Four issues concerning interviewing that were discussed by Kvale and Brinkman (2008) have been particularly important for this thesis. Viewing interview as a craft implies that personal and practical issues are resolved before, during, and after interviewing. Kvale and Brinkman also point out that craftsmanship only can be obtained through practicing interviewing. In my experience, a good emotional environment, well-informed interviewees, a well-prepared interviewer, open questions and, an actively listening interviewer were all important factors. In the interview situation, I draw directly on my many years of experience as a school counselor for adults with Norwegian as a second language. Secondly, the interview is a conversation with structure and purpose (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008, p. 3). It is
a conversation whose aim is to collect systematic knowledge on certain phenomena. During the interviews, I was quite focused on following up on leads that the interviewees gave in their stories, that is, to open up themes and structures beyond the interview guide. The relationship between the interviewer and the interviewees is asymmetric. The interviewer defines the topics, the questions, and how they are followed up. The aim is both to get close to the interviewees and to keep a necessary professional distance to extract knowledge
constructions. The goal was to create an environment in which the interviewees’ stories, not my questions, were the center of attention. Another strategy to create an emotionally balanced interview environment was to let the interviewees choose the time and place of the interviews. The interviews were, therefore, conducted at government offices, classrooms, in staffrooms, in private homes, and at cafés. Third, the interview is co-construction. The interviewer and the interviewees construct new knowledge in a dialogical process. Finally, the knowledge constructed in interviews is contextual. The interviews take place in an local “interpersonal context” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008, p. 54), which again is related to the wider context. The knowledge produced in the interviews has been transcribed and is regarded as text. This offers the opportunity to go beyond the here and now of the interview situation.
In this thesis, interviewing is also viewed as an ‘ethical craftsmanship.’ Ethical issues are regarded as something that intervenes in the entire research process. Ethics is not only used to evaluate the process in retrospect. Kvale and Brinkmann (2008, p. 62) define ethics in general as the “oughtness of human existence.” Research ethics is, therefore, the oughtness of
the research process. In the field of research ethics, there are different formalized guidelines
formulated nationally or institutionally (e.g., in Norway, the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities, henceforth NESH). This project is
registered and approved by Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD, see Appendix 5). But there are also less formalized guidelines, both tacit and articulated, in different research communities. A set of more or less common research ethical norms and guidelines in qualitative research, has, in my view, two main purposes. First, they protect the involved parties, and second, the norms attend to more general societal and public interests. Interviewing is an inter-subjective and relational project constituted by uneven power relations as a point of departure. Rules and procedures, as well as personal virtues, are therefore important aspects of interviewing (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008, p. 66).
Even though universal rules do not apply very well to qualitative research and interview studies, certain ethical guidelines or “ethical protocols” are quite common.
Elaborations on informed consent, confidentiality, consequences and impact of the study, role
of the researcher, and reporting findings are expected to be discussed in qualitative research
and interview studies in particular (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000; Fontana & Frey, 2005; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008). In the following, I will briefly address the first three, while my role as a researcher and in reporting in this study will be discussed in separate sections.
I used several “channels” to inform the participants about the study. Before meeting with the interviewees, an information letter was sent by e-mail, as well as a link to a web page where the project was presented more extensively. Informed consent was secured by a written form signed by the participants (See Appendix 4). The form outlined the responsibilities of the interviewees, identified the researcher, provided contact information, and explained that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time. The interviewees read and signed the form before the interviews. They also got a copy to take home. The purposes and features of the research design were presented. I also presented a preliminary sketch of the planned articles so that they could see how and where I would use the material obtained in that particular interview. Regarding confidentiality, this study is not particularly sensitive to individuals. I am not focusing on individual knowledge, but on how different novice teachers represent epistemic infrastructures. Teachers are a large group of people in any society, and novice teachers blend quite well into the group. So it is not difficult to make these participants anonymous. As the research progressed, I saw that that the material from the policy maker interviews might lead to some dilemmas concerning anonymity. These interviews were done with publicly profiled persons, and their statements are more challenging to make anonymous. The question was whether they should be made anonymous at all. In particular cases, I choose to paraphrase rather than quote in order to secure the anonymity of the policy makers.
In the process of conducting such an extensive research project, the intention of having
impact and making a difference has been important for me. Interpretive research in general
(Borko et al., 2007), and this study in particular, usually aim for one or more of the following: 1) improving practice; 2) informing policy; 3) guiding and complimenting other research genre/designs; and 4) shaping theory development. The responsibility for determining the “explanatory power a study has within a local context” falls on the readers (Borko et al., 2007, p. 4). Theoretical aspects are used to interpret the empirical material, and this
interpretation is, in turn, used to pose critical questions back to theory. Individuals’ interpretations and understandings are not context-free. The interpretations of the empirical material have been situated in space and time: “[T]heories are ways of talking about the world that can be moved about and used in different situations for different purposes,” and they are “connecting different networks of knowledge” (Nespor, 1994, p. 2). The theoretical frameworks are used as rough maps of a partly unfamiliar terrain, aiding the researcher in elucidating structures and capturing details in this terrain, which again may contribute to more detailed maps.