed to be appropriate for conducting interviews effectively, since it may be impossible to interview properly with more than ten people in a group (Hedges, 1985: 75).

In group interviews which bring a small number of people together to discuss topics on the research agenda, the task of the group interviewer is ‘not to conduct individual interviews simultaneously but to facilitate a comprehensive exchange of views in which all participants are able to “speak their minds” and respond to the ideas of others’ (Walker, 1985: 5). Since group interviews encourage the interaction between interviewees, the role of the interviewer

becomes a ‘moderator’ or ‘facilitator’ (Watts and Ebbutt, 1987: 27). In the process, Oppenheim (1992: 79) suggests that the interviewer should try ‘to be as non-directive as possible, while maintaining control of the group.’ Since group interviews in this research were intended to gather data which represent the viewpoints of pupils as a group, the researcher acted as a ‘facilitator’ to encourage pupils to interact with others, to express their own opinions and feelings, while allowing them to react freely to what others said. During the interview, the pupils were asked to speak one at a time for tape-recording (e.g. Oppenheim, 1992: 79), which helped to maintain control of the group.

With regards to advantages, group interviews are useful for studying an established group (Robson, 1993: 241), apart from the obvious reason: their efficiency in terms of cost and time in comparison with one-to-one interviews (Hedges, 1985: 71). These aspects were reflected in the present research, which involved a whole class of pupils as an established group and required the efficient use of time in order to interview them all within a limited time. As for another advantage, group interviews can provide a social context which helps participants to consider other people’s viewpoints in forming their own responses (Hedges, 1985: 72). Watts and Ebbutt (1987: 32) also state that one advantage of group interviews is ‘their potential to allow discussions to develop so that a wide range of responses can be collected’ while ‘such interviews are useful, for example, where a group of people have been working together for some time or common purpose, or where it is seen as important that everyone concerned is aware of what others in the group are saying.’ In this research, it seems that the group setting helped pupils to interact with others and share their experience of participating in the project together, which created a lively atmosphere and some conversations between them.

There are also disadvantages of group interviews, including the difficulty in following up the viewpoints of individuals (Robson, 1993: 241). Watts and Ebbutt (1987: 33) note that group interviews are not useful for bringing personal issues or probing individual perceptions since ‘the dynamic of a group denies access to this sort of data’. Moreover, the effect of group

dynamics can become a problem, for example, when group dynamics or power hierarchies influence who speaks and what people say (Robson, 1993: 241). Dominant characters may have an effect on what others say, people may feel nervous about expressing viewpoints opposed to those of the rest of the group, or ‘people sometimes feel constrained in what they say in front of their peers’ (Hedges, 1985: 74). In order to reduce these effects of group dynamics, Hedges (1985: 82) suggests ‘making sure that dominant characters do not monopolise the conversation, bringing in the quiet members, and ensuring that strong personalities or majorities do not suppress or distort the views of others.’ Considering these issues, the researcher encouraged pupils to say what they really thought, while giving everyone equal chances to speak throughout the interviews.