Interviews

The main data collection method for this study was in-depth interviews; all interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed by myself. The qualitative interview process, through face to face interaction, allows the researcher to learn about peoples’ feelings, thoughts and intentions, to learn about the meanings they attach to life events, to learn about situations that have already taken place (Patton 1990).

Within this study interviews were seen as an opportunity to gain insight into the

perspectives of the people being interviewed (Patton 1990). As my focus was on hearing the stories of my participants, and allowing participants to construct knowledge (Simons et al 2008) the conversational structure and nature and open ended style of the qualitative interview process appealed to me, particularly the fact that it was possible to probe further into questions when necessary, something that the use of other data collection methods such as questionnaires and surveys would not allow as easily.

I chose to conduct semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. The semi-

structured interview is an interview type that sits between highly structured interviews and unstructured open-ended interviews and gives the researcher the ability to combine

elements of both interview types (Merriam 1998).The researcher has a clear idea of the type of questions they want to ask, and these are written out in advance. Generally each person who is interviewed is asked the same questions, but it is also permits the researcher to combine elements of the more open-ended interview by not only asking pre-written questions but also allowing flexibility through asking more open-ended questions and allowing the researcher to pursue emergent topics of interest as the interview progresses (Merriam 1998, Patton, 1990). The choice to use a semi-structured interview was because it

was deemed that the rigid nature of highly structured interviews would be limiting and not allow enough ‘access to participants’ perspectives and understandings of the world’

(Merriam 1998:74). At the other end of the spectrum it was viewed that purely unstructured open-ended interview could yield large amounts of data that were disconnected and

divergent (Merriam 1998), thus making analysis potentially problematic given the limited amount of time to conduct the research study. According to Patton (1990) a more semi structured interview is useful if there are time constraints on the research study, and if ‘it is only possible to interview each participant once’ (Patton 1990:286). Patton (1990), also noted that the positives of semi-structured interviews were that the pre-written interview questions would be available for inspection, and the actually interview itself would be more focused in order to maximise the time given for the interview.

In choosing this interview type I was aware that it would limit the way in which the

participants would tell their story as it would focus their narratives to very specific chapters of their life history. However Clandinin and Connelly (2000) point out that there are various ways of obtaining narratives ranging from structured questions to ‘asking participants to tell their own stories in their own way’ (Clandinin and Connelly 2000:111).

Questions were orientated towards certain areas, I asked about the participants’ identities, their secondary school, Post-16 and HE art and design educational experience, engagement with and discussion and viewing of art and design work, educational decision making

process, as opposed to questions focusing on the larger life history of the participants. The questions asked in the interviews were constructed with prior theoretical knowledge on what others in the field had already considered in mind. I was also aware that the questions I asked and the way they were structured would be providing ‘a frame within which

participants shape the accounts of their life’ (Clandinin and Connelly 2000:110) as well as only providing me with the participants’ ‘self-understanding as this was presented in the interview’, resulting in the focus of my research being limited to this (Ezzy 2007:315), as each participant was interviewed once. The type of narrative research I conducted looked at episodic accounts of the participants’ lives, focusing on their educational trajectory; it was not fully a biographical study, life history or oral history. Most interviews lasted on average between one hour to two hours.

My research questions, and thus the interview questions that I asked of my participants, were very much informed by my reading of theoretical perspectives and prior knowledge on what others in the field had already considered (Patton 1990, Riessman 2008). Prior

research and theory were not utilised to create a hypothesis to be tested through empirical research, but rather to guide the direction of my study and highlight the pertinent areas in this field that would benefit from additional scrutiny. Generating interview questions in this way was deemed necessary in order for my own research findings to make a contribution to the field. Prior research and theory were also utilised as a source of interpretation of the participants’ narratives, they were a guide therefore in the analysis process. However, at the same time it is important to note that the analysis of data was also concerned with

searching ‘for novel theoretical insights from the data’ (Riessman 2008:75), which would add to existing understandings, as and when they arose in the interview data. This influence of previous theory separates narrative inquiry from other qualitative methods such as grounded theory (Riessman 2008).

Asking the interview questions face to face, encouraged the conversational aspect of the interview, allowing participants to elaborate and discuss in more depth, than they would perhaps in questionnaires. This allowed for the story telling element to come through as the interview process was seen as the eliciting of a story. This is discussed by Finnegan (1998) who talks of the interview as interactive and dialogical with the interviewer playing ‘a significant part in framing, eliciting and recording the story’ (Finnegan 1998:73) through various verbal and facial responses, the interviewer is seen as playing a part in the outcome of the interview (Simons et al 2008). The selectivity and subjectivity of the interview

process; the questions the interviewer asks/doesn’t ask, the points they probe on and those they don’t, the relationships they build/don’t build with participants are highlighted by Clandinin and Connelly (2000), who sees this as part of the repeated and continual

interpretive nature of narrative research (for the Interview guides see appendix 3A, 3B, 3C). Other data sources:

As well as interviewing participants I also attended university open days to help with my understanding of the process of access and entry to HE art and design. As the research participants who studied HE art and design attended universities from within certain mission groups, I limited my open day attendance to these mission group universities. I therefore attended 5 open days for universities from within the following mission groups; Million Plus, University Alliance, 1994 and non-aligned.

At the open days I was a background observer and I focused on answering the following questions:

 Who attends the open day?

 What is the distribution of Black prospective students at the open day?

 Does the university present itself as a diverse institution? If so how?

 What strategies does the university utilise to recruit prospective students?

 What advice do they offer prospective students?

 How do they enable prospective students to gain access and entry to HE through the open day events?

Following on from the 5 university open days I also looked at their prospectuses, asking the following questions;

 Does the university present itself as a diverse institution? If so how?

 What advice do they offer prospective students?

 How do they enable prospective students to gain access and entry to HE through their open day events?

Attendance and observation of art and design events focused around BAME group

I attended the events listed below with the aim of gaining further understanding about inclusion and exclusion issues affecting BAME art and design students.

- Towards a Progressive Arts Education: Inclusion, Change and Intervention Conference, London UK (October 2013). This conference focused on looking specifically at art education and strategies towards making art education more inclusive for both students and teachers.

- 1:54 Contemporary African Art Fair, London UK (October 2013). This art fair was an international event which focused on shining a light on and discussing the range of work being produced by African artists on the African continent and in the diaspora.

- Shades of Noir; Race in Creative Higher Education (January 2013). This was an open debate with the aim of encouraging a dialogue around race issues within HE art and design. There were a number of BAME art and design students present at this event, and so it also presented an informal opportunity talk to BAME art and design students.

- Re-Framing The Moment, Legacies of the 1982 Blk Art Group Conference, Wolverhampton UK (October 2012). This conference focused on discussing the history and the legacy of the BLK art group in Britain. The BLK art group was a group that was created in the 1980s. BAME artists came together with a common goal of increasing the visibility of BAME artists. Some of the artists that formed this group included; Sonia Boyce, Keith Piper and Eddie Chambers.