Interviews

Because a move to a more inclusive model of education can require some fundamental pedagogical changes within the school and classrooms, it is important to listen to the school’s stakeholders so that they “can assist in identifying key components of successful inclusion programs and in identifying barriers to inclusion.” (Wilczenski, Barry-Schneider, Reddington, Blais, Carreira & Daniello, 1997, p.2) Encouraging students, teachers and parents to talk about their thoughts, experiences, beliefs, preferences, viewpoints and opinions can be facilitated through the use of the interview technique (Salend, 2000). Interviews can be open, structured or semi-structured or a combination of all three. The

which all participants were asked, but there was an ability to ask supplementary questions or seek clarification if the answers given by the respondents suggested that there was further important or interesting information to be gleaned.

Whilst questionnaires are highly structured and seek a breadth of views around a topic, interviews are less structured and offer the ability to gain in depth views of chosen individuals. Further, a strong point of interviews is that they allow the researcher an opportunity to clarify with the interviewee opinions that are not clear or lacking in detail. Interviews also allow for the immediate exploration of innovative or interesting answers to interview questions. Cohen et al. (2000) consider that because of the relationship between interviewer and interviewee, the interview is not just about collection data on life, it is a part of life.

Because interviewee and researcher are in visual proximity, they are able to use social cues to assist them in the interview. Both can respond when an emotion is visually displayed through body stance, facial expression or hand movement. For the researcher, such visual cues add to the richness of the participant’s responses and give more comprehensive data. Nastasi and Schensul (2005) consider that one of the features of a qualitative enquiry is its ongoing, iterative and participatory nature. Interviews conducted with critical participants contribute to these qualitative features.

Bias in interviews is both a strength and a weakness. Being able to record the personal opinions of an individual about the factors under consideration gives a research study data that is unique and detailed. It can also be emancipatory for the participant where they are free to offer opinion, prejudice and assumption knowing that they are being listened to and their utterances are valued. When investigating classroom ecology, such individual data is crucial. However, biases of researcher and participant need to be controlled, alternative views need to be sought where possible and the questions asked need to elicit the participant’s views rather than reflect those of the researcher. Where the researcher has a bias, this should be communicated, both to the participant and to any potential reader.

Because the interviews in this study followed the classroom observations and the questionnaires, it was possible to elicit further information about some of the findings from those data gathering tools. Not only did this allow for clarification and analysis but it also permitted triangulation of data.

Formal interviews were conducted with the teachers twice, once in 2004 and again in 2005, with selected children twice, once in each year, (see Appendix W for a completed child interview), and with two parents of the senior class in 2004 (Appendix K). Informal discussions were held with all participants at times and some of these were written down or noted in the research diary. (For completed teacher interviews see Appendices L, M, N and O).

Seeking the voice of the children was an integral part of this study. Whilst observations might have given an impression of what occurred in the classrooms, it did not give a full picture. The use of questionnaires added to the picture but there was no opportunity for the child to ask questions, seek clarification or give extra information to the researcher. We are also reminded that we should not make assumptions about what children think without asking them (Jones, 2005). The children’s interviews, in both years, occurred after I had visited the classrooms many times and had interacted with the children.

All of the formal interviews were taped, transcribed and given back to the interviewee for them to amend or add to the information gathered. Ongoing analysis of the interviews was undertaken so that emerging trends could be further investigated.

Respect for persons

In interviewing the children I was conscious of a need to make sure that their person was respected. The children in the new entrant class were interviewed individually in the teacher’s office at the back of the classroom for the interviews, and in a cloak bay for the sociogram. In both situations, the children were able to be viewed by their peers and the teacher through an open door. The senior pupils were interviewed individually in an interview room adjacent to the school

the area were able to view the children through a glass pane in the door of the room.

In all cases, the children were given the opportunity to decline to take part. This was the first question that I asked in each interview. It is acknowledged that there is still a power imbalance in this situation. However, it was hoped that my presence in their classrooms prior to the interviews would allow them to feel safe to refuse to take part if they were concerned. Following the interviews, each child was asked to tell their parent that they had been interviewed and a transcript of the interview was given to them, at a later date, to take home. While this means that the children’s interviews were not confidential, I considered that the parents needed to see these transcripts and, if they were unhappy with anything that their child had said, then it could be ignored in the analysis.