Starting in early 2006, I conducted eight interviews and seven lesson
observations, all of which were filmed. As table 2 shows, most of the data gathering took place in 2006, although eventually it extended over a period of almost three years.
Table 2: Chronology of data collection
Date Event
2006
13 Jan Andyʼs interview
20 Jan Billʼs interview
23 Jan Carlʼs interview
3 Feb Andyʼs lesson observation
14 Feb Carlʼs lesson observation
17 Feb Daveʼs interview part 1
31 March Daveʼs lesson observation, followed by interview part 2
12 June Edʼs interview
20 June Frankʼs interview
23 June Frankʼs lesson observation
13 July Grahamʼs interview part 1
17 July Grahamʼs interview part 2
2007
25 April Helenʼs interview
4 May Helenʼs lesson observation
2008
17 October Grahamʼs lesson observation
11 December Edʼs lesson observation
The interviews were arranged either in person or by telephone, and took
place in a variety of settings. These included where I lived (Ed and Helen), where the participant lived (Andy, Bill and Frank) and a teaching studio (Carl). Two interviews (Dave and Graham) took place over two sessions, and in both cases these were divided between my home and theirs. The interviews lasted on average around one and three quarter hours. However, they varied in length
considerably, from just over an hour for Helen to over three and a half hours for Graham. The interview tapes were backed up onto both hard drive and DVD and then transcribed.
Several of these teachers were involved with various forms of group
teaching (this is discussed more fully in section 5.4.4); however, in every case they chose to be observed teaching one-to-one lessons with individual
students. In most cases the lesson observations lasted for around an hour, which generally meant a single lesson with one student, though in one case (Dave) I was shown four shorter lessons of around 20 minutes each, while Frankʼs lesson observation was the longest, lasting one and a half hours. These tapes were also backed up as soon as possible. The lessons being filmed took place in a range of settings: see table 3 for details.
Table 3: Lesson observations
Teacher Student Lesson location/duration
Andy - Piano Adult female Teacherʼs studio; 45 mins
Bill - Double bass No lesson observation
Carl - Banjo Adult male Teacherʼs studio; 50 mins
Dave - Piano 4 Primary school
children, 3 girls, 1 boy
Assembly hall/music room at school; each lesson around 20 mins
Ed - Singing Adult male Empty office where student
worked; 60 mins Frank -
Harmonica
Teenage boy Teacherʼs home; 90 mins
Graham - Saxophone
Adult female Studentʼs home; 60 mins
Helen - Saxophone
Daveʼs observation took place in a school, and in this case I sought prior permission to film from the school itself; consent forms were sent by Dave in advance for parents to sign and return before filming took place. Otherwise students agreed verbally to take part after being asked by their teachers. Typically when filming took place I would be present in advance to meet, thank and hopefully reassure the student (and indeed the teacher), to give the student a chance to read the information sheet, and to sign consent forms. Once these formalities were completed, I would set up the camera in a mutually acceptable position and retire from the room, leaving the teacher and student to get on with their lesson.
There were practical problems in filming lessons. The teachers
themselves had to find students who were willing to take part, and in one case parents who were willing for their children to take part, and we had to find times and places for the filming to take place. As table 2 indicates, in most cases the interview was quickly followed by the lesson observation, and I regarded this as the ideal scenario. However there were notable exceptions. In the two cases where this didnʼt happen (Ed and Graham), the momentum generated by the initial contact and the interview was lost. Ed proved difficult to contact for some time after his interview, and subsequent personal and work commitments on my part meant that his lesson observation was left until late in the project, some two and a half years after his interview. There was a similar gap between Grahamʼs interview and lesson observation. It may be that this time lag created something of a divergence between these interviews and their corresponding lesson
observations; these teachersʼ ideas and practices may well have developed and changed over this interval, and thus the talk no longer relates in quite the same way to the practice. I have no way of knowing if this is the case, and can only acknowledge that the reality of data gathering is very much ʻthe art of the possibleʼ (Robson, 2002: 377).
My intention was to interview the participants first and film the lesson observation at a later date. This was partly based on the assumption that I might be able to gain the trust of the participants over the course of the
stranger into their work, and perhaps less threatening to the one-to-one
relationship between teacher and pupil. This sequence was followed in all cases with the partial exception of Dave; we did not have enough time to complete his interview at the first attempt, and since he lived an hourʼs drive away we agreed to film his lessons in the morning and finish his interview in the afternoon during the same visit.
One problem I did not forsee. Bill agreed to take part in the project, and was apparently perfectly happy to be interviewed - indeed he was eloquent and interesting, and spoke at some length. However he subsequently seemed reluctant to discuss the arrangements for filming one of his lessons. Each time the subject was raised he made agreeable noises but declined to offer any suggestions for a possible student volunteer, nor for when filming might take place. Eventually I concluded that he was not, for whatever reason, happy to be filmed while teaching, and after several approaches I felt uncomfortable
pressing the issue further. The interview was carried out however in the expectation (certainly on my part) that a lesson observation would take place, and I decided to use the material from his interview regardless.
2.3.3 Saturation
Howard Becker considers both the appeal, and the impossibility, of ʻgetting
it allʼ; in any field of social science, one might wish to collect and potentially study everything concerned with a given subject. Quite apart from the
conceptual problem of what ʻeverythingʼ might consist of, there are also more pragmatic issues at stake:
We canʼt have everything, for the most obvious practical reasons: we donʼt
have the people to collect it and we wouldnʼt know what to do with the
mass of detail weʼd end up with if we did. (Becker, 1998: 74)
He acknowledges that, inevitably, researchers have to limit the size of their samples, but suggests strategies that may compensate for this; for example,
paying particular attention to cases that contradict oneʼs assumptions and thus challenge ʻconventionalʼ thinking (see section 6.2).
In grounded theory, the quality of analysis is dependent on the data that is gathered and thus the sample size could, in principle, be infinitely large:
Since the researcher will not know in advance how much, or what range of
data will be required, it is difficult, to the point of either impossibility,
exhaustion or time constraints, to know in advance the sample size
required. (Cohen et al., 2007: 116)
In practical terms, sampling continues until categories of data are ʻsaturatedʼ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 188); that is, until the theoretical
explanation of what is happening is no longer advanced or altered by new data.
Obviously I could not interview every popular musician who teaches, whether in the UK, the South-west of England, or even in North Bristol (where I live), as even the least of these tasks would far exceed the scope of one researcher completing a doctorate. However, I did not decide in advance how many
teachers would be involved, but let the quality and quantity of data suggest the sample size.
In the event, the first three months of data collection proved the most significant in terms of emerging theory. Between January and March 2006 I conducted four interviews and three lesson observations, and between them these largely suggested the theoretical outline of the project. After initial attempts at coding and analysis, a wide range of conceptual categories had emerged, whether on the subject of how these teachers had learned, how they taught or what they thought and felt about these activities. After only four interviews, there was already a significant body of data, some of which
confirmed existing research literature on how popular musicians learn, as well as novel ideas and opinions (in particular about how such musicians teach) which were not evident in the literature at all. There was a good deal of talk on the same recurring themes, yet much of this was contradictory.
Perhaps the most significant development during this early period of analysis was (after considerable confusion) a sense of the way these teachers, as it were, ʻagreedʼ and ʻdisagreedʼ with each other, and a growing awareness of underlying commonalities. Thus it was around this time that ideas
concerning, for example, their identities as teachers, and the different ways they valued their own learning histories, first emerged (these are discussed in
chapter 5).
Subsequent interviews did not significantly affect the conceptual outline
that had thus been established. Certainly, the later four interviewees made important contributions to different categories of data; for example, Frank spoke at length on the subject of teaching strategies for younger children, as did Graham about the politics of learning popular music. Nevertheless, while this was valuable detail with which to inform different themes or categories of data, it did not fundamentally change the nature of those categories, and served in fact to confirm analytical approaches which had already been developed. Moreover I felt that, had the interviews been conducted in a different order, the data would - inevitably - have soon suggested the same conceptual approach. As such I felt satisfied after eight interviews that I had data of sufficient richness and depth to be able to address my research focus in a valid way.
This process of data gathering thus resulted in fifteen hours of interviews which, after transcription, amounted to around 130,000 words in total, as well as over seven hours of lesson observations. It could be argued that a larger
sample would have strengthened the validity of the data, although the teachers I interviewed generated a considerable body of rich and detailed data. Equally more lesson observations with each teacher may have drawn the focus of the investigation away from what they said about their teaching and rather towards their teaching itself: that is, what they were observed doing in lessons. I can only accept that gathering more data may well have strengthened the project, though even with a relatively small sample I felt at times in danger of being swamped with more data than I could use: ʻthe major problem we face in qualitative inquiry is not to get data, but to get rid of itʼ (Wolcott, 1990: 18).