Semi-Structured Interviews

Interviews were initially identified in the research design because they allowed access to the decision-making process behind the shift to cross-curricular approaches. Interviews are commonly found in social science research including case-studies (Robson: 2007: 269-71; Punch: 2009: 144-5) because of their ability to engage with situations of complexity, and they further allow insider or expert respondents provision to explain their interpretations behind action or decision making, information that could not easily be obtained from any other research tool (Mears: 2012).

Interviews can also be placed on a continuum (Thomas: 2009: 160-5; Punch: 2009: 145-8), and while structured interviews would almost certainly fail to provide the rich data required in this study, ‘in depth’ semi-structured interviews (Mears: 2012: 170-1) allowed greater flexibility in questions and responses, within a constructed form of conversation (Dyer: 1995: 56-8), while still allowing some commonality to facilitate analysis and categorization. Ultimately semi-structured interviews offer a balance, or trade off, between rich data (Bogdan and Biklen: 1992), insight (Shipman: 1988) and reliability. A review by the researcher’s supervisors, as well as experience from the pilot-study indicated that some of the initial questions were either irrelevant or flawed, and required omitting, or were too vague, and therefore required tightening; thus, as with the observation form, a lengthy iterative process ensued until a satisfactory set of fifteen questions emerged (Appendix B)

At the end of the pilot-study, the pro forma had already undergone some changes, and therefore was in a reasonably serviceable form by the time of the interview with the history coordinator. The interview itself was carried out at lunchtime on the final research day and therefore was subject to considerable time pressure. Despite these limitations the interview did produce some interesting material for analysis in the form of notes and summaries from unstructured responses (Cohen et al: 2009: 359). The fact that it took place at the end of the observations allowed the use of immediate

85 | P a g e analysis to ask interesting follow up questions, and also the opportunity to ask for clarification when more information and reflection was required. At the end of the interview feedback was requested. The format received a positive response because the coordinator felt that it made her more reflective about the purpose and rationale behind the school’s policy to adopt a cross-curricular approach to learning and learning. However, these comments, and a reflection following an informal discussion with the head-teacher, resulted in a consideration that either a separate interview form for class teachers needed developing, or that the project should concentrate solely on interviewing subject coordinators and school leaders. Ultimately the latter option was selected as a form of ‘elite’ interview policy (Gillham: 2000: 63-5).

The single pilot-study interview, although perfunctory, did indicate that the information would be insightful and relevant, even though the series of questions clearly required further revision. After the first interview in the initial case-study school, the conclusion was that unstructured note taking produced highly interesting and rich data, but that it also proved too complex to be briefly and accurately summarised, and the respondent agreed to write out some responses that were then posted. On reflection, the note taking revealed too many instances of bias and researcher preference, particularly in the choice of words used to summarise lengthy answers. Hence the decision to tape all future interviews (with notes taken as a backup in the case of a recording error). Permission was always requested prior to interviewing and transcripts (produced by a commercial stenographer) were subsequently sent to respondents for checking and agreement that it was an accurate representation of their thoughts. Two are included in the appendices as examples.

The interview data arguably proved to be the most valuable and insightful obtained for the project. For example the decision making processes behind a move to cross- curricular teaching were often hidden in official school documentation, and were not discernible from observational data. Occasionally they were revealed in field notes, but by contrast the interview data nearly always included fascinating chronological detail

86 | P a g e about the impetus behind the decision making process, not least concerns about children’s enjoyment and academic progress, alongside insightful and thoughtful reflections on the efficacy and success of curriculum decision making within the school. It was also found that conversations were naturally steered towards ad hoc questions and answers, and not only did these natural deviations often produce rich data, it made the interview process increasingly unstructured rather than semi-structured. In the final analysis, however, the core questions were always maintained thus retaining the essential characteristics of semi-structured interviews.

Criticism of interview data has to be addressed: Terkel (1965) (cited in Burgess: 1988: 139) was highly critical of interview data which he described as ‘clichéd’ and ‘limited’ compared with ethnographic conversations (although this research project did include many examples of the latter in the field notes). Bulmer (1984a) and Burgess (1988) similarly argued that interview responses were often atypical and unrepresentative of the respondents’ true thoughts, not least because highly artificial interview situations invoke feelings of prestige, pride and vanity to creep in, even dishonesty (Walford: 2001: 90-2). Therefore elements of bias and misrepresentation (Cohen et al: 2009: 350-1) would almost certainly have been present in the interviews carried out for this research project, not least because schools and school leaders are highly accountable for the decisions that they make regarding the curriculum and school performance, but as far as consciously possible high levels of criticality and reflexivity were adopted when analysing the responses.

87 | P a g e