PROTECCIONES COLECTIVAS, ESCALAS FIJAS O DE SERVICIO, ESCALERAS DE MANO Y OTROS EQUIPOS PARA TRABAJOS TEMPORALES EN ALTURA

In total, twenty-two interviews were conducted across NI schools. These were representative of grammar, secondary and integrated school music teachers. The structure for each data gathering event was three-part, (i) a pre-interview

conversation, (ii) the interview itself and (iii) a post-interview conversation. It was important that after the school-based teacher interviews there should be a period of ‘wind down’, the post-interview conversation. This was usually a short period of general conversation and thanks, but on some occasions more extended when

participants wanted to talk further about their own and their school’s position within the wider context of education in general, and Shared Education in particular. While the overall interview format followed that exemplified by Kvale (2007, p. 55) the approach was slightly different in that confidentiality, anonymity and non-traceability (Cohen et al., 2011) had been guaranteed. In general, the time spent with participants, including the interview which lasted approximately 35-40 minutes, was usually about one hour. This was consistent with Cohen et al.’s advice “to leave the respondent feeling better than, or at least no worse than she or he felt at the start of the interview” (p. 362). It required sensitivity to the demeanour of the interviewee and positivity in my verbal and non-verbal responses.

Given the impersonal nature of the participant letter, it was important, in meeting participants, to create a feeling of common ground and trust. For those who knew me, this was the opportunity to update ourselves by engaging in conversation, for example, how music classrooms have changed, the impact of technology, instrumental resources and changing examination syllabuses. When the subject of examinations was raised I would let the teachers know that they would have the opportunity to express their views during the interview. For those who did not know me, it was important to put them at their ease before the recording by giving an outline of my background and

encouraging them to talk about the school and their own musical interests and/or background. In all cases I considered it important to address participants by their Christian names and where they were officially referred to as Mr/Mrs X, I asked if they would mind if I used their Christian name. This was important in showing respect for their position. They were also advised that in order to ensure honesty and accuracy the interview would be recorded and that, because of the importance of confidentiality and anonymity, their names would not be mentioned during the recording process.

Conscious of teachers’ time and venue of the interview, decisions were taken as to when we should begin the interview after participants were given the opportunity to look through the questions and before the recorder was switched on. This did appear to have a positive effect since the questions moved from the general ‘What are your thoughts on the significance of music to people in NI?’ through teaching the statutory curriculum to the political dimension of Shared Education before concluding with their thoughts on the future of music education.

As interviewer, my intention was to say as little as possible after asking each question, but to encourage relaxation and response through facial expression and gesture. It was during the interviews that I became conscious of possibly different perceptions of my identity based on the dynamics of the interview. For example, on meeting face to face, and unaware that she had married, one participant was one of my past A-level music students during the 1980s. This had the potential to create a significant power imbalance so it was important for me to acknowledge her achievement as pupil

accompanist to my school choir and to congratulate her on her position as head of music in the school. Other interviews were with teachers who had been members of my CCEA examining teams and where the dynamic was one of equal balance. My power as a researcher was less than that as officer in charge of GCSE and A level music

examinations. A third example of power dynamic is drawn from an interview with a teacher who did not know me and was, perhaps, shy or nervous. At the beginning of the interview she sat with her hand near her mouth, but not wanting to embarrass her by asking her to move her hand, I asked if she could move slightly so as to ensure that the recorder would pick up her answers. While the pre-interview conversation had been restricted because of her timetable, our conversation after the interview created a sense of commonality in terms of school background and religious affiliation since her music teacher and I had worked together on music projects. Fortunately, this was post- interview conversation and did not impact on the interview itself, but it did create a sense of shared identity through religious affiliation. There were also times when

religion was mentioned or intimated during interviews by participants, but it was only during post-interview follow-up that I would have engaged, having no problem in identifying my own religious position. There were occasions when I needed to probe a response or check understanding of what was said. Also, on occasion, it was apparent that the answers given sometimes diverged from the question so it was necessary to expand upon the question to ensure it produced a relevant answer. One example of this was the final question which asked participants for their views on the future of music education mentioning curriculum and examinations. This tended to produce a rather negative critique of existing examination syllabuses rather than a creative forward- looking response. It was important to allow teachers the opportunity to criticise, but they needed to be challenged directly about their vision of the future. I sometimes had the feeling that despite being asked for their personal thoughts and opinions they were restricted in expressing them because of the recording. All participants had initially expressed their consent to be interviewed by email, so the final request was for the participant’s signature on each of the two consent forms as required by the UOGEC; I added my own signature and left one with the participant. It was important for me to recognise that the teachers had given their precious time to talk to me, so on the day following the interview I sent a card to each of the teachers to thank them for their important contributions to the data collection.

The focus-group interview with eight female and two male NQTs took place in their music base in Ulster University. Ultimately, the group interview was an attempt to gauge the views of the young graduate teachers around some of the research areas covered with the classroom teachers on the basis of following the interview schedule. The group’s tutor also participated in the conversation when he considered it necessary to provide background information or clarification. The main drawback to the occasion was the seating arrangement which created problematic sightlines making it difficult to always have sight of the speaker. Participants had been asked to not identify

themselves to ensure confidentiality, and based on the decision that the group’s contribution was more important than identifying individuals, I decided that the use of pseudonyms could lead to an assumption that particular comments would be attached to a named individual who may not have made them. Within that context, it was more appropriate to identify contributors as Male or Female. The two males were within my sight lines so I was able to identify them as Male 1 and Male 2. Despite enthusiastic cross-talking there was sufficient content in the one-hour conversation to provide examples of participants’ impressions and experience of music departments across the

twenty post-primary grammar and secondary schools which provided their teaching practice. One interesting outcome was how the participants’ comments sometimes reflected their own particular school experiences, thus providing a degree of historical insight.

From a personal point of view, it was very interesting to talk to teachers and learn of classroom activities which had become established practice since the introduction of the statutory curriculum in 2007. Although my focus was primarily on the curriculum I was conscious that examinations, as mentioned by the two school principals during the piloting of the interview format, were an important issue for teachers. On that basis I also arranged meetings with two senior education officers. The first such meeting was with a former Education and Library Board officer who had had responsibility for music (March, 2016) and the second, with a senior education officer who had examination responsibilities (January, 2017). In each case the interviewees did not wish to be recorded, but were happy for me to report their views. They painted a bleak picture of music in schools and the arts in general. It terms of examination entries, the education officer stated that the arts subjects were at a “tipping point”.

As the interviews with teachers progressed I became aware of their concerns about music and decided to check the online Education and Training reports on the schools I had visited. I was disappointed to find no mention of classroom music in the schools visited and only one reference to extra-curricular music. Each report did, however, set out the school’s GCSE and Advanced level examinations results for music. Aware that the online school reports may not have represented a complete picture of inspections, I contacted DENI’s Inspection Service regarding the state of music as a statutory

curriculum subject. The response (11th _{October, 2017) advised me that “In general,}

during post-primary inspections learning and teaching is evaluated across all subject areas through class pursuit; although there is a more detailed focus on numeracy and mathematics, English and literacy, and on most occasions a third subject”.

The collection of empirical data, from November 2015 to December 2016, resulted in over twelve hours of recordings of the twenty-two teachers’ and focus-group interviews. I also had my personal diary with notes on each pre-and post-interview. These

included, for example, my diary entry on 27th _{January 2016 following an interview with}

technology - her computers stolen the previous evening so a bit unsettled. Mentioned her need for technology training and also the need for content to provide students with a wider range of employment options. I asked if I could add these comments even though she had not mentioned them during the recording. She said ‘Yes’”.

Having completed the data collection, my first intention was to become familiar with the recordings and then face the prospect of notating the content of each interview - a sizeable challenge given my limited skill in listening and typing at the same time. The process of transcription is set out in the following section.