Methods for data collection

3.4 (a) Formal interviews

The formal interviews were conducted from August 2006 to November 2006, at a date and time that suited the convenience of the participants. Some interviews took place after school hours in a coffee shop, some at school in a quiet classroom or

laboratory. I felt it was important to try to make the occasion as relaxing as possible. In addition, apart from my role asking questions, I wanted them to feel in control as much as possible therefore, they chose the time and location.

Even while conducting the interviews I was mindful that the wording of the questions asked shaped the responses from the participants. I asked some questions that were open ended, and I tried to frame some questions according to the interviewees’ responses. One technique that I used was the recording of teachers’ voices so that I could later reflect on what they said and more significantly, the ways in which they said it, including pauses, changes in tone and hesitations that conveyed meaning (Van Maanen, 1988; Bowe, Ball & Gold, 1992; Atkinson & Hamersley, 1994). The main data collection method was formal and semi-structured interviews where the participants were asked the same questions (see Appendix Two). I began by asking the participants who had volunteered if they would be willing to answer questions about their experience and opinions of the implementation of the IBD (Patton, 2002, p.342).

The interview itself was formal in the sense that it was pre-arranged, but I tried to make the exchange as comfortable for participants as possible, with distractions minimised. I also strove to create a ‘trusting’ relationship with them. Questions were asked (see Appendix Two), such as “What changes do you see taking place in your classroom in order to implement the curriculum?” “Compared to other change processes you’ve been involved in, is this one better, or the same as any other change process?” and “Do you think this is a benefit for the students?” Pauses between questions offered time for introspection and reflection. Although all the participants were asked the same questions, occasionally the discussion led on to other points

that were pursued. As Van Maanen (1988) stated, “Ethnographies…are never beyond debate” (p.35).

The teachers’ accounts of their experiences were transcribed verbatim and returned to the participants for their approval (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Stake, 2000). At this stage, participants had an opportunity to comment on their interview transcripts and to add to or edit anything that they were not comfortable with. The participants had access to their data in both hard copy and electronic form and had the right to ask for the data to be withdrawn if they no longer wished to take part in the research (Patton, 2002).

3.4 (b) Participant observation

As the school year progressed, in my role as participant observer I often made informal contact with the participants. Examples of these contacts were: after staff meetings, Monday morning briefing sessions, in the lift going to classes, in the Library, waiting for taxis outside the school. On these occasions participants typically offered everyday greetings and snippets of anecdotal feedback about an issue that had arisen. I found that participants gradually grew more relaxed in my company as they became more trusting that their comments about the IBD and the implementation process would be received without judgment. The tone of their feedback, having become more casual and personal, reflected this trust. At times a participant would talk in passing, casually stating some issue, even in front of other colleagues.

Anecdotal evidence collected opportunistically was recorded and added to the interview data. The former sometimes contradicted, participants’ comments made during the formal interview process, but it was all valued ‘grist for the mill’. I come back to the status and treatment of speech data in subsequent chapters. Thus my role

as participant observer involved communicating and recording as much as observing – what Roberts and Sanders (2005, p.304-305) call, “the maintenance of dialogue between the investigator and the researched”. Weekly discussions with supervisors, based on reflections and preliminary analyses of my data, provided me with ‘critical friend’ support throughout the transition year.

According to Hammersley & Atkinson (1983), participant observation (PO) is central to all forms of social research. But of course PO takes many forms, of which mine was on the more participatory side of the continuum. As an ‘indweller’ (Maykut & Morehouse, 2002) I had the advantage of tacit knowledge about the participants generally and about the setting and its internal politics; however, as mentioned in Chapter Two this was offset by the disadvantage of being so close to the events and the participants that my taken-for-granted (tacit) knowledge sometimes prevented me from discerning both the big picture and ‘what was happening’ with individual participants. I had to find ways of disrupting and making more explicit participants’ emerging culture (more on this in Chapter Seven and Eight).

O’Reilly (2009) states, rather provocatively, that the role of participant observer is an oxymoron that is a contradiction, because you cannot be both an empathetic insider and an objective outsider observing, gaining rapport, and fitting in. No doubt other researchers, including myself, would want to debate O’Reilly on his claim, but surely the dual role is not an ‘all or nothing’ matter. At HKPS I was both teaching and gathering data with a mixture of empathy and objectivity. Of course there were times when one role had to be sacrificed for the other; compromises and a balance had to be reached so that I could do an acceptably good job with both. And, if you think about it, such compromises and balances are being

found every day by parents, teachers, and other social service professionals as they juggle multiple tasks and responsibilities. But it is only by getting down to observing these tasks/behaviours first hand that one can begin to gain an understanding of what they mean to participants.

I worked at Hong Kong Port School from 2003 to 2011, commencing as a colleague within the teaching group, and in 2005 joined the IB implementation committee, which comprised six senior administrators and two teachers (including me) who had taught the IB Diploma. Therefore, during the research period I was a ‘multiply positioned observer’ (Weis and Fine, 2004) – ‘for better or worse’. For my research purposes, as a participant observer, I wanted to put myself in the shoes of teachers, especially the six who had volunteered to be informants, as they planned and were pushed toward implementing the IBD curriculum. Hatchell (2003) says, “Discoveries for a researcher during any research could also mean discoveries about oneself” (p.113). And one could add changes in attitude and outlook to this. In taking an empathetic view of ‘rank and file’ teachers’ outlook I came to see the IBD in a different light, and indeed to question, like the participants, whether it was such a wise choice for all our students.

To sum up this subsection: my role as participant observer was both inclusive and exclusive Weis & Fine (2004) describe this as: “the opportunity and obligation to be at once grounded and analytically oscillating between engagement and distance” (p. xxi). As I have indicated, there was tension in my need to be grounded, observant and flexible in my attitude to change. And I had to deal with the everyday pressures of my own experiences while observing and describing the experiences of the participants. I now turn to ethical matters and a brief introduction to the participants.