Rationale for semi-structured interviews

The biographical research approach, anchored in research by the Chicago School of Sociology since the 1920s and later by feminists (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994), at first looked to be an ideal approach for this study, as it puts those researched at the centre of the research process and allows their voices to be heard. Indeed, this approach has a long history of being used when researching education (Merrill and West, 2009) and it is interesting to note that throughout its history it has been used extensively to research and track the experiences of groups who might be viewed as marginalised (Merrill and West, 2009). Although, when first looked at, middle

managers might not necessarily be an obviously disadvantaged group, their role within the organisation does suggest that they could be viewed as marginalised.

The individual stories captured by the use of this technique can be a powerful counterpoint to the ‘accepted norms’ that pervade the sector. The compliance-based culture of the sector stresses the importance of

conformity but the biographical research is able to go beyond this to look at the impact on individuals.

That is not to say that the approach does not have potential problems. Denzin (1970) talks about the danger of the subjects of interviews

becoming lionised and the telling of the story merely stressing the heroic quality of their struggle. Whilst this might be true, the nature of

biographical interviews means that it is their voice that is important and hence they need to be heard, whatever their view is of events. The participants’ experiences and words provide a glimpse into the

participants’ reality that lies behind any theoretical discussion that takes place (an idea that Plummer, 2001, expands upon). That is not to say that the issue of social desirability should be avoided. Edwards (1957) suggests that respondents are likely to ignore things which are viewed as

undesirable or indeed those that do not fit in with the narrative that they have constructed. This can be seen as a problem when researching specific questions, as this study is doing. His response to this was to say that it would help to construct a way in which you can attempt to filter this out. This process, used extensively in the marketing industry, means that indirect questions tend to be used to minimise the effect of social

desirability (Fisher, 1993). This approach helped with structuring

interviews and suggests that rather than ‘pure’ biographical research, the approach taken in this study is classed as a ‘semi-structured’ interview approach. This enabled me to capture the views of the participants whilst also ensuring that the objectives of the research were kept in mind. The semi-structured interviews helped to ‘discern patterns but also distinctiveness in lives’ (Merrill and West, 2009:2) and allowed the voices of participants to be heard. This narrative was used to inform the analysis and help shape the ideas within the work. There are many ways to collect narratives for analysis. For this research, the nature of the managerial role within post-compulsory education suggested that some methods were less appropriate. Given that a key focus is the transition participants make from their previous role to their current role, a structured interview process could be viewed as too restrictive and hence a broader approach was put in place to allow managers to talk about issues that they viewed as important rather than those imposed by an interviewer. In short, the voices of participants were put at the forefront of the research.

The use of written journals to document the day-to-day tasks and stresses of the job was considered; however, the lack of any ‘downtime’ in the working lives of managers would place time and personal pressures on all participants and was therefore rejected. Despite this, participants were encouraged to provide written reflections via email after the interviews had taken place, and some did. These reflections tended to be shortly after one of the interviews, possibly because the discussion at the interviews had prompted more reflection on a particular issue raised in the interview. My own reflective journal helped to inform my feelings about the interviews and was also useful when I reflected on the manner in which participants answered questions. It was also helpful when exploring the backgrounds of participants. Talking to colleagues, line managers, students and others in the colleges visited, and reflecting on their

thoughts, allowed me to build up a picture of the participants that helped validate much of what they said and also deepened, clarified and enriched my knowledge of the themes that were being discussed. Rather than merely interviewing the middle managers and then leaving, I tried to spend as much time as possible within the organisation in order to gain a

‘feel’ for the place and also to reflect on how the participant was viewed. This is reflected in the pen portraits that have been used in the analysis The way an interview is constructed might be said to locate it on a line between unstructured and structured (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005;

Denscombe, 1998). A more structured interview can be seen as almost like a ‘questionnaire administered face to face with a respondent’ (Denscombe, 1998:166), where the interviewer retains the power over the specific questions and the interview follows a linear process with few (if any) follow-up questions. This can help improve reliability, with the goal being that each participant has exactly the same experience of the interview. The diametric opposite to this is the unstructured interview, where the

interviewer merely starts the theme and the focus is on the participants’ own thoughts and words, without much (if any) intervention by the interviewer.

Somewhere between these two approaches lies the semi-structured interview. This approach mixes interviewer interventions and the participant recounting freely and being allowed to move away from the themes set by the interviewer. In practice, many interviews will slide along the scale from semi-structured to unstructured. These two points on the line are different from the structured interview and are more appropriate for qualitative research:

Allowing interviewees to ‘speak their mind’ is a better way of discovering things about complex issues and, generally, semi- structured and unstructured interviews…lend themselves to in- depth investigations, particularly those which explore personal accounts of experiences and feelings.

(Denscombe, 1998:167) For this study, which seeks to look at complex issues connected to

transition, a semi-structured approach was used which was towards the unstructured end of the line. As mentioned above, a researcher, when conducting an interview, is working with a continuum. Certainly, where participants engaged in extended, uninterrupted discourse, there was an element of an unstructured interview in the exchanges. Likewise, at particular points during the discourse, where I may have asked for more specific detail, the interview became more structured.