Stage one: Asking questions and telling stories

As mentioned earlier, the methods evolved during the course of data collection in response to particular challenges. As such, the methods are discussed here in two stages. Stage one outlines the first two rounds of interviews and preliminary analyses. Stage two describes the challenges encountered during data collection, and the changes in methodological design that were implemented to attend to these.

Data collection was initially designed to follow a semi-structured interview format, similar to that outlined by Seidman (2006). This approach involves a series of three interviews, each serving a different purpose increasing in specificity. The first interview is designed to locate the ‘participants’ experience in context’ (p. 17), aiming for what Seidman terms a focused life history. The second interview attends to the details of experience, seeking concrete, storied examples of experiences relevant to the topic of study. The third interview is seen as an opportunity to reflect upon what these experiences mean to interviewees, and explore these meanings in relation to the information gained in the first two interviews (Seidman, 2006, pp. 16-19). The final interview was also designed as an opportunity to clarify any uncertainties or interpretations, and member check (Creswell, 2009, p. 196). Interviews were scheduled at the convenience of participating teachers over a period of seven months from 2011–2012.

Teachers were met individually in their classrooms. There were two exceptions to these meeting locations, as Iida’s first interview was conducted in a practice room at the Sibelius Academy, as she was visiting nearby, and Julia who requested that the final interview be held in her home to accommodate childcare needs. The first two interviews, scheduled between one and three weeks apart, were largely in keeping with the format outlined above, and lasted between one and two hours each, following a semi-structured interview guide (see appendix 6), including an outline of topics with ‘suggested questions’ (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 124).4

4 Prior to interviewing these five teachers, I conducted a pilot study in order to refine the interview questions. This pilot study was a single interview conducted with a colleague from the Sibelius Academy, who was enrolled as a pre-doctoral candidate and working full time as a secondary school music teacher. As part of the

The first interview focused on teachers’ personal musical histories and education, their experiences of teacher training, and their attitudes towards popular musics in school. The second interview focused on particular instances where they felt that they had encountered problems in relation to popular musics, and how they had responded to these challenges. The interview approach differed from that suggested by Seidman (2006) in that I freely followed up on points of interest, taking the lead from the teacher participant rather than adhering strictly to the format of the interview guide. For example, if one of the teachers told a story of their experiences of popular musics in the classroom during the first interview, this often led to more detailed discussion and exploration, rather than putting the topic aside to deal with in the second interview, as Seidman recommends (2006, p. 19). This was in order to preserve the flow of conversation, and enact ‘respect through deep listening… with humility and perseverance’ (Barrett & Stauffer, 2009, p. 21).

It was clear through shared discussions and interview responses that the participating teachers had positioned me as an ‘outsider’ to the Finnish secondary school music classroom. Although informed as to Finnish music education policy and practice, and having worked in a very limited capacity as a music teacher in Finnish international schools, I assumed the position of being ‘genuinely näive’ (Yin, 1994, p. 85) and teachers took time to explain the Finnish music education system, their teacher training, and their day-to-day work as music teachers. In the first two interviews, teachers often elaborated on their responses through generalized statements in explanation or illustration of what was expected of Finnish secondary school music teachers, and what their daily work entailed. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed as verbatim as possible, including pauses, ‘ums and ahs’ with researcher translations of any words or phrases in Finnish or Swedish written alongside the main interview text.

Alongside verbatim transcription I occasionally made notes such as reflections on tone of voice or moments of laughter in order to retain a sense of the emotional

doctoral student community that meet regularly to discuss and critically comment on each others’ work, the interviewee was aware of my study, research aims, and questions. Meeting in his classroom after school hours in 2011, the pilot study interview lasted approximately one hour and was conducted according to an interview guide devised by myself. After the interview, the interviewee and I discussed at length whether any questions were unclear, how we felt about the interview questions and style, whether the interviewee found the focus relevant to his work as a music teacher and how the interview could be improved. This discussion led to a revision of the interview guide and questions, which were further critiqued and revised during doctoral seminars with other students and professors. The pilot study data was not analyzed, nor does it contribute to the findings of this research project, as the main purpose was to develop and evaluate the interview guide.

content and atmosphere of discussions. Transcriptions were made as soon as possible after each interview, often providing an opportunity to carefully consider what was said and make notes to improve future interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).

After the transcription of the first two rounds of interviews, a preliminary analysis was conducted following Kelchtermans’ (1994) narrative-biographical

approach, whereby data was thematically analyzed in two stages. The first stage

was a vertical analysis, with each case taken as the unit of analysis. Analyzing each teacher’s interviews individually allowed for personalized professional profiles to be composed by the researcher, as an attempt to understand each teacher’s backgrounds and approach to teaching music in schools. In order to maintain the anonymity of teacher participants, an excerpt of this vertical analysis is not provided as part of this dissertation. However, the constructed themes, and sub themes that contributed towards these personalized professional profiles are illustrated in table 1.

Table 1: Thematic categories of the vertical analysis

Background Becoming a music teacher Reasons for becoming a music teacher

Teacher preparation studies Specialization

Challenges Music as a subject Importance

Uniqueness Aims as a music teacher Cultural

Students’ overall growth Empowerment

‘What makes a great music

teacher?’ Adaptability

Reflection

The second stage was a cross case analysis where, as a comparison of their personalized professional profiles, recurring themes and similarities between the teachers’ responses were constructed. Alongside this analysis, 24 longer narratives of individual teachers were kept intact (Maria: 3 stories, Iida: 5 stories, Julia: 7 stories, Outi: 4 stories, Risto: 4 stories), allowing for a ‘cyclical repeated pattern of close reading, developing more general interpretations and controlling these interpretations by confronting them with the data’ (Kelchtermans, 1994, p. 99). Each theme that was constructed based on interview data was divided into a number of sub themes, as illustrated in table 2.

Table 2: Thematic categories of the horizontal analysis

Expectations of a music teacher National curriculum Cultural

Religious School & Staff Parents Students

Popular music in the classroom Popular repertoire sources Choosing popular repertoire Student’s own music Popular music history Musical considerations Lyrics

Music videos Sounds/atmosphere Problems, solutions and uncertainties

As these preliminary thematic analyses progressed, a number of issues that concerned me became apparent. Although the interview guide was designed to increase the depth and specificity of discussions, the first and second interviews largely remained at surface level description, with teachers often noting that what they explained to me was based on assumed or generalized knowledge or understandings. Although there may have been many reasons for this, two are discussed here: the solitary nature of music teaching, and the perceived importance of educating me as foreigner to the Finnish education system.

Teachers all expressed curiosity regarding whether the other participating teachers experienced similar challenges and concerns as they did in selecting popular repertoire, what their responses to interview questions were, and what each other thought about the issues being discussed. Only one of the teachers, Outi, worked alongside another music teacher, and noted that she rarely discussed her pedagogical approaches with the other teacher, rather collaborating only in the production of school concerts and events. Highlighting this sense of isolation, Iida, was the only music teacher for the entire region, assuming a school teaching post that had been filled by casual or supplementary teachers (not necessarily trained in music education) for almost two decades. If one of her students wanted to learn an instrument that she was unable to teach, they had to travel over 300km away for tuition. Three of the teachers related the work of a music teacher to the Finnish proverb, ‘Siperia opettaa’, translating to ‘Siberia teaches’. Understanding this in relation to the political history of Nordic and Eastern Europe, the urgency and hardships under which a music teacher must learn in isolation, is no mean feat. Perhaps relating to this sense of solitude, teachers were not always confident in expressing their personal thoughts or beliefs, and responded to questions outlining what they had been taught as part of their teacher training, or as broader ponderings on how Finnish music teachers should make decisions and act in the classroom.

Adding to this sense of uncertainty, discussions were often limited to broad descriptions of the Finnish music education system, rather than an in- depth, personal and active inquiry. Positioned in the role of foreigner, I did not share common experiences as a musician, student, nor teacher with the research participants. Consequently, they took considerable time to describe the action of their individual classrooms, without addressing why, or what for. Thus the ‘genre in which ¨acceptable¨ description [was] communicated’ (Eraut, 2000, p. 118) was one of educating me on a general level, which resulted in the preclusion of the specific, tacit knowledge ‘often acquired through a process of socialization through observation, induction and increasing participation’ (p. 122).

Understanding stories and storytelling as a relational experience whereby meaning is constructed collaboratively between teller and listener, what is related or understood is dependent on the assumptions of who each other are, and what each other know (Barrett & Stauffer, 2009, p. 7). In an attempt to attend to the

why and what for of teachers’ experiences of popular repertoire selection, it was

necessary to disrupt the relationship that had been established that had positioned myself as ignorant immigrant, and the teachers as translators of official policy or cultural norms. As Squire and Tamboukou (2008) note, the etymology of narrative may be found in ‘knowing’ rather than ‘telling’ (p. 12). Thus, in moving beyond

telling description, the methodological approach was reconsidered as a process of

collaborative inquiry.

4.4 Stage two: Constructing factional stories and engaging in collaborative