Semi-structured interviews

As discussed in section 3.7.1, the main method of data collection for all participants was through face-to-face interviews using a semi-structured protocol. In semi-structured interviews the interviewer does not use exact questions but instead uses an adaptable interview schedule based on areas to discuss.

There are significant advantages in using semi-structured interviews in the current research.Firstly, semi-structured interviews can achieve the depth of response sought by the researcher in ‘providing a rich source of data based on the participants’ personal experiences’ (Robson, 2002, p, 35). Secondly, semi-structured interviews support a critical realist ontological perspective, ‘allowing multiple perspectives within a real world context’ (Willig, 2008, p. 5). Thirdly, semi-structured interviews are a flexible form of research ‘allowing the interviewer to retain overall control thereby giving the interviewee uninhibited freedom’ (Drever, 1995, p.18).

To ensure rigour and consistency careful consideration was given to the questions asked of all participants that formed the interview schedules prepared for each set of participants that ensured standardisation of the interview process (see Appendix 12) that was supported through the first question in each interview being broad and open-ended to get the interviewee talking (Di Cicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006).

It was important that the questions asked needed to accurately address the research questions so the questions in each interview schedule were based on the following criteria:

• Open-ended questions as opposed to closed questions;

• Avoiding questions beginning with ‘why’ as they may appear threating to the participant that could generate a defensive reply;

• Questions were arranged from the general to the more specific; • Number of questions asked were less than ten; and

• Questions reflect the context of the research questions with sufficient information in each question so all participants understand what is being asked of them.

(Based on Krueger (2003) and Krueger and Casey (2000)).

Pupils were consulted during the process to ensure their voice was heard and acted upon. One example of this was shown by the researcher offering the pupils the choice of whether they wished to be interviewed singly, in pairs or in groups. As nurture group staff needed to adhere to their school’s current safeguarding policy, it was agreed that pupils were interviewed in pairs in a

quiet corner of the nurture group room with one member of the nurture group staff present in the room but not taking part in the interview process.The choice of pupil pairings was based on the advice of the nurture group staff following their consultation with pupils on behalf of the researcher. Also, to help ensure the participants were at ease, the researcher was positioned alongside the pupils as opposed to directly opposite to reduce any anxiety pupils may have encounteredin regard to maintaining face-to-face gaze. The adult interviews took place in the nurture group in each of the schools and took from twenty to sixty five minutes for each interview.

Fully structured interviews and unstructured interviews were considered but rejected, as they were deemed unsuitable for the current study. Fully structured interviews, where questions are pre-determined seemed more suitable for a quantitative study as a more flexible approach was needed to allow the researcher to modify questions through the use of an interview schedule. Unstructured interviews were also rejected, as the informality ‘did not support the standardisation of the interview process’ (Robson, 2002, p. 23).

Although there are advantages in using semi-structured interviews they have limitations as interviews can take a long time and the interviewer has less control over the direction the interview may take. Also, data from semi- structured interviews can be more time consuming to analyse.

3.7.3 Observations

In addition to semi-structured interviews, observations in both nurture groups and mainstream classrooms offered a means of triangulation based on using more than a single method to collect data on the same topic (Bryman, 2004).

The qualitative observations in nurture groups and mainstream classes were unstructured as the purpose of the observations was to develop a narrative account of participant behaviours ‘in their natural settings… without using pre- determined categories of measurement or response (Adler and Adler, 1994, p.384). A structured or systematic observation schedule was inappropriate for this investigative qualitative study as there was no pre-determined

observation schedule based on time sampling or other quantitative strategies. The role of the observer in the current study is that of a passive participant who sits in an unobtrusive manner with no interaction with participants (Spradley, 1980). In addition, a reflective journal was used following each observation.

To ensure a high degree of rigour in the observation process it was based on five characteristics of observations and settings defined by Patton (2002) cited by Mertens (2005):

1. ‘The physical environment where the observations will take place needs to be described to allow the reader to visualise the setting; 2. The human and social environment of the setting needs to be

recognised through identification in the way that pupils were organised into groups and subgroups that may reflect on patterns of interaction,

frequency of interaction, direction of communication patterns and any changes to these patterns;

3. What would we see if we were watching the lessons observed? ; 4. Informal interaction and unplanned activities that may include learning

occurring in unstructured moments through personal interactions; and 5. Taking note of non-verbal cues such as body language’.

(Mertens, 2005, pp. 383-385).