Appendix I: Reflection journal entry #2
Diagram 3. 8: Types of questions
Both of the models are on a continuum and begin with general broad questions and then continue on to more specific questions. When developing the questions for the interviews I used both of these models, mostly Fraenkel et al.’s (2012) model for the first round of interviews and Lichtman’s (2010) model for any consecutive
interviews (see appendix E for an interview schedule example).
As mentioned previously, not only is an understanding of the setting necessary to the project but also an understanding of the participants. The best way to understand an individual is to gain information about their background. As such the first set of questions in the interviews were background questions, the first type in Fraenkel et al.’s (2012) model. These include:
Fraenkel et al. (2012)
Background questions Knowledge questions Experience questions Opinion questions Feelings questions Sensory questionsLichtman (2010)
Grand tour questions Specific or concrete questions Comparison or contrast questions New elements or topics questions Closing questions» What country do you come from?
» How long have you been in New Zealand for? » What year are you in?
» What is your role at [this school]? » How long have you been in your role?
The questions that followed were developed according to the participant and their situation. The interview with the Mr Lewis included predominantly experience and opinion questions such as ‘What are the most rewarding parts of your role?’ and ‘What role do you think the boarding department plays in the achievement of Pasifika students?’ However, a number of knowledge questions – the factual information in contrast to opinions, beliefs and attitudes (Fraenkel et al., 2012) – were also asked in reference to the report written by Mr Lewis. The other interviews with staff members (two with Mrs Latu and one with Mrs King, the teacher) were similar in their question types. However as with Mr Lewis’ interview, they did not include any feeling or sensory questions.
With the student interviews (one focus group interview, two interviews with each current student and one interview with the past student) the process was quite similar. For the first round of interviews with the students, they began much like the staff interviews – with background questions. They also included numerous
experience and opinion questions such as:
» How was your experience at [this school]? » What do you think helped you achieve?
In contrast to the staff interviews, the student interviews included aspects of Lichtman’s (2010) question model. The students were asked a number of
comparison/contrast questions. In addition, in subsequent interviews with the students, the opening questions were grand tour questions. Lichtman (2010) states that these questions are very general and they are an excellent way to begin as they get the participants talking. An example of such a question is ‘How has this week been so far?’
In the process of developing my questions I used two methods to ensure quality. The first is a process is undertaking a pilot study. Gay et al. (2009) and Stake (1995) suggest that this process can help the researcher see if the questions make sense and feedback from the participants can help revising the schedule for future interviews. The second process was reflecting on the interviews as each one was undertaken. An excerpt from my reflective journal (see table 3.9) portrays the process done to ensure the following interviews were improved.
Table 3. 9: Reflective journal excerpt #2
Reflective journal
1.16pm 3 February 2012
#1 The interviewee had plenty to say and gave some good insights, mostly on the boarding students. I continuously tried to bring it back to
academic success but it was at times hard as I think the DB knows more about the dorms than day school, although the DB still knows a lot about the success of the students.
#2 She seemed very passionate about the students and was eager to talk about the students and the environment. For further interviews I will ask questions that are related to the concepts mentioned in the BOT report by the DP. Such as segregation and what is in place in the boarding department to minimise that; equal treatment; how the BD thinks her role and ethnicity affects students; small classes/school; extend on family environment.
Step 4: Locate a quiet, suitable place for conducting the interview One of the ethical issues with conducting interviews is privacy and confidentiality. The venue plays an important role in maintaining that in that the venue must allow for full visibility but not allow outsiders to hear the conversation. The location also needs to be suitable. Creswell (2008) states that the location should be free from distractions and audio-tape friendly. The following excerpt from my reflective journal shows that this condition was met.
Table 3. 10: Reflective journal excerpt #3
Reflective journal
1.16pm 3 February 2012
#1 The interview was with the Director of Boarding [Mrs Latu]. It took place in the girls’ dorm chapel which is attached to the dormitory building. It has plenty of windows and two doors with windows in. As the interview took place during school time, none of the boarders were in the building and hence the doors were left open. Either way this location was visible but still provided confidentiality.
Step 5: Obtain consent from the interviewee to participate in the study As mentioned beforehand, part of the ethics approval required all participants to sign a consent form (see appendix C). Both Creswell (2008) and Ary et al. (2010) stress that consent needs to be given before the individual participates. Therefore, prior to the interviews all the participants were informed of the purpose of the study, the requirements of them as participants and also their choice to withdraw from the project at any point.
Step 6: During the interview, audiotape the questions and responses There are both advantages and disadvantages with audio-recording the interviews. Bell (2010, p. 167) suggests that ‘audio-recording can be useful to check the wording of any statement you wish to quote’. In addition, it allows the interviewer to maintain eye contact, stay focused and look interested (Bell, 2010; Gay et al., 2009). Perhaps one of the biggest benefits of audio-recording is in relation to the coding process. It is useful when one may need to listen to a section several times in order to identify themes in the data (Bell, 2010). The downside to audio-recording is the intimidation factor. As Bell (2010) and Drew et al. (2008) point out sometimes the participants do not wish to be recorded or the participants become shy and talk less. These issues can be diminished with the assurance of confidentiality. For the interviews undertaken as part of this project a small audio-recording device was used and placed in an
unobtrusive place to create comfort in the interviews.
Step 7: Take notes during the interview
In addition to making audio-recordings in the interview, field notes were written down. Creswell (2008) states that taking notes in the interview are beneficial in case the tape recorder malfunctions. In addition ‘notes taken during the interview can help the interviewer formulate new questions as the interview moves along’ (Patton, 2002, p. 383). A sample of the field notes taken in one of the interviews can be seen in appendix F.
Step 8: Use ‘probes’ to obtain additional information
A method used in the interview to acquire deeper responses from the participants is probing. The concept of probing is described by Lodico et al. (2010, p. 127) as ‘a follow-up question that is asked to get clarification about a response of to seek
elaboration and additional detail. On the other hand, Lichtman (2010) suggests probing is a strategy that is used to get the underlying meaning of what is said. During the interviews if I felt I needed further clarification on any questions I would simply ask (see appendix G).
Step 9: Be courteous and professional when the interview is over The final step in Creswell’s (2008) interview process is regarding manners. This concept is reiterated in Anae et al.’s (2001) guidelines for Pasifika research. Anae et al. (2001) state that:
Closing interviews usually occur with general words of thanks and
appreciation for the time spent. It is often during the sharing of these words of thanks that a gift is provided to the interviewee as a token of the
researcher’s/research team’s appreciation and respect for their time spent not only to this project but also to the honour of the researcher. The emphasis here is not so much on the project per se but on the relationships and
understandings being built between researcher and interviewees. And, that it is through the formation of this relationship together with the information received that changes or progress can be made. This emphasis reflects the spirit of Pacific values such as respect, reciprocity and service (pp. 37-38). As I completed several interviews with some of the participants I decided to offer the gift at the end of the whole data collection process instead of at the end of each interview.
Observations
In addition to interviews, observations are a key data collection method in the qualitative paradigm. Ary et al. (2010) and Fraenkel et al. (2012) state that along with interviews, observations is one of the three main techniques used to collect qualitative data. The use of observations in this research project was predominantly linked to the ‘teacher-as-researcher’ aspects of the project. As Ary et al. (2010) states, action research includes three aspects – experiencing, enquiring and
examining – and the experiencing category focuses on observational data. These observations allow the researcher to explore and understand the complex interactions in a natural setting (Ary et al., 2010).
Similar to interviews, observations can be conducted in various ways too. Observations can be both structured and unstructured (much like interviews), however the difference lies in that structured observations belong in the quantitative paradigm whereas unstructured observations are associated with qualitative research (Punch, 2009). Evidently, the choice for this research project is unstructured
observations. Again, it is not only the structure that one must consider. Creswell (2008) argues that there are two roles the researcher can take in observations – participant observer and non-participant observer. On the other hand Ary et al. (2010) suggests the researcher can take five different roles as can be seen in diagram 3.9, and each different role interacts in a different way within the research context.