One-one interviews

Following the observations, the data generation and collection progressed to a series of one to one interviews with students whereby, in response to the questionnaire item Q. 24, 20 respondents agreed to be interviewed, and gave written permission for extracts of their visual journals to be included in the relative data unit. However, due to severe time constraints at that end point in the semester, only ten participants actually engaged in the interview process. While interviews are rarely used as the primary source of data in that to understand what people do requires being able to observe their activities (e.g., Travers, 2001), they provide access to the context of people's behaviour and a way for researchers to understand the meaning of that behaviour" (Seidman, 1998, p. 4). Interviews also encourage people to reflect on their experiences more so than questionnaires as, "In depth interviewing encourages people to reconstruct their experience actively within the context of their lives" (p. 8) within an environment where participants may speak more freely. Other advantages of one-to-one in-depth interviews include their ability to allow the researcher and participant to interpret the present, reconstruct the past, and predict the future and to engage in purposeful conversation (e.g., Lincoln et al., 1985).

Patton (1990) advises researchers to establish a “framework within which people can respond in a way that represents accurately and thoroughly their points of view regarding “that part of the world about which they are talking” (p. 24), and to uncover those things we cannot directly observe. The purpose of interviewing is to allow entry “into the other person's perspective” (p.

196). Merriam (1998) regards the most common interview as the semi-structured mode, with a set of questions and issues with neither the precise wording and order of question predetermined. This includes more open-ended questions to aid elaboration on topics and issues that might be significant as the interview process develops (e.g., Yin, 1994). It has also been noted that the lower the level of interview structure, the more likely the researcher can assess the interviewee’s responses and their trustworthiness (e.g., Nandhakumar & Jones, 1997). The interview construct was broadly guided by four interrelated, open-ended questions:

1. Did any specific factors influence participants’ decision to either include or not include ICT in any aspect of their coursework?

2. Were there any particular advantages or disadvantages encountered in using ICT in the course?

3. Did the participants use or observe ICT in art related lessons in schools?

4. How do the participants perceive the value of learning ICT skills in visual arts education courses?

My approach did not rigidly focus on a prepared interview guide in that when the interviewees began to convey relevant information I encouraged them to explicitly reflect on their own experience. Similarly, while the interview often prompted narrative inquiry where the interviewees conveyed a story of certain matters from a personal perspective, I aimed for a balance between consistency and discovery (e.g., Strauss & Corbin, 1998). As Lincoln et al.

(1985) suggest the use of hand written notes in preference to tape recordings, during the interview I wrote as accurately as possible the participants’ responses in my own form of abbreviated script. While I felt more comfortable in hand writing these notes in situ than using a tape recorder, it was a slow, but worthwhile process. Although I had anticipated that each discussion would take around 30 minutes, the first one ran over 40 minutes. Therefore, in being sensitive to contextual matters, change and emergent conditions (e.g., Burns, 2000), I allowed more time for subsequent interviews, which ranged from 35-50 minutes. These were conducted either my office or the art studio, which are familiar surrounds for the interviewees and generally seem to evoke the sense of the trust needed for access to the life-world (e.g., van Manen, 1990).

As the intention of open-ended interviewing is to access to peoples’ perspectives of the world, and that the information gained is largely dependent on the researcher (e.g., Patton, 1990) I took a conversational interview approach, particularly as the questions differed among interviewees. The questions were invariably steered by the participants’ voices (e.g., Marcus &

Fischer, 1986), yet they centered on a particular topic (e.g., Merton, Fiske & Kendall, 1990) and allowed free elaboration on the perspectives they projected in either their written questionnaire responses or during the observed presentation sessions. I endeavored to elevate the interviewees’ thoughts and opinions to new heights by encouraging them to discuss their opinions on a range of phenomena, including their perceptions of ICT associated advantages and challenges. As I was a novice in the situation where the interviewee is the expert (e.g., Patton, 1990), I put aside my own perceptions or what I thought I knew about the topic and what I thought they might say. By means of flexible questioning (e.g., Scott & Usher, 1999), and the interviewees’ generous responses, I enriched my understanding of the various

organisational, philosophical and pedagogical considerations associated with their experiences in integrating art and technology, and added a layer to the insights gained through my observations and the questionnaire data.

Apart from seeking insights into what, why and how, and to what extent, if at all ICT was infused in their coursework I aimed to tease out the participants’ philosophical stance on the use of ICT in visual arts education. At the same time, I understood that as their perspectives at that time were grounded in their life experiences thus far, their views may well differ in the future (e.g., Cohen-Evron, 2002). At the end of each interview I asked the interviewees if I might access to their visual journals and/or images of their artwork as these could add depth to the interview data and enrich the required thick description (e.g., Eisner, 1966). I also asked them to check my hand written notes for any errors, or any sense of being miss-quoted. While none of the ten interviewees reported any errors, four of the ten later sent emails regarding interesting art and ICT experiences that they had encountered since we last met. Judging by the spontaneous nature of these emails, and the tone of excitement they conveyed, I sensed some development in their thinking about the positive and critical aspects of ICT use in visual arts education both within an art specialist or generalist primary classroom setting.