Reflecting on the interviewing procedures and the analytical process, I was very much aware of my limited experience at the start of interviewing, as well as the various forms of bias to be minimised (Thomas, 2009).
72 Selection bias did not apply as the participants were directly involved in
education and therefore representative of the population. Measurement bias and intervention bias are not relevant in this case, due to all participants being presented with the same opportunities in similar settings and the audio
recording accompanied by accurate transcriptions of content (Hartman, Forsen, Wallace and Neely, 2002).
Participants were enlisted from three different towns, in two different counties and from schools with three different levels of socioeconomic standing,
resulting in obtaining a fair cross section of society and educational
institutions. Two participants were head teacher/coordinators; two were G & T teacher/coordinators and one inclusion teacher/coordinator, in local primary schools. One head teacher was male, all other participants were female. All participants were from the same ethnic group and had experience ranging from 14 – 30 years in the teaching profession.
Mutual trust was established to varying degrees in each interview situation, which Daly and Lumley (2002) claim contributes to the validity of the
information. Due to people’s differing personality traits and mood on the day, I did not expect to receive an equally warm, deep and open conversation with all participants to the same degree. However, the ease of opening
conversations, presenting questions and probe penetration improved as the interviews progressed; this was a valuable personal learning curve for further qualitative research.
In keeping with qualitative/interpretive traditions active listening (Radnor, 1994) to informant responses was incorporated as this, “can assist in ensuring the participant’s own voice is heard” (Polkinghorne, 2007, p.12). Furthermore, I will contextualise these perceptions to facilitate understanding, by
recognising that it is inevitable that the researcher’s own voice impinges upon the analysis of the findings because of individual situation and cognizance.
This study reflects that of the researcher aiming to extract information and remain objective, combined with the educator/insider who is interacting and relating to the participant (Silverman, 2011). Although Moustakas (1994) emphasises setting aside all prior beliefs in research relating to
phenomenological inquiry, this was unrealistic in practice. As a teacher I have
73 been “socialised into a discipline that has its own vocabulary, concepts and theories” (Merriam, 1988, p.54). This socialisation is closely associated with
‘theoretical orientation’ described by Merriam (1988, p.54) as the
“assumptions, concepts or propositions that orient thinking” of the researcher which affect the whole study. Consequently, in this study the insider – outsider was not a fixed dimension, but a continuum and a dynamic interaction
between the two points as endorsed by Mercer (2007) and Nielsen (2008).
The advantages of ‘insider’ knowledge were many; enabling interaction, understanding and empathy with explanations. During the five interviews, I utilised my prior knowledge and experience to communicate effectively on the appropriate educator level, enabling fuller and more immediate understanding and insights into informant dialogue. This absorption, accommodation and assimilation of information meant that I was able to ‘actively listen’ (Tangen, 2008), to draw inferences and to maximise the ‘observer’ role. Therefore, the
‘insider’ aspect held advantages in the chance to “pursue [the research] with vigour and curiosity” as suggested by Hockey (1993, p.204). The five
participants were “experts in their own lives... only teachers can understand what it is to be a teacher” (Tangen, 2008, p.4). According to Tangen (2008, p.157), ‘insider epistemology’ forms the foundation for much research in education relating to teaching practices.
I was aware that my mind was not a blank page and that the motivation for this research evolved from my prior primary school teaching experiences;
initially aiming to highlight inequity in education for more able children.
Therefore, subjectivity is acknowledged as being involved in this study and may colour the interpretation and outcomes to a degree (Gadamer, 1989;
Thomas, 2009).
Reflecting on the people I met during interviewing, where I met them and how they responded is well documented in this study, however, I also analysed my own performance and contribution to this research. Although I had all the paperwork ready with the tape recorder and I was clear about what I wanted to find out, I was lacking in interview expertise. In the second interview I was assisted greatly by a friendly, welcoming coordinator who readily explained and provided examples of her well established processes and procedures. In
74 this more relaxed, open atmosphere I was able to insert probes more
effectively into the conversation, gaining valuable material in an extended timeframe. There was a fine balance between the interrogative researcher and the teacher – colleague relationship. I found myself ‘changing hats’
continuously, aiming to maintain control of the conversation whilst sustaining a quality, professional interaction.
Time limits were also an issue for the head teacher/coordinator interviews, where once the hour was completed they were getting edgy with staff reminding them of ongoing school maintenance in progress, or parent
enquiries. These interruptions and tight schedules meant that interviews were not completed as fully as preferred; however both head teachers readily supplied further information.
Pupil gender was not under scrutiny in this instance and as Bégin and Gagné (1994) suggest a weak association between gender and teacher attitudes.
This study reflects a qualitative/interpretive approach to inquiry in understanding and explaining the meaning of a shared educational phenomenon, undertaken in an inductive mode (Patton, 2002).