Semi-structured interviews – using definition as a guide
Using a semi-structured interview as a technique to gather information around discussion of the vignettes would facilitate an approach that allowed participants to cover specific areas that were of interest, but allow enough flexibility to provide an informal and relaxed atmosphere. This method was also suitable for use with both adults and children, enabling an authentic representation of all the participants’ views (Babbie 2004). The same vignettes were presented to both staff and students. The vignettes are printed onto individual sheets and participants could select them in any order. Each of the participants were asked: “Do you think it’s bullying?” This was followed with a discussion of what factors had informed their decisions. The advantage of using the same vignettes with both student and staff participants is this allows the researcher an element of control around the areas of discussion and to provide a context in which the information being conveyed by the
participant can be reflected back to them to ensure that the meaning of what they are saying is checked.
This choice of interview is preferable to the more structured formal interviews as it fits the qualitative nature of the research exploring the meanings of social
phenomena. The interview guide consisted of a series of prompts, referring to intent, impact, repetition and power allowing for the sequence of the questions to be varied in response to the participants descriptions and answers (Bryman 2004, p113). The aim was for the interview to be more conversational, albeit with “controlled conversation” (Jamshed 2014, p87) that centred on the defining and describing of bullying and the factors that participants’ brought into play in their discussions. Semi-structured interviews would allow the opportunity to probe any answers that needed clarification or expansion (Hoinville et al. 1978). Whilst the exploratory design of the study is to elicit individual perspectives it must be
remembered that participants’ descriptions, might be open to interpretation. Argyris and Schon (1974) argue that what individuals say and what they actually do may be different, and there may be no deliberate attempt to obscure or manipulate, because they remain largely unaware of the differences between what they say “espoused theory” (p6) and what they actually do “theory-in-use” (p7). This was considered when interpreting the participants’ responses.
A further consideration was the issue of confidentiality; bullying is a sensitive and emotive topic that is often informed by personal experiences. Consideration was given to conducting interviews in pairs with the students as this might have helped allay any fears or anxiety that students might have felt in being interviewed by an unknown adult. However, this was decided against as it was important to capture individual responses that reflected personal and subjective experiences that illuminated responses to the vignettes. Working in pairs might have inhibited the free flow of information, despite it perhaps providing new themes and
understandings through an exchange of shared information and understanding, rather than individual opinions and experiences that are a true reflection of the individual’s views (Babbie 2004).
A particular issue that might inhibit the sharing of information, especially for the students, was the formal setting and the timetabled approach to meeting. Research with children has found that they prefer more relaxed approaches and would prefer to have some choice as to their method of participation (Hill 2006; Holland et al. 2010). Meetings with both staff and students took place in either a small office
space, or in a counselling room. There was occasional disruption or interruption because of factors beyond my control, e.g. on one occasion a car alarm just outside the room went off repeatedly throughout the interview, and on another occasion when the interview was taking place in a classroom, a member of staff asked could they just collect books and resources from the room during the last few minutes of the interview. These incidents were recorded in my field notes and mentioned in the transcriptions and noted in my field work diary.
Meetings for the interviews were roughly lesson length, around 55 minutes in length. Students and staff were allocated times by the assistant head in one school and the administrative assistant in the second, and were told where the meeting was to take place, consequently there was little control over either the surroundings or the room set up. This was mitigated slightly by my provision of water and snacks to make the meeting seem less informal and by asking participants where they wished to sit. One of the difficulties of having little control over how and when the meetings were to take place was that initially five or six meetings were arranged in one day. This afforded little opportunity for reflection between each participant. Consequently I requested that there would be a maximum of four participants during the day. This gave an opportunity for reflective review of the interview and also time in which to write brief field notes, making note of any significant details.
The interviews were only conducted once with each participant. The interview data was captured through audio recording which occasional additional handwritten notes, which accommodated a focus on the interview content and the prompts in the interview schedule. Chatting informally at the start of the interviews gave
opportunities to gain an insight into the participant’s day to day life. This as Babbie (2004) points out is often subjective, and might undermine the accuracy of the information collected. To mitigate this I had a brief introductory guide that I used with each of the participants to try to promote consistency, whilst trying to put the participants at their ease. I was aware that my status as researcher and an outsider in their setting might affect their responses and behaviour and was keen to minimise this by setting up a relaxed and informal setting where they felt confident and at ease and therefore might offset my influence to a certain degree, enabling them to discuss the vignettes or other questions freely.
The interviews were guided by a schedule of key phrases were designed to allow the participant to talk freely. Records of participant name, year group or role were noted. General housekeeping and mention of the possibility that during the
conversation notes might be made and audio recordings would be made. The process of looking at the vignettes in any chosen order explained; also the choice to read the vignette themselves or have them read aloud. After reading the vignette each participant would be asked “Would you describe this as bullying?” and then asked to explain what factors they considered in making the choice. The interview schedule was used as a reference point to make sure that all the areas had been covered. The content of the open-ended questions focused on the current definition of bullying found in the policy documents, around power, impact, intention and repetition. Note was made of whether there was any reference to gender, ethnicity, sexuality and identity. The session for both students and staff ends with questions around whether they knew about the school policy and their involvement in
developing it. In addition, did they know where they could find a copy of the policy? Atkinson and Coffey (2003) describe interviews as a performance, both on the part of the researcher and that of the participants, as is any social interaction. The interviews were a tool which enabled me to gather data, to illuminate whether there was a sense of shared understanding of the definition of bullying. Both the vignettes and the semi-structured interviews were tools which would provide insight into the subjective and personal framework with which the participants constructed their understanding of bullying.