Research methods – data collection

The goal of qualitative research is to rely as much as possible on participants’ views of a situation being studied. Qualitative researchers seek to understand the context of the participants through visiting this context and gathering information personally.

3.5.1 Interviews

Guba and Lincoln (1985) argue that the human-as-instrument is the only instrument which is flexible enough to capture the complexity, subtlety, and constantly changing situation which is the human experience. Maykut and Morehouse (1994) agrees that it is the person with all of his or her skills, experience, background, and knowledge as well as biases which is the primary, if not exclusive, source of data collection and analysis. The human investigator has knowledge based experience, possesses an immediacy of the situation, and has the opportunity for clarification of atypical or idiosyncratic responses on the spot. To investigate the current status of parent-school relations semi-structured interviews offer what Dexter (1970, p.123) describes as ‘conversations with a purpose’. Quinn Patton (2002) says that the purpose of interviewing is to allow the researcher enter the other person’s perspective. Programme evaluation interviews aim to capture the perspectives of programme participants, staff, and others associated with the programme. A total of twenty-one individual interviews with principals, HSCL co-ordinators, JCSP co-ordinators, parents, a JCSP librarian and a community literacy co-ordinator were conducted. Two focus groups discussions one involving parents from one of the case study schools and the other involving JCSP co-ordinators, representing post-primary schools from outside the case study schools, were completed. The focus group

completed with JCSP co-ordinators was used as an opportunity to pilot test my interview questions. Also these JCSP co-ordinators were able to give their views freely knowing that further interviews were not going to be conducted in their schools. Data gleaned from this focus group discussion was sufficient to satisfy the researcher that the substantive question was worthy of further investigation.

Preparation of interview questions involved researching and adopting a model of parental involvement to scaffold this research and a lengthy review of literature relating to

parental involvement in the education of their children. This was completed in order to develop what Yin, (2009:14) describes as ‘sharper and more insightful questions about the topic’. Keeping in mind my substantive research question on parental involvement aimed at developing student literacy and numeracy skills, Hoover-Dempsey and

Sandler’s (1995) model of parental involvement and the variety of interview participants to be included in the study, a detailed list of the ‘big’ research questions which the study is designed to explore (Mason, 2007, p.69) was compiled inductively by the researcher. The questions were then grouped into themes and narrowed down into ten questions to serve as an interview guide. (Appendix 1, p. 214). Quinn Patton (2002) suggests the preparation and use of probes regarding detail, elaboration or clarification of answers given (Appendix 2-5, pp. 215 - 224) and also advises that a distinction is made between opinion/value questions, feeling questions, which ask about affective states, and

knowledge (factual) questions. Silverman (2006) advises the use of more unstructured open-ended interviews to capture individuals’ attitudes and values. The researcher in this study adopts a semi-structured interview style to capture factual, value laden and

attitudinal data.

The first four questions seek to elicit participants’ opinions on home-school partnership and its contribution to student achievement. Participants are asked if partnership with parents is promoted and planned collaboratively in schools. Questions five to seven focus on why some parents more than others become involved, specific types of parental involvement and barriers to engaging with student learning experienced by parents. Finally participants are asked to identify models of parental involvement which positively influenced student achievement, how parental involvement can be improved and

participants’ vision and purpose for parental engagement in schools.

Interview questions or categories, which were later used to aid analysis of data, were therefore pre-established, i.e a priori. Yin (2009, p.85) warns that ‘the nature of the interview is much more open-ended, and an interviewee may not necessarily co-operate fully in sticking to your line of questions’. You are intruding into the world of the subject being studied, so clear field procedures are necessary. A set of substantive questions,

reflecting your line of inquiry act as reminders regarding the information that needs to be collected, and keeps the interview on track. To ensure that effective use was made of the time spent interviewing research participants, interview questions were forwarded in advance. The researcher went along with Wolcott (1982, p.157) who claims that it is ‘impossible to embark upon research without some idea of what one is looking for and foolish not to make that quest explicit’. Interviewing in case study research, however, cannot be entirely routinised. While the interviewer needs to ask good questions and be a good listener, they must also be adaptive and flexible. A good grasp of the issues being discussed is required and the interviewer must be unbiased by preconceived notions and be sensitive and responsive to contradictory evidence.

3.5.2 Focus groups

In order to pilot test my ten interview questions, to validate or negate my interview questions, a focus group was conducted with four JCSP co-ordinators representing a variety of post-primary school types nationally in order to investigate their shared perspectives. As my literature review and individual interviews progressed a second focus group was conducted with four parents in one of the five case study schools included in the study.

As a data collection method focus group interviews are a qualitative research technique in which a small number of respondents and a moderator participate in a group discussion about a topic selected for investigation (Bers 1994; Howard et al. 1989). Silverman (2006) describes the researcher as a facilitator of a group discussion rather than a

questioner. From a phenomenological perspective researchers arrive at an understanding of multiple realities of the group’s members (Bers 1994). Hess (1968), cited in Bers (1994), identifies advantages to the respondent as synergism, snow-balling when one person’s comment triggers a chain of responses from others in the group, stimulation, security and spontaneity or serendipity. Bers (1994) advises that care in recruiting respondents is important so that the accuracy and usefulness of information is not

compromised. This approach is supported by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007, p.377) who advise care with sampling so that every participant is the ‘bearer of the particular

characteristics required or that the group has homogeneity of background in the required area’.

Morgan (1997) points out that reliance is on the interaction within the group who discuss a topic supplied by the researcher, yielding a collective rather than an individual view. Participants interact with each other rather than the researcher so that it is the participants rather than the researcher’s agenda which predominates. It is from this interaction of the group that the data emerges (Morgan 1997; Kruger and Casey 2000). Quinn Patton (2002) argues that the object is to get high-quality data in a social setting where people can consider their own views in the context of the views of others. Focus group

participants get to hear each other’s responses and to make additional comments beyond their own original responses as they hear what other people have to say. Quinn Patton (2002) argues that the power of focus groups resides in their being focused, topics are focused usually seeking reactions to shared experience, or a programme, rather than complex life issues, groups are focused by being formed homogeneously and facilitation is focused by keeping responses on target and keeping interactions among participants focused by staying on topic. Krueger and Casey (2000) points out that interactions among participants enhance data quality. Participants provide checks and balances on each other, which weed out false or extreme views while at the same time present the researcher with the unexpected, interactions, insights, ideas and information (Maykut and Morehouse (1994). A disadvantage of focus groups is that the results may not be scientific and generalisable (Bers 1994; Cohen, Mannion and Morrison 2007). Results should not be used alone as some members of the group are more articulate leading to their responses been give more credence. Dominance of some members and non-participation of others may mean that the data may lack overall reliability.