Stages two and three Interviews

I chose to undertake face to face interviews which Novick (2008) views as the ideal way to collect interview data from those who had consented to participate. Following the initial observation, data was collected through two stages of interviews, both following a semi structured approach. This design enabled information gained within the observation to be followed up within the first semi-structured interviews, eliciting further depth of information and understanding from the participants. Initial analysis of the data from the first interviews, again in the form of ‘noticings’, was then checked with participants at the second interview as well as informing it. This design not only supported the research validity (Braun and Clarke, 2013), but sustained the flow of data, making the most of each opportunity to collect a deeper understanding of participants’ explanations, values, interpretations, experiences and inference, recognised as valuable in answering the research question (Stake, 1995; Cohen and Manion, 2000; Yin, 2009). Robson (2011), acknowledged that the strength of interviewing within qualitative research lies within the flexibility of such an approach, supporting the investigation of underlying understanding by participants that cannot be elicited through a questionnaire. By the time of interview participants also had a personal stake in ‘exploring the understanding, perceptions and constructions’ which had initially been collected through observation (Braun and Clarke, 2013 p.81), further supporting the position of the research as one of ‘co-operative inquiry’ (Gray, 2014 p.383) within the school.

After the initial compilation of questions for both stages of interviews I practised the interviews through the use of pilot interviews. I chose a critical friend who was a teacher within another school to provide feedback on my listening skills, the wording of the questions and their sequence. Anonymity of the school was maintained throughout the pilot interviews. The choice

50

of a teacher as a critical friend ensured the language within the questions would be familiar to them, therefore the focus of feedback concentrated upon the following three areas. Firstly, the critical friend reviewed the accuracy of language I had chosen within questions, providing an opportunity to challenge my understanding of current educational vocabulary and meaning in school. Secondly, they commented on the nature of the questions and their construction, challenging the potential for loaded meaning (Smith, 1995). Thirdly, they considered my communication skills, taping the pilot interview and reflecting together afterwards on the opportunities for further establishing my role as a listener within the research. This included reflecting upon my use of what Braun and Clarke (2013) refer to as ‘non evaluative guggles like mm’ (p.96). As a result I altered some questions to more open questions in order to elicit greater explanations, and replaced what may have appeared initially as questions suitable for a job interview, which would have inadvertently established my role as expert instead of listener. For example, within the first stage of interviews I replaced the question ‘How do you support children to do well in school?’ with a more open statement and question ‘You know that all children do well in this school. I am interested in finding out what it is that makes it possible. What do you think makes it possible?’ I selected this standard opening statement and question as it focused on an element of the research question and was aimed at eliciting explanations from the participants of their own understanding of what doing well meant and enabled their considerations to go beyond their own role, and therefore was regarded as less leading (Stake, 1995; Braun and Clarke, 2013). For each stage of interviews I followed the approach supported by Braun and Clarke (2013). I established an initial question followed by probing questions related to the topics of interest that participants shared, and then a final ‘clean up question’ aimed at supporting the potential for unanticipated data (p.81). An example of the first interview question sheet is available in Appendix Three, and as can be seen from that example the final question led to probing about the role of high expectations in school. Following the initial analysis of the previous data collection I prepared a list of questions for the second stage of interviews. These questions not only utilised information provided by the participants, but afforded the opportunity to further clarify participants’ explanations. This enabled me to utilise the flexibility of qualitative research as an advantage, exploring aspects in more depth, as well as identifying areas not originally considered (Stake, 1995; Mertens, 2005; Gray, 2014). For example, within the semi structured first interviews it became apparent that all participants focused upon the advantage of continuity of practices. This enabled me to explore within the second interviews whether this was connected to leadership or not, and if it was what form of leadership philosophy was in practice within the school. An example of the second interview questions can be found in Appendix Four.

51

Robson (2011) acknowledges that a disadvantage of interviewing includes the time consuming nature of its approach for both the interviewer and the participant. In order to minimise the disadvantage for the participants, the principal provided teaching cover or release time for each participant to attend both stages of interviews. This ensured as far as possible that participants were not adding to their workload by engaging with the research, and by providing a period of dedicated time to focus upon the interview, any anxiety about rushing to return to their class or work was minimised. In order to reduce the impact of location, a quiet room was booked within the school for each interview, the room was selected for its distance to open access areas which may have incurred disturbance. It was also considered by staff as a neutral meeting room location within the school, as it was not a room belonging to any of the participants and nor was it a management room. Both stages of interviews were recorded with an electronic audio recorder, which I then transcribed into electronically held written text documents following the interviews. Initial analysis, again in the form of noticings was undertaken. I did this by ascribing a one word or short phrase next to each aspect of a response by the participant, for example, consistency, active engagement, enjoyment and so on. An example of this approach can be seen in Appendix Five. In order to minimise the impact of a time heavy approach I was able to book leave from work following both stages of interviews, capturing the key noticings promptly (Stake, 1995). The next stage of data collection involved the scrutiny of school related documents.