The questions conceived for the semi-structured interviews (see p. 283-284, Appendix n) with trainee-teachers stemmed from my synthesis of the themes which
96
derived from their responses to my revised semi-structured questionnaire. My synthesis of data in constructing the semi-structured interview questions allowed for what I considered would be a deeper enquiry into the key questions of the study. Thus, the semi-structured interview schedule had two distinct purposes:
1. To elicit responses from trainee-teachers through new questions developed from the findings of the semi-structured questionnaire.
2. To use the responses from the semi-structured interviews for learning more about how trainee-teachers view MEGroMMaS over the ages for teaching and learning in the Key Stage 2 classroom.
My approach to forming the sample group for the semi-structured interviews was informed by seven trainee-teachers who had completed the semi-structured questionnaire and had declared on the semi-structured questionnaire consent form that they, if required, would be willing to take part in my semi-structured interviews. All trainee-teachers were White and female. What could be learnt from the
responses of such a specific and dominant group in the study could be viewed as limiting the study. It should be noted that my sample of trainee-teachers is reflective of the dominant ethnic and gender make up the primary school teacher population in general i.e. White female teachers (DfE, 2013c). Although the study was unable to test fully for understanding the impact of background and socialisation on practice by non-White trainee-teachers, my sample of White female trainee-teachers enabled for a coherent enough investigation on how that particularly identity, background and socialisation shapes thinking for teaching and learning about MEGroMMaS.
Four of trainee-teachers withdrew from the study prior to the semi-structured interview process at the last moment, citing their heavy workload commitments
97
including impending assessments. I also related the withdrawal of those students at the interview stage to what I had highlighted earlier i.e. our contrasting identities and the potential of power dynamics to what Davies (2008) discusses as disclosing the nature of the study in terms of its content, aims and purposes and trainee-teachers’ realisation of what they are participating in having an impact on their withdrawal. Despite that, I gained very useful semi-structured interview responses from three trainee-teachers: Diana, Anne and Catherine. Further details of their profiles can be seen on Table B in Chapter Six.
My semi-structured interview questions (p. 283-284, Appendix n) drew upon the perspectives of Diana, Anne and Catherine, seeking ‘to interpret meaning of central themes in the life world of the subject’ (Kvale, 1996, p. 30). This approach fitted with the interpretive and phenomenological approaches of the study to Schutz (1962) However, Patton (1980, p.206) exposes limitations of my approach, where he discusses interviews schedule questions having:
Little flexibility in relating the interview to particular individuals and circumstances;
standardized wording of questions may constrain and limit the naturalness and relevance of questions and answers.
Despite the caution, I saw the advantages of using a semi-structured interview schedule as outweighing the disadvantages. This was in terms of uniformity through the patterns of responses that could emerge where respondents answer the same questions, thus providing increasingly comparability of responses for facilitating the organisation and analysis of the qualitative data (Patton, 1980).
My semi-structured interviews with Diana, Anne and Catherine were held in a workspace that was neutral to them and to me in terms of ownership and use. All
98
semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded according to the disclosures and informed consent through the information sheet of the semi-structured questionnaire. Following the semi-structured interviews, I provided Diana, Anne and Catherine by hand with a transcript of their responses, seeking their verification and endorsement of the contents. I did not share with them any ideas that I was generating and considering for my analysis of their responses, as they had not fully emerged at that point of the study. It was not the intention of the study to seek process consent from Diana, Anne and Catherine in my analysis of their semi-structured interview
responses. There were no requests for amendments by Diana, Anne or Catherine to the text and data that had been generated.
On gaining their endorsements, I met again with each of them separately and provided each with an anonymised transcript of the conversation from my mother and I. The word ‘me’ (representing me) was substituted by the word ‘child’. This offered me a level of protection, in the shape of potential responses from Diana, Anne and Catherine. As far as they had perceived, they could have been looking through the transcript of conversation between any number of Afro-Caribbean immigrant parents and their British-born child in Britain today who had experienced Brixton 1981. At no point did Diana, Anne or Catherine ask me whether the
transcripts were the experiences of my mother and I. They showed no interest or curiosity at all as to whose conversation they were studying. Neither did I declare that they were the accounts of my mother and I, as I felt that it would potentially have created a barrier or even a bias in their responses. However, if Diana, Anne or Catherine had put the question to me of whose stories they were about, I would have declared them as being accounts from my mother and I.
99
I offered Diana, Anne and Catherine two weeks each to read the materials, as a stimulus for conversation in preparation for the focus group discussion that would follow. Diana, Anne and Catherine had no other close relationship with each other apart from being trainee-teachers involved in the study. The focus discussion was the first time that they had actually formally met and spoken with each other.