Interviews

‘Interviews allow participants, interviewers, and interviewees to discuss their interpretation of the world in which they live and to express how they regard situations from their point of view’ (Cohen et al., 2007: 349). Interviews are considered as part of life rather than just simple tools of collecting data about life (ibid) since they involve interviewees located within specific social groups (Dunne et al., 2005).

One criticism towards interviews is that they are open to interviewer bias. Although all kinds of bias are likely to develop gradually, they can largely be eliminated with skill (Cohen et al., 2007). It is important for the researcher to aim at maintaining neutrality and use the interview as a means to access the mind of the researched without

Table 5:5 Number of interviews conducted

Type of Institution

Participants Name of Institution/ Organisation

Date Duration

Purity Urban unit 07/09/2009 1 hr 15 mins Hamadi Pilot unit 26/10/2009 1 hr 20 mins Zainabu Pilot unit 27/10/2009 2 hrs

Juma Huruma 20/01/2010 1 hr 30 mins Hassan Huruma 22/01/2010 2 hrs 25 mins

Said Wema 25/01/2010 2hrs 10 mins Yusufu Wema 26/01/2010 55 mins

Ali Wema 27/01/2010 1 hr 45 mins Fatuma Wema 27/01/2010 2hrs 30 mins Headteacher Wema 29/01/2010 1 hr 5 mins

Salim Upendo 02/02/2010 2 hrs 15 mins Asha Upendo 03/02/2010 1 hr 30 mins Mercy Tumaini 04/02/2010 3 hrs 10 mins Charity Tumaini 08/02/2010 1 hr 5 mins

Rose Tumaini 09/02/2010 1 hr

Hope Imani 10/02/2010 2hrs 30 mins Joy Tumaini 11/02/2010 1 hr

Headteacher Tumaini 12/02/2010 1 hr 15 mins Mark Tumaini 12/02/2010 45 mins Bruno Upendo 17/02/2010 3 hrs 15 mins

Faith Upendo 17/02/2010 2 hrs Innocent Upendo 17/02/2010 1hr 45 mins

Jackie Huruma 20/01/2010 35 mins Jude Huruma 20/01/2010 45 mins John Wema 01/02/2010 1 hr 30 mins Joyce Wema 01/02/2010 1 hr 45 mins Joseph Tumaini 09/02/2010 20 mins

James Tumaini 09/02/2010 25 mins Jayne Upendo 02/03/2010 1 hr 30 mins Jemima Upendo 02/03/2010 1 hr 55 mins Jim Upendo 03/03/2010 2 hrs 15 mins Josh Upendo 03/03/2010 2 hrs Assistant Director Kenya Institute of Education 08/01/2010 1 hr In charge of exams for HI Kenya National Examinations Council 18/02/2010 1 hr 50mins Head of KSL Kenya Institute of Special

Education

09/04/2010 1 hr 45 mins Academic

Registrar

Kenya Institute of Special Education

09/04/2010 1 hr Programme

Coordinator

Global Deaf Connection 11/01/2010 2 hrs National

Chairman

Kenya National Association of the Deaf

16/02/2010 1 hr Programme

Coordinator

Kenya Society for Deaf Children

04/03/2010 2 hrs Researcher Kenya Sign Language

Research Project 23/02/2010 1 hr 15 mins

G

overnm

ent

O

ff

icer

s

D

eaf

O

rgani

sat

ions

T

eac

her

s

S

ch

ool

s

Pupi

ls

influencing their responses as much as possible. The power relations of the process of interviewing can be dealt with to an extent that a relationship is developed between the researcher and the respondents rather than create distance. More conversational and open interview format undertakes to produce greater trust and more upfront responses. Empathy and sensitivity are two researcher characteristics that are extremely important to the outcomes (Dunne et al., 2005). It is crucial for the researcher to be perceptive of his or her own power position and its influence on the interview.

Due to the emphasis of generality in the formulation of the research ideas and the great interest in interviewee’s point of view in qualitative research, semi-structured interview guides were used in this study (See Appendix 4). These guides were important because this was a multi-case study and so they facilitated some form of consistency and ‘cross- case comparability’ (Bryman, 2008, pp. 440). They however, allowed for departure from the schedule and gave room to the interviewer to ask new questions in order to follow up responses from the interviewees and even change the wordings of the questions. They recognised that interviews in qualitative research should be flexible, allowing room for the direction of the interview to move towards any noteworthy issues that surface during the interview to enable the researcher to acquire rich and detailed responses.

All the interviews were recorded apart from two. A small voice recorder was used with hearing participants, a video recorder was used when sign language only was used in the interviews, and both the voice recorder and the video recorder were used when a participant used both sign language and speech. Recording was necessary so as to capture all the responses of the interviewees and also it facilitated the detailed analysis that is characteristic of qualitative research (Bryman, 2008). I had originally planned to write down the responses so as not to miss out on anything in the event that the technological devices failed. I, however, realised on my first interview that I needed to maintain eye contact during the interview; writing detached me from the interviewee and although I could listen and write at the same time, I missed the non-verbal cues such as facial expressions when I interviewed hearing participants. In the case of an interview with a deaf adult or a deaf learner and sign language was used, it was not possible for me to take notes. I then decided to rely on the recording and only noted down short important points and mostly figures. This meant that I always had to make sure that the voice and video recorders had enough space and were well charged at the

start of every day. The majority of the participants had no problem with being recorded, for example, when I told one of the head teachers that I would exercise confidentiality and anonymity, he told me that he had no problem and that he wanted the public to know the contribution he had made towards the research.

While conducting a study on teachers’ attitudes to inclusion in Ghana, Gyimah (2006) used questionnaires and interviews as his methods of data collection. He recorded all his interviews so as not to miss out on any information that was included in the interviewees’ responses. Although he had considered the use of research assistants, he chose to conduct the study alone to avoid detaching himself from the participants and to facilitate any clarifications that were required during the study. Similarly, while I sought the help of a deaf research assistant, I conducted all the interviews and his main role was to video-record and assist with sign language use offering clarifications where they were necessary.

Interviews with learners were conducted in sign language. Initially I thought that I would get better responses from the learners if they were conducted by the research assistant, since he was fluent in KSL and ASL (I only knew some KSL), as I did the video recording. My first two interviews did not bear good fruits because of two reasons. One, on that particular day, when we got to the school, all the deaf learners except two Standard four pupils had gone to the national hospital to be fitted with hearing aids. So with the teachers’ consensus, we agreed to interview the two in the classroom and in the presence of their two teachers. The learners’ age, their level of education, the presence of their teachers, and lack of confidence may have contributed to their passivity that made them respond with either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, ‘I cannot remember’ or just a nod. The other reason was although the research assistant tried to rephrase the questions in sign language, he did not probe for further information in relation to the closed answers that the pupils gave and so the interviews did not provide meaningful information relating to the study. I then decided to conduct all the subsequent interviews and sought help from my research assistant in instances where there was communication breakdown between me and the pupils mostly brought about by the pupils tendency to mix KSL signs with ASL signs. After a few interviews and after he clearly understood the context of the study, he was in a position to step in and clarify for me and the learners anything that seemed not to be clear to either party. By the time the field research was coming to an end, he appeared to have gained some

skills in conducting interviews. While conducting the interviews gave me room to gain a sense of involvement and an opportunity to experience the invaluable interaction with the participants at first hand, conducting them in collaboration with the deaf research assistant elicited responses that enriched the data.

With regard to interviews with the teachers, I asked them to suggest an appropriate setting for the interview and mostly due to limited facilities, most interviews were not conducted in quiet places. In one of the schools, we used a shed which I thought was quite appropriate because it was a distance away from the classrooms and other facilities and it had half open walls in an area which is generally very hot and windy. It never occurred to me that the wind, whose breeze we really enjoyed, had spoilt the quality of the recordings until I listened to them. Others took place in classrooms with children who sometimes dragged chairs, while some distracted the teacher by seeking attention from him or her and others were simply fascinated by our video camera and would interfere with the recording. In some schools, we were lucky to conduct the interviews in quiet offices, while in other schools we did it in the staff room despite the other activities that went on in there. The situation was the same with regard to interviews with pupils but different when it came to interviewing the head teachers and one head of a unit. This took place in their quiet offices. However, an interview with one head teacher was distracted by a team of officers from the District Education Office who made an impromptu visit to the school and could not wait until the interview was over despite the head teacher having requested them to do so. This illustrated the lack of autonomy among head teachers that was mentioned earlier in this chapter. Bryman (2008) cautions researchers that such eventualities are likely to take place and sometimes researchers may not know how to deal with them. However, interviews with participants working in the government organisations and organisations for/of deaf people were conducted in their offices where there were minimum or no distractions at all.

Interviewing, as a research method in this study, was quite useful since it gave me room to ask my participants questions regarding issues that I was not able to observe in the classrooms yet they were relevant to the study. For example, although I could see whether there were teaching and learning materials in use during the lesson, whether they were responsive to the needs of the learners is an aspect that only the learners and maybe the teachers were in a position to tell. This information was provided through the

interviews and sometimes even more was provided through the use of probes that cannot be used in observations. The experiences of deaf teachers as they grew up, while in school as learners, in teacher training colleges, and as teachers, and how all these have impacted in their style of teaching deaf children, all offered weighty information that would not have been acquired through the observations.

While interviews are considered time-consuming, they are however seen as interfering less with the normal lives of the participants than observations. Most teachers felt more relaxed during the interviews than during the lesson observations maybe due to the feeling that I was looking out for perfection and that I would note anything that was not ‘right’ as they taught. The presence of the video camera may have caused some anxiety as well. They seemed to be glad and more relaxed as they offered information regarding their experiences, opinions, and suggestions than when they were being observed while teaching. Some of the interviews elicited new ideas that had not been considered in the interview schedule and which enriched the data collected.