Interviews
Simons (2009) explains that the three methods most commonly used in qualitative research are; interviewing, observing and documentary analysis. The present section discusses the reasons for choosing
122
interviews as a method for data collection for the present action research case study.
Interviewing is a common method of collecting information, which utilises the interaction between the interviewer and the participant to research a greater depth of information than any other research method allows (Oppenheim, 1992). Moreover, Tellis (1997) says that interviews are one of the most important sources of case study information. In the present case study I conducted two interviews. One was conducted before the reading intervention and the other one was conducted after the reading intervention. In addition, I also conducted a practitioner's journal and participants' diaries which were conducted throughout the reading intervention.
Cohen
et al
(2007, 2013) say that interviews allow research participants to discuss their interpretations of the world in which they live, and to express how they regard situations from their own point of view. By researcher participants they refer to the researcher or the participants as well.Simons (2009) says that interviews facilitate the researcher to get to the core problem of the study in greater depth than other methods.
Interviews enable to probe motivations, to ask follow-up questions and to facilitate individuals telling their stories. Transcripts of interviews offer a basis for a deep analysis of the investigated situation (Simons, 2009 p 43).
Wengraf (2001) claims that the purpose of the research interview is to improve knowledge by dealing with matters in-depth. Going into something in-depth means getting more detailed knowledge about the subject matter and try 'to figure how the apparently straight-forward is actually more complicated of how the surface appearances may be quite misleading about depth realities' (Wengraf, 2001 p 6). In other words to
123
examine a subject matter in-depth means to get a deep understanding of how little the researcher knew about it. This concept underpins the choice of the in-depth interviews for the present case study. As a practitioner I wanted to get a deep understanding of the effects the cognitive combined reading intervention had on the research participants. The interviews enabled having objective data for my reflection as a practitioner (McNiff and Whitehead, 2006). Following the in-depth research interview data analysis I realised how little I knew about the research intervention effects beyond the cognitive ones.
Simons (2009) claims that the in-depth interview, also referred to as the unstructured or open-ended interview, maintains four major purposes. The first one is to document the research participant's perspective on the research subject matter. The second purpose is to promote the bind between the researcher and the participants in identifying and analysing the research subject matter. The third purpose is to probe a topic so to get engaged in a kind of dialogue with the research participants. The fourth is to uncover unobserved feelings and events which cannot be observed. Indeed, all four purposes influenced the choice of the in-depth interview as a method for data collection for this research. However, the fourth purpose was the most dominant in my choice, due to the fact that while teaching and implementing the combined reading intervention programme it is almost impossible for me, as a researcher, to conduct an observation on the participants so to depict the effects of the research intervention. For this I did not choose the observation as a research method.
As mentioned above, in the present case study the two interviews were pre- and post- by nature. That is, one interview was conducted before the reading intervention programme and the other one after the reading intervention programme. These two interviews were in-depth interviews
124
by nature. The students' interviews took place in my private practice where the research combined intervention was implemented. I conducted the interviews with the students in a one-to-one ambience.
In order to get the utmost data as possible from the research participants, I adopted the single-question interview technique (Wengraf, 2001) for the present case study in-depth interviews. In the single-question interview the researcher asks one open-ended question and where necessary probes the interviewee with comments.
For the pre-intervention in-depth interview, following Wengraf (2001) single-question technique, the single-question was as follow:
'I would like you to tell me about your English studies from when you first began until today. Start whenever you like. Please take the time you need. I will listen and will take some notes for afterwards'.
Example of probing questions whenever needed for additional information: 1. Oh really, well can you tell me a little more?
2. That's interesting; can you give me an example of that?
For the post-intervention in-depth interview, following Wengraf (2001) single-question technique, the single-question was as follow:
'Do you remember that you told me about your English studies from when you first began? Well, I would like you to tell me about your English studies now. Start whenever you like. Please take the time you need. I will listen and will take some notes for afterwards'.
The probing questions, which were needed for additional information, were identical to those used in the pre-intervention in-depth interview and were mentioned above. Naturally, the questions for the pre- and post-
125
intervention in-depth interviews differ from one another, as they are meant to investigate the effects, following the research combined reading intervention programme, on the six research participants. The qualitative data of the pre- and post-intervention in-depth interviews were analysed using thematic analysis and code development, which is discussed in some depth latter on in this chapter.