Sampling and Interviews

3.3.4 Sampling and Interviews

Participants in the case study included pupils, teachers and senior

management within one Secondary education setting. This constituted the

“field” in relation to data gathering and observation. The research

broadened out to include the schools key partners in terms of additional data gathering. Together they encompassed the school story in respect of the legacy of creativity. Representatives from the Local Authority (within which the school was located) and cultural sector were identified by school staff as

their strategic partners in relation to creativity and the development of the new curriculum strand.

Early identification of the school setting for potential inclusion within

ethnographic, qualitative inquiry provided an opportunity to negotiate entry to the school under an ‘observer’ status. Using this status, I gained access to

‘pilot’ creativity curriculum delivery activities in the classroom. This included observing a year seven class lesson. Subsequent researcher access to the design & development stages of the emerging creativity curriculum was agreed, which included attending staff meetings and so called ‘away day’

activities. Teaching staff from the creative arts department in the school were primarily involved in the design & development stages. Access and

observation occurred prior to my establishing a specific methodology for the research. Harvey (in Crabtree et al, 1992) however argued participant

observation as a method had remained ‘substantively unchanged since late 19^th century’. He believed the method did not imply a particular

epistemology, which is reassuring for the researcher, given data was

gathered which informed the research direction from a relatively early stage.

According to Brockmann (2011) even short term observation can provide useful insights ‘within a compressed time period lived experience of aspects of the learning culture can be achieved, based on the active involvement of the researcher as an accepted participant’ (2011: 241).

Launch of the new curriculum strand in the pilot school across year groups seven, eight and nine began in the autumn term of 2012. Discussion and negotiation took place to agree and balance the needs of the research study with teaching requirements. It was mutually agreed between staff and researcher that my sample would include one, year seven class and one classroom teacher in relation to field observation and interview schedule.

Access to one creativity lesson, one hour each week with the same group of pupils and teacher was negotiated. Understanding a social phenomenon increases the longer a researcher spend in the setting (Atkinson et al, 2007;

Neilson, 2006). It was my intention to understand the phenomena of a legacy

of creativity through negotiating access to delivery of the bespoke curriculum strand and following that strand for a period of time.

The timeframe for observation and interview schedule was October 2012 to July 2013. I deemed this an appropriate period of time to follow the story of the ‘legacy of creativity’ as it unfolded ‘live’ through interaction in school over an academic school year. Putney & Frank (2008) believed examining interactions over time through participant observation and interview ‘makes visible what students and teachers construct as knowledge as they negotiate meaning through their interactions’ (2008: 36).

The research broadened out for a four month period April to July 2013 to include observation of three teaching staff members from the creative arts department and pupils from year groups seven and eight engaged in

creativity lessons allowing for more informational yield and thicker description (Tope et al, 2005).

Six pupils from the observed class were selected for interview along with their teacher Jim Smith. Jim had been involved in the design of the new curriculum strand and maintained on going responsibility for its delivery and evaluation.

Four further teaching staff members engaged in the delivery of the creativity curriculum from the creative arts department were interviewed, Lucy, Diane, Lottie and Lynda. Head Teacher Emily was selected for interview along with three members of staff from different subject disciplines (i.e. not associated with the creative arts department or creativity curriculum), Anna, Fred and Tom. A range of informal and semi-formal data was captured from meetings and conversations with other staff members directly involved in development of the creativity curriculum as the research

The creative arts teaching staff were asked to identify external key partners in relation to previous, together with current development and delivery of creativity in school. A list of institutions and individuals emerged. The list included Local Authority staff from both culture and education service

departments. A museum in close proximity to the school site together with the

regional museums service was identified. A local Arts Centre together with the appointed North East regional arts advisory & networking organisation were included. The creativity coach engaged by the school to undertake the planning and development stages of the creativity curriculum was also selected. I identified representation from the statutory Council responsible for enactment of National policy relating to culture and education at a Regional level. Individuals from the organisations (Bruce, David, Frank, Jill, Tilly, Sylvia and Anita) were approached, interviews subsequently granted to the researcher.

It is widely acknowledged interviews are core to research encompassing a qualitative approach, for the purpose of data gathering and accessing people’s experiences (Silverman, 2004; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Interviews that are semi-structured allow the researcher to maintain topic focus, ask open-ended questions, react flexibly to informant’s response and perceived as ‘conversations with purpose’ (Agar, 1980; Burgess, 1984; Woods, 1992).

Kvale (1996) argued knowledge emerges through ‘dialogue’ in interviews.

Rubin (1995) believed that qualitative interviewing was ‘iterative and continuous’ with data analysis beginning ‘whilst the interviewing is still underway’ (1995: 43)

Knowledge from a wide range of informants was required for the research and the use of recorded and transcribed interviews deemed an appropriate method of data gathering.

Semi-structured interviews conducted in the research were based on a mutual topic of interest, broadly the legacy of creativity, and how this was experienced by the informant. Fontana and Frey (2000) believed semi-structured interview conversations resulted in a ‘co-production’ of research outcomes between researcher and researched. This might imply there is equity between the two parties but Fontana and Frey (in Denzin, 2000) caution a hierarchical relationship exists with the researcher in control. As such, the exchange of views and data gathered in interviews is not seen as

an entirely neutral affair. The researcher is believed to be operating in the interests of their research, their own ‘tool’.

The experience should be enriching for the informant according to Kvale (1996), which has implications as to how and where an interview is

conducted. Practical advice includes using a common vocabulary, keeping questions accessible and short, speaking clearly, conducting interviews in quiet spaces, being flexible and open to digressions (Kvale 1996; Fontana and Frey 2000; Patton 2002). Interviews conducted in the school settings were undertaken in a range of rooms. This was dependent upon the child protection requirements of the school in terms of pupil interviews and availability of classroom or office spaces for teaching staff. Interviews conducted with cultural partners & others took place at their work place or by telephone. The agreed premise upon which all interviews were conducted was access by the interviewer and interviewee to uninterrupted, quiet space and up to one hour of time allocated for the event.

The researcher was required to employ a high level of skill to avoid invasiveness and manage the dialogue effectively to elicit the research information required. Goffman (1974) argued ‘given their understanding of what it is that is going on, individuals fit their actions to this understanding and ordinarily find that the on-going world supports this fitting’(1974: 247). In

relation to the interview frame this was not intended as a rigid construct with a set of features, rather fluid activity orientated around an established set of ideas of what an interview is by the participants.

According to Sinding and Aronson (2003) researchers should pay close attention to the words they speak during interviews. They argued words can

‘intersect with dominant discourses and political realities’ creating ‘conditions of vulnerability’ for the interviewees. In relation to the interviews, I was

particularly mindful of the vulnerability of the sample pupils in relation to the dominant discourses framing their learning.

3.4 Researcher Role