Method

The approach of semi-structured interviews, transcribed and analysed using textual analysis, was chosen for several reasons. Firstly, the area of study, learners with vision impairment in New Zealand, is not well researched. The collective wisdom and experience resides in a small number of individuals, which has not been documented, particularly in the area of resource needs. Expert interviews, followed by questionnaires to some stakeholders, were considered to be a powerful way to draw on the resources available and elicit the required information. Secondly, following accepted principles in Operational Research, the participation of the stakeholders in the development of the model should increase the likelihood of its being successfully implemented and accepted.

This method could also be described in Operational Research terminology as an iterative process of interviews and analysis, aiming to define the problem rigorously before attempting to “solve” it. However there were gains, at a philosophical level, by using established methods from the qualitative research literature, particularly in the area of Educational Evaluation.

The philosophy underlying the use of mixed methods was discussed in Section 1.3.

Data collection

As is usual in the Health and Education Sectors, there are many stakeholders with interest in the problem. These include the learners with vision impairment and their families and whanau, RTVs, the

regular class teachers, teacher aides, other specialists, fund-holders such as Group Special Education, the Ministry of Education, the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, Parents of Vision Impaired Inc, other learners with different disabilities (with whom the learners with vision impairment are competing for funding), and other specialists within the area of education of learners with vision impairment. As RTVs work the most closely with the individual students and have the most experience and expertise in teaching learners with vision impairment, their opinion was sought first. Parents and classroom teachers were consulted subsequently.

A purposive sampling method was used. Eight “Resource Teachers: Vision” (RTVs) were selected who had extensive experience, including overseas. One interview was conducted with each RTV. Six RTVs worked in larger visual resource centres (more than two teachers) and two were from small centres. Some were in supervisory roles, and some worked directly with the children. Most of the teachers interviewed had over ten years experience in the field, with some having over twenty years. The RTVs included those who worked with high school children, primary school children, pre-school children and children with multiple impairments. The caseloads of the different RTVs varied considerably. Of the eight RTVs interviewed, seven were women. (To maintain the man’s confidentiality, feminine pronouns are used to refer to all RTVs.) There are very few (about three out of forty) male RTVs in New Zealand, so this gender imbalance reflects the nature of the population.

As the object of the interviews was to seek non-sensitive factual information by interviewing professional people in the areas of their duties and competence, this part of the research was exempt from review and approval by the University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee. I confirmed verbally with the Chairman of the committee that this was the case. To ensure that the research complied with the Human Ethics Committee guidelines, I sent information sheets (see Appendix 3) to the teachers informing them about the use of the data, and asking them to use pseudonyms rather than refer to individual students. Where names, places or other identifying features did appear in the transcripts, they were changed in order to protect anonymity.

The interviews were conducted over a period of four months. They lasted between one and two hours and most were held in the visual resource centres. At most two interviews were conducted in one day. The interviews were semi-structured and were tape-recorded with the permission of the participants. The full set of interview questions is included in Appendix 4. The questions provided a structure to the interview, but the subjects were encouraged to elaborate as much as they wished. Brief notes were taken during the interviews, partly to help follow up ideas that came up as part of the process. The teachers perceived me as a fellow professional rather than as a parent of a blind child. One commented at the end of the interview that she had forgotten I had a blind son. After seven or eight interviews it

became apparent that there were no new themes or ideas arising, and data collection by interview was halted. After the interviews were analysed, further data was collected by eliciting responses to an initial discussion document.

Data analysis

The interviews were taped and transcribed, three personally and five by a secretarial service. The transcriptions were checked against the tapes as some of the specialised terms were mis-transcribed, sometimes giving the opposite meaning to what was intended. I also added notes to the transcription regarding the atmosphere and general ideas to come out of the interview. The full transcript for one of the interviews was not available due to a technical problem.

The package NUD*IST4 was used to store the text and provide a tool for coding the data and finding meaning. A line of 72 characters was used as a text unit. I chose to code the last interview first, as it was a more succinct interview and I wanted to deal with the coding issues, and learning a new package while dealing with an interview that would be straightforward. Before starting the coding, I pondered each of the questions and wrote overall impressions which had been gained during the interviews and while transcribing and checking the interviews.

As there was a structure to the interviews, and there were specific questions I wanted answered, these provided the starting points for the codes. The original codes, before starting, were based on the main questions: Determinants of need, Categories, Purpose and Outcomes. As I proceeded through the coding I added subcodes, and also two other main codes, Service – to describe the service provided at present, and specifically the role of the VRT, and another code, NZ_Curr, which relates to the specific question of access to the NZ curriculum. I found it easiest initially to code on paper, then transfer to the computer package, creating new codes as needed.

The coding process followed very closely that described by Miles & Huberman, (1994) in “Chapter 4: Early steps in analysis”. A code is a label that assigns a category of meaning to a piece of text. Codes can be linked into a tree structure, as sub-ideas provide branches. For example the piece of text:

“the children who get the most are the braille children”

was originally coded as /Determinants of need/ Braille. At the end of coding and analysis, this code had been formed into a branch structure and was now listed as /Determinants of need/ Nature of the child/ Level of functional vision/ Braille. Rather than listing all of the potential determinants of need individually, these were grouped together into clusters or categories.

Often the coding was straightforward, with the responses corresponding to the questions that preceded them. However ideas and themes appeared within answers to different questions, especially with regard to the purpose of the service. An example is the following the text unit from an RTV:

We are constantly trying to keep that gap as minimal as possible. Because even by pulling them out of class we’re causing a gap.

This was part of a response to a question on the determinants of need, following up a comment on the impact of the child’s cognitive ability. It was coded in two ways – “Why it is necessary to have the service” and “Equal opportunity with their peers”, and as part of a larger text block it was coded as “Good academic results” and “RTV teaching an individual child”.

After coding two interviews I discussed the coding with a supervisor who has experience in qualitative research. He indicated that the list of codes was fairly mechanical, taking the responses mostly at face- value. As the purpose of the interviews was mainly to elicit opinion and information from “experts”, this was acceptable. He also indicated that some leading questions in the interviews were encouraging short answers.

After completing the initial coding of the eight interviews I examined the tree structure and where branches had many nodes, I regrouped them into smaller categories (called clustering). Where ideas could be conceptualised as subgroups of other ideas, these became branches. The tree structure in full is reproduced in Appendix 5 and a section is shown in Figure 1. Text units were grouped at each of the code levels, not just the lowest level. The tree structure was used for writing the themes and ideas from the eight interviews into an initial report/discussion document. The document set out the main responses to each of the research questions, with illustrative direct quotes. It did not include reference to research literature.

The discussion document was distributed for comment to all forty RTVs in New Zealand. Each RTV was also sent an additional copy of the report to be given to either a mainstream teacher or a parent for comment, as they felt most appropriate. Reports were also sent to members of the National Committee of the Parents of Vision Impaired (ten parents with children with vision impairments). The reports were accompanied by response forms to help give structure to the feedback. In total ninety reports and response forms were distributed and comments were received from fourteen RTVs (four of whom had previously been interviewed), three parents and three mainstream teachers. This reporting stage was used to inform stakeholders as to the progress of the research and to give them an opportunity to have input into the process. A response was requested from an expert in the field, who questioned some of the themes and ideas, and particularly the effect of current under-funding on the expectations of the

RTVs who had been interviewed. Her opinions were also incorporated into the report and are discussed later. Determinants of Resource Need Needs change Previous service How well coping

Extra transition Intelligence Individuality Security Maori Other disabilities Other physical disabilities Level of functional vision Vision stable Braille Level at school Geography Natural transition Special programmes

How long with child Skill

0.2 teacher

Teacher aide Class size Transition

Mainstream teacher Decile

Type of school setting

Attitude of parent Family Interact Child Onset Temporary Support

Figure 1. Codes related to Determinants of Resource Need

The responses to the report were transcribed for analysis. The responses expressed general agreement with the initial report, and some new suggestions. The additional data were analyzed in a similar manner to the original interview data, additional material added to the report, and alterations made. References to the research literature were added at this point. This was presented at the 2001 Biennial

Conference of South Pacific Educators of Vision Impaired (Petty, 2001). Presenting to this group of stakeholders was another way of keeping connected with the environment for the problem. It also provided validation on the themes that had arisen from the data.

Many of the interview questions related to determining the level of resource teacher time required. However as the research progressed, a different focus emerged, that of access to the curriculum. The study reports circumstances and decisions as they were perceived by RTVs and other stakeholders in the field at the time. It may not be how things ought to be, but reflects current practice and attitudes in New Zealand at the time of the study (1999/2000).