Semi-structured and Informal Interviews

A range of interviews was also carried out. The decision to employ the interview as one of the main data-gathering techniques in this study rests in the words of Robson (1989), who

77 states that, “The interview process is the opportunity to listen, observe, question freely and, in the light of what is being said, interpret the individual’s behaviour within context” (p. 26). As Alexander (2000) also notes:

Observation is an essential tool of classroom research, but if teaching is about the exchange of ideas and meaning, then we can discover only some of these by observing. To maximise our prospects of gaining access to these ideas and meanings, we must listen as well as look. Communication, both verbal and non-verbal, must be studied, and the language of classroom transaction must be attended to in some detail; but, especially, we must talk to those whom we watch (p. 270).

Walford (1994) captures this point elegantly. According to him, although published and documentary sources may reveal much information about policy, it is actually by talking with the participants themselves that significant gain in understanding can be, and is, fully made. Just like any other instrument in social science research, the interview has its own strengths and weaknesses. Robson (2002) for one points out that face-to-face interviews offer the possibilities of modifying one’s line of enquiry, following up interesting responses, and investigating underlying motives in a way that postal and other self-administered questionnaires cannot. He adds that the interview is a flexible and adaptable way of finding things, and that non-verbal cues provided in the course of the dialogue, for example, give out messages that help in understanding verbal responses.

Fielding et al. (2001) also argue that the versatility of the interview is apparent in the list of uses to which the data thus obtained can be put. They hold that interviews are often used to establish the variety of opinions concerning a topic, or to establish relevant dimensions of attitudes. They add that interviews are also used to form hypotheses about the motivation underlying behaviour and attitudes, as well as to examine non-motivation, that is, why people do not do certain things.

Thus, the bottom-line, as Robson (2002) also puts it, is that observing behaviour or social phenomena is clearly a useful enquiry technique, but asking people directly about what is going on in the communities and social settings under study by interviewing them is an obvious ‘short cut’ in the quest for answers to one’s research questions.

On the other hand, as a research tool, the interview is sometimes criticized for its lack of reliability and the difficulty in ruling out interviewer fabrication and bias. Robson (2002) concedes – and reiterates these criticisms by pointing out the lack of standardization in the

78 interview (its semi-structured and unstructured forms in particular) implies – that it inevitably raises such concerns. However, although there are ways of dealing with these problems, they call for a degree of professionalism and competence that do not come easily; indeed, considerable skill, time and expertise are demanded if such challenges are to be effectively reduced.

Wengraf (2001) adds to such criticism by arguing that the introductory texts on in-depth interviewing more often than not turn towards a ‘social unrealism’ in which the real histories and social identities of those involved in the research enterprise, or those from whom data are collected, are in some ways ignored (p.16). Wengraf (2001) goes on to point out how taking ethical steps to safeguard the anonymity and confidentiality of respondents – the practice of assigning pseudonyms in particular – could result in the findings losing something of their significance and validity if they end up merely being presented without taking into account the backgrounds of their subjects and the context within which the study was conducted. However, while acknowledging that because the interviewer is as much a part of the interview process as his or her interviewees, and that these weaknesses – especially lack of reliability and difficulty in ruling out interviewer bias – can be serious threat, the point also needs to be made that all these weaknesses can be minimized.

In the present study, documentary analysis was employed as a complement to interviewing, and hence provided a framework or benchmark as well as a data point for triangulation of the research findings. Below also discusses ways in which, problems associated with the use of the interview as a research tool have been minimized in this study.

In order to maximize the depth and breadth of insights to be gained from analysis of interviews, a strategy was developed that incorporated procedures and guidelines for administering semi-structured in-depth interviews (Robson et al., 1989; Kogan, 1994; Wengraf, 2001; Fielding et al., 2001; Robson, 2002; Neuman, 2004; Berg, 2004), which was carefully followed in order to keep possible problems associated with its use to a minimum. This plan took into account the personal appearance and approach of the interviewer; the introduction of the interview; the ensuring of familiarity with the interview schedule and items; question wording, content, order and style; effective communication; the maintenance of regular eye contact with the interviewee; probing and prompting; the recording of answers; and concluding remarks. Interview items were drawn from a thorough search and reflection on the wealth of literature on curriculum development and implementation, teaching and

79 learning, and community perspectives on effecting schooling. Below are some of the questions used in the teacher/ facilitator interviews. The full interview guide is in appendix 5.

 Did the lesson activities work as planned? (probe each of the activities in turn; elicit history of tasks and texts; explore rationale for choosing activities/tasks; elicit views on how well they worked)

 What did the lesson activities tell you about the needs/wants of the class? (probe with certain individual specific issues/moments in the session)

 What plans for the next/future lessons? (elicit outline for next session; explore rationale for tasks and activities, especially changes)

 Did my presence have any effect in the class? (on what T. did; on how T. planned; on teaching session)

 Were there any activities in this lesson(s) that you were not able to complete with learners?

The reliability, validity and clarity of items were improved by pre-testing the interview guide. Two steps were involved at this stage. The first was to submit the initial draft to my supervisors for corrections and amendments. This facilitated the identification of any poorly worded questions, those with offensive or emotive wording, and those that revealed my own biases, personal values, or blind spots.

The second step involved piloting. Several practice interviews with colleagues were conducted to assess whether the type of information being sought could actually be obtained with the research instrument (Berg, 2004: 90–91). Following the pilots, the necessary amendments and restructuring were once again made, after which the plan was finally ready for use.

Interviewees included School for Life learners, School for Life graduates in formal school, parents, teachers, and local management committee members. There were both individual and group interviews for children and community members. There were also different interview formats and question sets for different groups of interviewees. The different approaches served to triangulate some of the responses given in either of the individual or group interviews. Using this dual mode also served as follow up for further in-depth discussion on some topics that came up especially during group discussions. Interviews with learners covered their experiences during the nine-month School for Life cycle, knowledge and skills acquired, and how they prepared them for formal school. Interview questions also encouraged learners to compare their School for Life and formal school experiences in terms of learning content, teaching approaches, and linkages with local knowledge and responsibilities.

80 Discussions and interviews with parents and community leaders centred on their experiences in respect of SfL, and how it helped their children gain access to formal school. These groups of interviewees were given the opportunity to discuss the relevance of the CEP in terms of perceived learning gains of their children, and how they compared with those of children who enrolled directly into formal school. It was also important to discuss with these interviewees their views on the teaching approach and local content of the School for Life curriculum; how such elements made it possible for learners to integrate into formal school at the end of the cycle; and how pupils were helped to realise their potential in the community.

In total, 43 people were interviewed. These included 4 teachers, 14 pupils, 20 community members and/or parents, 3 SfL staff members and 2 GES officers. All interviews were tape- recorded, and varied in length between 45 minutes and 1 hour and 45 minutes (see Appendix 5for detail of the interview guideline).