Phase 2 The In-Depth Interviews

In the second phase following the return of the fourteen completed survey-

questionnaires and their analysis, three participants were chosen for the interviewing phase. The selection was made on the basis of interest shown by the survey-questionnaire responses

for a greater involvement in this research project, a diversity of denominational groups, and a clearly-articulated strong commitment to excellence in both education and a Christian

approach. The overall quality of leadership and management of each centre was verified by ratings on the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) website to ensure that none were in the ‘serious improvement needed’ category. Due to the grounded theory approach which required in-depth investigation and data collection, and on the advice of my supervisor, it was decided to limit the number of participants for Phase Two, to three Directors/Leaders of ECEC centres. Following this selection, the Directors/Leaders individually confirmed their willingness to continue their involvement with the project into the interviewing phase.

However, as explained in section 3.6, a fourth participant joined the cohort providing increased diversity in denominational affiliation as well as location and ethnicity of her centre. The following table displays some information about each of the four centres for which these four Directors/Leaders were responsible. Further, the four centres have each been given a very general geographic location to assist in distinguishing them from other

institutions represented in the study.

Table 3. 3

Demographic information about the 4 Early Learning Centres (ACECQA website 2016) Early Learning Centre 1. Early Learning Centre 2. Early Learning Centre 3. Early Learning Centre 4. Location Regional – Country town

Suburban- City Inner City Rural – Coastal

Hours of operation 7.30-17.30. 5dpw 7.45-18.00. 5dpw 8.30-15.30. 5dpw 8-14.50. 5dpw

Number of Places 50 40+ 40 60

Current ACECQA Rating

Exceeding NQS Exceeding NQS Exceeding NQS Meeting NQS

Service Approval Granted

The second phase, interviewing, involved three rounds of in-depth, semi-structured interviews (see Appendices F, G and H) conducted separately with each of the four

Directors/Leaders of a Christian early childhood education and care centre, at their own ECEC centre. In each case the interviews were held in the Director’s/Leader’s office. In- depth interviews, also known as intensive interviews (Charmaz 2014) involve a rather one- sided interview with the aim to gather as much information as possible from the interviewee. In this research project the desired information was about the Directors/Leaders’ beliefs, values and practices in the leadership of a CECEC centre. While the interviewer may ask open-ended questions to guide the conversation, this should be to explore, not to interrogate, and should permit the interviewee to feel relaxed and freely able to share their information and perspectives. The sequencing of the data collection is displayed in Figure 3.3

ROUND 2 SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

Figure 3. 3

Diagram of the interview process of the project.

Figure 3.3 provides a visual display of the sequencing and processes used to gather the interview data in this study. From the survey responses three participants were selected/

Denise (Inner City) Darlene (Suburban) Fran (Regional) Maree (Coastal) From Survey questionnaire From Survey questionnaire From Survey questionnaire From Conference

TRANSCRIPTION, ANALYSIS, CODING, MEMBER CHECKING, MEMOING, PREPARATION OF ROUND2 QUESTIONS

ROUND 2 SEMI - STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

The Interview Process – Getting the Data

ROUND 1 SEMI - STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

TRANSCRIPTION, ANALYSIS, CODING, MEMBER CHECKING, MEMOING PREPARATION OF ROUND 3 QUESTIONS

ROUND 3 SEMI - STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

TRANSCRIPTION, ANALYSIS, CODING AND WRITING OBSERVATION & DOCUMENT- ANALYSIS OBSERVATION & DOCUMENT- ANALYSIS OBSERVATION & DOCUMENT- ANALYSIS

self-selected who, as explained earlier, were joined with a fourth participant from the Melbourne conference some months later. Three rounds of semi-structured, in-depth interviews were held separately with each participant. Each interview also included observations and document analysis. Between each round of interviews, the interview

recordings were transcribed, member checked and memos were written. At the same time the transcripts were analysed and coded, leading to the creation of the next round of questions following interview one and interview two. The conclusion of this part of the study involved further analysis and refinement of the codes and then documentation of the findings.

Interviewing as a data gathering process is not without its critics. Charmaz (2014) mentions some of the relational issues that may cloud or distort the information being

provided by the interviewee. These include race/culture, gender, power and status, age and of course, personal worldviews. Racial and gender were not problematic issues in this research project as both interviewer and interviewees were all female and from Australian/European backgrounds. Power, status and age were also not issues as the four interviewees all held positions of responsibility and the interviewer expressed the desire and need to learn from them on numerous occasions. It was made very clear to the interviewees that they were the experts, the ones with the specialised knowledge and understandings and that I considered it a privilege to be able to tap into their experience and opinions. The most apparent unifying factors in these relationships were the Christian-faith bond and the common desire to identify the characteristics of Christian early childhood educational leadership. In essence the research project became a shared task and the interviewees were the ones with the expertise, with the researcher in the role of investigator and facilitator.

The semi-structured interview approach in this study was chosen because it has the capacity to provide detailed data that captures human perspectives in-depth and explores the perceptions, feelings, values, beliefs and attitudes of Directors/Leaders about their work and the beliefs and values that guide it (Rabionet, 2011). The benefits of the semi-structured interview are that while the information is being gathered by the interviewer it is also acceptable and possible for the interviewer to expand and probe the responses given by the interviewee; emerging leads may also be explored at this time (Rabionet, 2011).

The use of semi-structured interviews with the researcher is conducive to a frank and in-depth discussion of the interviewee's experiences, thus revealing aspects which might otherwise be overlooked in a written survey-questionnaire, as well as clarification of issues as they arise. Interviews are also useful because they permit deeper probing than survey-

questionnaires into beliefs and values relating to, in this case, desirable systemic and procedural activities and even changes (Morris, 2015). Semi-structured interviews have the added advantage of encouraging the interviewees to describe their experiences without placing any limits on, or restricting, what they might wish to express. An interview also provides an opportunity for the interviewee to mention negative experiences associated with their work experiences if so desired. The advantage of allowing negative experiences to be included is that recommendations about systemic programs, policy changes, or procedural changes can be tailored to address any such issues raised.

The interviews were digitally recorded with the participant’s permission and then later transcribed by the researcher. Charmaz (2014) strongly recommends coding from

transcription, commenting (2014) that even trained ethnographers can quickly forget fine details. Further, she contends that it is very likely the researcher will miss some ideas and understandings without the full transcription to subsequently interrogate and review more than once (Charmaz, 2014, p. 136).

In this study, the first round of interviews lasted between 40 and 55 minutes each. While the researcher had a prepared list of open-ended questions (see Appendix F) for the participant, invariably the participant was enthusiastic about the project and passionate about sharing information and her perspectives on Christian early childhood educational leadership. Thus, although the interviews used semi-structured open-ended questions, the reality was closer to an unstructured interview in the first round of interviews. This was invaluable in broadening and enriching the data beyond expectations by revealing additional aspects of the leadership role and the individual’s beliefs and practices.

These expanded semi-structured interviews thus provided a larger quantity of data than had been anticipated. Further, a greater depth of understanding about what constitutes Christian early childhood educational leadership from the perspectives of current

practitioners, was gained.

Following each interview and the subsequent interview rounds (see Appendices G and H), during the transcription and open-coding processes the researcher wrote memos to assist in the linking of codes and the further exploration of some, as well as the developing

generation of theory. For example, as the transcribing proceeded, certain themes were repeated. Clearly these were going to have to be explored in depth which led to this memo: “start exploring additional areas for my lit review that have ‘emerged’ from the data: heart/

love/ service/ ministry/ mission” (February, 2015). The transcripts were then returned to the interviewee for verification – “member checking” in order to ensure accuracy.

The interviews took place over a nineteen-month period from the end of 2014 to the middle of 2016, with an additional interview outside that time as shown in Table 3.4 as well as a group lunch following the last interview to close the interviewing section. I visited Denise for an additional interview as I sensed she felt uncomfortable during some of the discussions at the group lunch, and this will be discussed further in the case studies in Chapter Five. Table 3. 4 Interview Dates Name of Participant Date of first Interview Date of second Interview Date of third Interview Additional Interview FRAN 21.11.14 12.10.15 19.02.16 DARLENE 14.07.14 26.10.15 12.02.16 DENISE 02.12.14 24.11.15 23.02.16 29.08.16 MAREE 03.12.14 09.12.15 17.02.16

GROUP LUNCH AT A CENTRAL VENUE 11.4.16

Towards the end of the third interview for each participant, as we discussed and summarised Christian early childhood leadership, I became aware that although we were discussing the concept with continued interest and enthusiasm, no new information was emerging to extend the theoretical concepts – we had reached ‘saturation’.