Diagnóstico del Estado Actual

However, I dropped the BNIM idea for two reasons as I interacted with my participants. Firstly, it was practically less promising as my participants could not afford 90 minutes, as a chunk of time. Secondly, it was ontologically less critical in situating the counter performance of their identities. Also, it was less iterative just as a singular one-time event which would not have provided my participants with the opportunity to perform themselves time and again in the process iteratively (see extended discussion in section 6.5.6). So, we moved to a process of four interviews with each individual, grounded in problem centred interview (PCI) typology. The first interview was agreed of sixty minutes, while, the rest three interviews of 30 minutes. The notion of PCI was useful in two ways. Firstly, it allowed me to theoretically keep maximum intersubjective

interactional dimension between researcher and participants in place. Secondly, it allowed to me to actively position my participants to perform ‘problem centring’ on their identities.

Witzel and Reiter (2012) argue about PCI problem centring in which social actors “reconstruct knowledge about relevant problems” in a “discursive dialogic”. The

researchers mobilise their iteratively “well informed” awareness of socially relevant problems about communities, contexts and individuals by engaging in the relevant “theoretical knowledge” which is then positioned by the participants’ “practical

knowledge” in “reconstructing the research problems” and the theories for emancipatory ends. Researchers in this sense use “sensitising frameworks without jeopardising

openness”. The problem in this sense is not positioned in a singular linearity but in a “dialogic discursive” and hermeneutic iteration (Witzel and Reiter, 2012; pp. 1-50). This involves emergent “narration generating, detailing, repeated thematic comparison” exemplification of experience (Witzel and Reiter, 2012; p. 78); as I did in the first two interviews. This is then followed by “mirroring, comprehension and confrontation” (Witzel and Reiter, 2012; p. 78); as I did in last two interviews with further

modifications (please see section, 6.5.4). The interview guidelines (theoretical mental map and emergent mental map) about the problem under discussion are thus

heuristically positioned keeping the theory in tandem with participants’ perspectives in their dialogic conversation flow with the researcher. The above PCI framework helped me to engage with my participants in critically exploring the ‘misrecognition centring’ on their life history experiences of identities, agency and belonging in educational and social contexts.

6.5.3 ‘Renegotiating ‘strong emergence’ and critical ‘provocative- projective’ listening’ in the PCI

However, I found two basic flaws of Witzel and Reiter’s PCI typology. For example, although, they mention the PCI processes of ‘emergence and reflection’; but they do not explain its methodological basis in broader socio-constructivist interview theory and its philosophical orientation. Similarly, they mention the processes of critical ‘mirroring and confrontation’ but do not properly engage with critical interview good practices (Gubrium, 2013). The above reflection was also guided by the ontological critical focussing of my research (see the ontologies) and my research engagement with my participants (see axiology section). Therefore, I incorporated insights from complexity ‘strong emergence’ and ‘provocation-projection’ conversation modalities in critically listening to my participants in the above modes in the re-negotiated PCI Typology.

By strong emergence and reflection, Osberg et al. (2008) mean the critical hermeneutic pedagogical encounter that is neither “presentational nor representational”. It is, on the

other hand, pedagogical encounter in which political actors enter interactive critical hermeneutic deconstruction, in challenging and revising the socio-historical

determinisms about their situated and contextual locations, but also, bring the “unrepresentable” about their historical and contemporary political engagement and critical response making. Furthermore, they project their deconstructive understanding of the past into the future and by doing that they take critical moral responsibility of their projected performance (Osberg and Biesta, 2007). Similarly, Haw & Hadfield (2012) describe provocation and projection mode as:

In this modality, video has the potential to present phenomena in a form that allows participants to respond in ways that reveal the social constructions and meanings that surround it. It encourages research subjects to articulate and critique the norms of the communities they are part of and to reveal the range of discourses, mythologies, and taboos that shape their beliefs and actions. Video artefacts have the potential to do this if they contain elements that both re-affirm and contradict aspects of its construction. (Hadfield and

Haw, 2012, p. 317)

The above two philosophical conversation modalities were in direct dialogue with the standpoint ‘strong emergence’ stance making, participatory intersubjective and counter problem performance goals of this research. The above two modalities provided me greater methodological depth for the mobilisation of PCI in broader critical interview typology. So, I heuristically operationalised the problem centred ‘strong emergence’ and ‘provocation based’ re- negotiated PCI typology by gleaning ideas from:

participatory voice research, performance and counter narrative interview standpoint research (Harris and Fine, 2001; Bamberg, 2004; Conteh and Toyoshima, 2005; Haw, 2011; Hadfield and Haw, 2012), critical and narrative emergence interview research (Goodson and Sikes, 2001; Bruner, 2004; Goodson and Gill, 2014); hermeneutic, active and reflexive interview theoretical research (Denzin, 2001; Gubrium and Holstein, 2004; Gubrium and Koro-Ljungberg, 2005; Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009) and lastly from problem centred interview typology (Witzel and Reiter, 2012).

I claim, I have contributed to the PCI typology by deepening the PCI in its ‘strong emergence’ and ‘provocation-projection’ modalities and linking it to wider critical interview practice.

I have now elaborated the renegotiated ‘problem centred interview’ (PCI) and its rationale. Below, I now explain the chart in terms of how I operationalised the PCI

interviews with my participants.

Table 6.2 PCI'S with participants- modes, strategies and duration

PCI'S with participants

Participants PCI mode PCI strategies Interview Duration

Saima Strong emergence

and reflection (SER)

Narration generating, detailing, repeated thematic comparison (Witzel and Reiter, 2012). Helping participants to lead their stories.

Theoretical probing

Situating participants to make reflexive understanding about their narratives by asking them to self-select previous

interview conversation for discussion 1st _59:52 2nd 26:05 Provocation- Projection (pp) Mirroring, comprehension, confrontation (Witzel and Reiter, 2012).

Audio-video Provoking followed by probing

participants’ stance making. Following participants active counter narration performance by further clarifying questions

3rd _29:35

PP & SER modes Combination of the above two 4th _14:48

Naila SER mode 1st _59:53

2nd _43:00

PP mode 3rd _40:28

PP & SER modes 4th _23:35

Majid SER mode 1st _60:44

2nd _41:55

PP mode 3rd _31:16

PP & SER modes 4th _23:42

Raza SER mode 1st _59:15

2nd _28:50

PP mode 3rd _29:15

PP & SER modes 4th _21:15