Justification of methods used

For this phase of the research, I chose to employ three methods of data collection; self-report online questionnaire, observation and in-depth interview. I chose to use three different methods to ensure, to an extent, I triangulated my data (as explored by Robson, 2002). This was also to ensure that I gained some consistency within the data I had gathered and would be able to match data collected via one method with data collected from another.

Questionnaire

A link to a self-report online questionnaire was given to participants to complete prior to the observation and in-depth interview. This method was employed for the following reasons:

• I wanted participants to feel able to answer some questions about their role at their leisure and at a time that was convenient for them;

• I provided participants with the link to the questionnaire prior to the observation and interview such that some of the points I would be exploring in the interview with them would be salient. I was conscious of the participants having a chance to briefly reflect on the ideas that would be raised in the interview (through providing short responses to the questionnaire) however I did not want participants to over-think their responses. Hence I provided them with an opportunity to respond with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer with the option of expanding on their response by providing more detail if they wished;

• I was conscious that if I had provided the participants with the questionnaire after the interview their responses may have been influenced by the content of the interview and any post-interview discussion we engaged in. I therefore wanted participants to respond personally; and

• Typing out a response to a question (especially where it could be deemed controversial) could be considered an easier way to communicate rather than to say it to a researcher face-to-face, so as such I wanted participants to first feel comfortable thinking about the topics, hopefully deeming the questions I asked during the interview as familiar.

Observation

This method was used to directly observe the types of duties and behaviours male TAs engaged with during a typical day. As such, I did not ask the participants to do anything different to what they would normally do on the day I observed, as I wanted to gain as true a reflection of their role as possible. I used observation as a method of data collection for the following reasons:

• Observation was used as a way of gaining an accurate insight into the male TA role as an outsider;

• The content of the observation schedule was not shared with the participants before hand and as such my presence would hopefully not have had a profound impact on their practice. It must be noted, however, that I can never be certain of the true impact I had on the participants as an observer as I conducted just one observation session in total; and • Observing for up to an hour provided a real insight into the role of the TA

as the time spent observing often transcended a period of transition and as such it was of interest to see how the participants were used during these times also.

Semi-structured, in-depth interview

The interview was the primary method of data collection I utilised during this phase of the research as I felt that this would elicit the most useful qualitative data. I had set aside up to an hour and a half to carry out the interview as I considered it to be in depth. The following are the reasons why I chose a semi- structure in-depth interview:

• I felt that the closeness of the interview to everyday conversation, a premise explored by Kvale (2007) was suitable for this phase and a way of eliciting meaning from the participants in a non-threatening manner. For this reason, I chose not to make use of a FG approach, as I was aware that the issue of gender could be sensitive for some participants and might not have been an area of discussion of which all would wish to be a part. Therefore I felt a one-to-one interview setting provided a more comfortable and intimate environment in which participants could hopefully freely and honestly express their viewpoint;

• The in-depth interview approach fitted well with the IPA data analysis I wished to employ;

• The semi-structured element of the interview method was also in line with my aims for this phase of the research. As I wanted the interview to also be in-depth, I felt comfortable in allowing participants to temporarily go off topic or to explore an element of a particular question in more detail if they wished. As such I was able to ask follow up questions where appropriate.

As noted previously, I also included an additional card-sort tool within each interview, with the aim of making issues salient for participants as well as aiding the flow of the conversation. I also felt that the inclusion of this tool would temporarily reduce the demand on participants for face-to-face verbal interaction, in turn putting them at ease. However the responses to the card-sort activity, including the ways participants arranged the statements, were not intended for systematic analysis as I considered them simply as a ‘tool’ for exploring the topic rather than a means of gathering data related to the way in which they were ‘sorted’.

I acknowledge that it was possible for the sorted statements to have been analysed as a ‘Q-sort’ type activity however I did not want this section of the interview to feel demanding for the participants or contrived in any way. The aim of the in-depth, semi-structured interview was to gain as much of a real-life, lived insight in to the experiences of being a male TA in a primary school as possible (in line with the IPA approach) and as such I did not wish for participants to feel that they had to ‘fit’ the statements into certain categories as prescribed by me (as a relatively naïve researcher). I instead placed value on the idea of ‘free’ sorting of the statements and allowed each participant to explore the content of the statements in any way they saw fit, and in line with their lived experiences.

Finally, throughout each interview I made note of the instances that participants responding spontaneously to a topic I wished to explore later in the interview and when questions / new topic areas were prompted. This is in line with the ‘hierarchical focusing’ approach employed by Tomlinson (1989).