Semi-structured interviews

At the beginning of this process, I decided that interviewing would be the most appropriate method to use in this research. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly, this

method was used by authors who I would consider to have produced the most important contributions to our understanding of the ‘traditional policy community’ in Scottish education (e.g. McPherson & Raab, 1988; Humes, 1987). My research might be viewed as an attempt to update this body of literature, and as such, it was important for me to use a similar approach.

Secondly, more recent influential research on Scottish education policy processes tends to draw on document analysis (e.g. Kennedy & Doherty, 2012; Menter & Hulme, 2010;

Smith, 2011). I felt that a different method of data collection would help to avoid the replication of this research and add something different to developing narrative around Scottish policy processes.

Thirdly, I recognised interviewing as one way to gain access to the spaces of policy

translation that cannot be accessed through analysis of documents. To an extent, interviews allow the researcher to learn about what cannot be seen (Glesne & Peskin, 1992). I felt that interviewing actors most central to the process would allow me to go beyond the official

66

representation of the process that is presented in publicly available documents and minutes of meetings and explore what was actually happening within these spaces. There are of course limitations to interviews and the extent to which we can say that participant responses are reflective of what is really happening within those spaces and these are discussed throughout this chapter.

Finally, this research views each member of the NPG as an individual actor, acting in different ways to represent the interests of their institutional actor. It was therefore possible that each respondent would tell a different ‘story’ as they play different roles in the

network, come from different positions within their organisations and have different interests to translate into the policy agenda. As such, each participant required their own modified set of questions. Using a ‘semi structured’ interview method helped to ensure that I covered similar themes within the interviews, but that interview questions could be adapted slightly to suit each interview participant.

Before I discuss the interview process in more depth, it should be noted that I had considered following the initial set of interviews with observations of the NPG and sub-group meetings in order for me to gather information about the nature of the process.

However, securing approval to carry out this part was difficult and a number of concerns were raised by a chair of the NPG. This led to the decision to remove observations from the research design.

Interview participants

In total, I conducted 27 semi-structured interviews. The table below provides information about the interview respondents in my research and their institutional representation. To protect anonymity, I have replaced each name with a code. These codes are used to distinguish between different participants in Chapters 4 and 5.

67

Table 1 Interview Participants

All respondents were members of the National Partnership Group, sub-group one, sub-group two, sub-group three or the National Implementation Board. In some cases, respondents were members of two of these groups, but this information has not been provided as this would reduce participant anonymity. Furthermore, two respondents were interviewed twice in order to gather their views at two different stages of the process. Where this has

occurred, ‘(2)’ is marked next to their respondent code. It should be noted that this thesis has not made use of all interview data gathered and an ‘*’ identifies the interviews that have not been used. I have not included information about network positioning (i.e.

chairing positions) in order to further protect participant anonymity.

Procedure of interviews Respondent

Code

Institutional Representation

A Scottish College for Educational Leadership (SCEL)

B Teacher

C Scottish Government

D General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS)

E Education Scotland

F (2) Scottish Teacher Education Committee (STEC)

G Teacher

H Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES)

I Teacher

P* Association of Chartered Teachers Scotland (ACTS)

Q STEC

R Education Scotland

S* Scottish Schools Education Research Centre (SSERC)

T GTCS

68

Gaining access to policy elites can be difficult. Ozga and Gewirtz (1994, 134) have warned that “the difficulty of access to people who ‘make’ policy precludes anything other than conventional enquiry,” and indeed this seemed to be the case. As discussed earlier, there are some things that can help a researcher to gain access to those on the inside. Grek (2011) suggested that having the ‘right’ institutional affiliation and the ‘right’ cover letter authorised by an established academic tends to help. Founded in 1451, the University of Glasgow is one of Scotland’s four ancient universities and is a member of the prestigious Russel Group. It is likely that these credentials worked in my favour. Each of my three supervisors certainly can be recognised as ‘established academics’ and the fact that

Professor Graham Donaldson was one of them cannot be overlooked as a factor that helped to gain access to the NPG. Below I describe the steps taken to securing access to

participants, as well as some of the barriers that I faced.

The first stage of the research process required me to gain permission from the co-chairs of the NPG to interview additional members of the groups. There were three co-chairs of the NPG, all representing different institutional actors: the Scottish Government, Association of Directors of Education (ADES) and Scottish Teacher Education Committee (STEC). As the Scottish Government established the NPG, it was decided that I should approach the Scottish Government co-chair first. I wrote an introductory letter describing my research (see Appendix A) that was followed up with contact by email.

It was agreed that I would have an informal meeting with this co-chair, to explain more about my research and what would be expected from the members of the NPG, sub-groups and strategic reference group. This was followed up with one more additional meeting, where permission was granted for me to contact members of the wider network.

The next step involved arranging interviews with all three of the co-chairs. This involved one additional meeting with one of the co-chairs, where research objectives and interview questions were shared before participation was confirmed.

I then began to contact additional members of the NPG, including sub-group chairs. I contacted every member of the NPG and its sub-groups from the original membership list placed on the Scottish Government website. I randomly selected eight individuals from the strategic reference group membership list. Although the strategic reference group worked alongside the NPG and sub-groups, its members were involved less frequently in the process and I therefore did not deem it necessary to contact them all.

69

The majority of individuals who did not participate did not get back in touch to provide me with a reason, but I received a small number of direct rejections by email that provided some insight into their decision to decline. It is interesting to note that the majority of rejections came from civil servants, with two potential participants telling me that there would be no point in participating in an interview as I had already interviewed another representative of the Scottish Government. This example serves to illustrate an issue discussed earlier: the apparent obligation of some policy actors to communicate the

‘official line’. One reading of these responses is that these actors were concerned about saying something that was perhaps not in line with their colleague’s responses, thereby casting doubt over the government’s institutional position within the policy space. Another reading might suggest that they were instructed not to participate, given the possibility that they may say something different or give away too much information. I did not refer to my previous interview with their colleague, so it can be assumed that this information was shared in response to my invitation. Another civil servant who declined my invitation suggested that we have a ‘brief chat’ by telephone instead. This format would have allowed the individual to participate at an informal level in a conversation that is not recorded and the length of which can be controlled by them.

At the beginning of each interview, I provided each participant with a Plain Language Statement and a Consent Form (Appendix B), and made sure to explain the following: the purpose of my research and the guaranteed anonymisation of each interview transcript. I also told participants that quotations would not be used unless consent was provided. I then offered each participant the opportunity to ask any questions and checked that they were happy to be recorded. Each interview was recorded using two digital voice recorders.

Following the interview, the data files were transferred to secure folder on my university computer to allow for transcription, which I conducted myself.

The duration of each interview varied considerably amongst participants from twenty minutes to over two hours. Each participant was informed that the interview would take no longer than one hour; however, I always asked how long each participant had before starting the interview. If the interview ran over the hour, I ensured to inform the participant and to check that they would like to continue. More often than not, interviews were

lengthened at the participant’s choice.

As discussed earlier, adopting a semi-structured format for my interviews allowed me to retain a certain degree of flexibility with regard to the questions that I asked participants.

70

One key benefits of qualitative interviewing is that the content, flow and choice of

questions within an interview can change to match what the interviewee knows and feels, and because is invented in a different way every time it is conducted (Rubin & Rubin, 2011).

An interview schedule³⁰ (Appendix C) was created based on the themes in the table below.

The table also shows the relationship between interview themes and initial research questions:

Table 2 Interview themes and relation to research questions

Interview Theme Research Question and rationale

1) The purpose of the NPG/ sub groups/ strategic reference group

RQ2) Interpretations of purpose might provide insight into institutional agendas. This was a way to open the interview and ask respondents for a general overview of the NPG.

2) The membership and structure of the NPG/ sub groups/ strategic reference group

RQ1) This is closely related to the issue of membership and questions about structure might indirectly lead to questions around who was missing and who was responsible for the design of the NPG and sub-groups

RQ2) The ability of an individual actor to represent institutional interests might be determined by their role within the network. In this sense, structure referred to the arrangement of NPG co-chairs and sub-group chairs as well as the distribution of representatives across the whole network

3) Communication RQ3) Communication here referred to dialogue between individual actors within groups and between groups. I identified this as a potential avenue for policy translation.

4) Flexibility of the NPG/ sub groups

RQ3) Flexibility in relation to remit points (e.g.

where you able to add in any ideas that were not in the original Report?). This might provide insight into the way in which the process was governed and the identification of actors who had ‘influence’ and were able to control the process of translation (or not).

30 It should be noted that the example interview schedule provided in this appendix was developed to interview the co-chairs of the NPG so the questions have been shaped towards their role.

71

6) Progress RQ1) Problems/successes with progress might

be put down to the membership of the group RQ3) Questions about progress of

implementation could unearth various concerns about the way that the policy was being

translated and lead to discussions about ‘power’

RQ2) Perceptions of progress might also be linked to ability to ‘represent’ institutional interests or the over-representation of institutional interests.

7) Role of participant in NPG/sub group/strategic reference group

RQ1) Roles within group might lead to conversation around membership, network design and the identification of actors who were responsible for selecting members

RQ2) It is likely that individual actors’ roles will shape their ability to represent the interests of their organisation

8) Representation of institutional actor

RQ2) This is directly linked to this question RQ3) Essentially, institutional representation is the first step of interest translation.

9) Two main aims of the policy agenda: reshape teacher professionalism and strengthening partnership

RQ3) Discussing the two key themes of the report might provide insight into the agendas of each institutional actor.

10) Forces which may drive or limit

implementation RQ3) The process of interest translation must be understood as being either driven or inhibited by various forces

11) The future implementation of Teaching Scotland’s Future

RQ3) This relates directly to institutional agendas but also might lead to responses about the factors that may limit the implementation of the policy and what kind of context is required for preferred versions of translation.

Although the table above presents set themes, it must be noted that my use of the interview schedule was flexible. Questions were adapted, removed or added depending on the

organisation that each individual was representing and also on their role within the network. Prior to each interview, I ensured to research the interviewee and their background. This allowed for the consideration of additional questions to gain further

72

insight into the nature of the institutional actor that they were representing as well as the way in which they were positioning themselves within this space (see Appendix D for an example of an interview schedule that had been adapted). I also had to be flexible in my own approach, as some respondents were less open than others and did not want to answer every question. The approach that I took in interviewing also ensured that I was able to pick up on answers that appeared somewhat complex or vague, and ask additional questions to unearth meaning.

Each interview was recorded using a voice recorder and files were transcribed in full.

However, it was often the case that respondents would tell me additional information once the voice recorder was switched off. Although I did not use this data, I cannot pretend that it did not influence my understanding of the policy process in some way. In addition to this, I met individuals that I had interviewed at various research and policy events and they would often discuss my research and ask questions about ‘what I had found’. I always tried to avoid discussing emergent findings with previous participants but there was the odd occasion where they would attend conference papers that I was presenting on my research.

In response, some provided me with an overview of what they thought the key findings would be and suggestions of who I should interview next in order to get a ‘real insight’

into the NPG. Given the informal context of the conversations that followed, ‘inside information’ was shared that had not been discussed in any of the interviews and therefore was not included in my dataset. These conversations were often very revealing and

certainly shaped my understanding of the overall process as well as the internal politics of the NPG. However, I do not necessarily view this as a limitation of my research. My understanding of Scottish education politics developed and matured as a result of these conversations and this allowed me to paint a richer picture of the way in which the NPG operated.