Fase I Planificación Preliminar

According to Bell (2005:157), one of the main advantages of interviews is their

adaptability. Unlike questionnaires, the interview gives the researcher the

opportunity to probe and clarify and can reveal information and attitudes that a

written response might conceal.

We live in an ‘interview society’ (Atkinson and Silverman, 1997, Richards, 2003,

Dörnyei, 2007). This means that the interview genre is usually shared cultural

knowledge. People are aware of the etiquette, expected participant roles, turn-taking

125

Crabtree, 1999, cited in Dörnyei, 2007:134). Researchers differ as to whether they

consider this a positive or negative situation. Dörnyei, for example believes, ‘It is

exactly because interviewing is a known communication routine that the method works so well as a versatile research instrument’ (ibid.). The familiarity of the interview, however, can make it easy for both interviewer and interviewed to ‘play a

part’; resulting in data that is less than the ‘pure’ resource it purports to be (Richards,

2003:8).

According to Kvale, ‘interviewing is a craft but one that rests in the researcher’s

judgement rather than following ‘content and context-free rules of method’ (1996,

cited in Richards, 2003:51). I read this early in my research but it was not until I had

completed my data collection that I understood it. Having been trained as an IELTS

interviewer and to recruit trainee teachers, my approach to interviewing was to

construct strict rules which had to be adhered to. Looking back, I can see a

progression in my interviewing style as well as the way I defined and perceived

interviews. At the beginning, I wrote a list of questions with potential follow up

questions, made an appointment with a teacher and recorded and transcribed the

interview. This kind of interview has been called ‘formal’, ‘direct’ or ‘structured’

(Chang, 2008:104) or semi-structured (Bell, 2005:159). Within this kind of

interview format, I used a range of techniques, such as beginning with ‘grand tour’

questions, such as ‘Could you tell me about your teaching in the school?’, and

126

1979, Chang, 2008). I learnt as much as I could about interviewing in order to make

my interviews as effective as possible.

Patton (2002, cited in Dörnyei, 2007:137-8) highlighted six main question types that

it is possible to ask on any topic. These focus on:

a) experiences and behaviours

b) opinions and values

c) feelings

d) knowledge

e) sensory information

f) background or demographic information

Dörnyei also highlights the importance of the first few questions for setting the tone

and creating rapport and the final question for eliciting important information that

has not yet been volunteered (ibid.). He further provides useful advice on using

‘probes’ to increase the richness and depth of the responses (ibid.) and using

different types of feedback and reinforcement (2007:142-143).

Although I worked to improve my interviewing skills through reading a range of

authors who offer excellent advice, I was aware of Richards’ warning that a good

interview ‘doesn’t rest simply on the mastery of a range of different techniques…it

127

through time and honest self-evaluation’ (2003:58). In keeping with my reflexive approach to the entire study, I monitored my own performance as an interviewer and

developed my technique. I also began to have a broader definition of what an

interview was. In common with most researchers, I had begun to find formal,

structured interviews time-consuming (Bell, 2005:157). While most of the teachers

I worked with were prepared to give me one interview, I was reluctant to encroach

upon their time by asking for a series of interviews, even when, having listened to

the original interview I felt that a follow-up would be useful. At the same time, I

was working with these teachers on a daily basis, and we regularly chatted over

coffee in the staff room or discussed issues in workshops, in lesson feedback or just

in the corridors. I began to feel that these opportunities to find out about the

teachers’ experiences and attitudes were being lost. It was liberating, then, to

gradually start thinking of these exchanges as interviews. Just because the tape

recorder was not running and I did not have a list of questions in front of me, the

valuable data that emerged did not have to be wasted. According to Richards, ‘talk

becomes an interview when the researcher designs their contribution to elicit responses focused on a particular topic’ (2003:51). If we accept this definition, there is no reason why this should not happen informally as much as in more

structured interview settings.

Another major issue that researchers need to consider when conducting interviews is

the whole area of neutrality. Traditionally, bias has been seen as the enemy and

128

Dörnyei, neutrality means creating a space for interviewees to share their experience

freely whatever the content (2007:141). As well as avoiding bias oneself, he claims

we as interviewers must create an environment that encourages sharing even

‘socially less-than-desirable’ information or attitudes (ibid.). While it is inarguable

that we should not influence the responses of interviewees, the issue of interviewer

‘bias’ is more debateable. Some argue that it is impossible to avoid bias and that we

should acknowledge and work with our bias. The very fact that we are researching a

particular topic means that we are likely to have strong views on it. Therefore, some

promote ‘emphatic interviewing’, in which the interviewer takes a stance. Fontana

and Frey (2005), for example, see interviewing as a co-constructed social exchange

in which it is not possible to avoid taking a stance (Dörnyei,2007:141). It can be

particularly helpful in a situation where the topic is sensitive and it can help for the

interviewer to be perceived as an ally.

From an autoethnographic perspective, the researcher does not aspire to be neutral

since he or she is an active participant in the research. Chang suggests that

interviews are not a method commonly associated with autoethnography, due to its

focus on the researcher’s own life (2008:106). I would disagree with this

generalization, since we study how we live our lives in conjunction with others in a

social context, and interviews are a good way of gaining understanding of that

context and our co-participants. However, it is true that interviewing takes on a

slightly different flavour in authethnography. Kiesinger, Tillmann-Healy and Ellis

129

participating act as both researchers and research participants (Ellis, 2004: 64).

According to Ellis, this approach is most useful when all participants have had

experience of the topic under discussion and is particularly suitable when

researching personal or emotive topics that benefit from reciprocity and building of

trust (ibid.). As I progressed in my study, this approach came to be more and more

appropriate. In interviews, teachers often spoke to me of feelings of being

undervalued, frustration at not being able to do their jobs as they would like, and

even a desire to leave the school. As an employee in the school, I could relate to

these feelings and interviews increasingly became a process of sharing our feelings

and experiences. As I read more on autoethnographic methods, I became more

comfortable with this as a valid approach to my research, and I stopped

differentiating between such conversations and more formal ‘interviews’. All my

interactions with teachers became a form of interactive interview.

Peterson and Langellier point out that context and power relationships are important

considerations in interview situations (Ellis, 2004:61). As teacher trainer I was in a

position of authority over most of my interviewees. Although I encouraged them to

see me as a researcher rather than the teacher trainer in that context, I must accept

that in several cases this power imbalance would have had an impact on the content

of the interview.

I acknowledge, too, that the interviews I conducted while I was at the school lack a

130

written my autoethnographic account. There is a discrepancy between the questions

I asked and what, with hindsight, I needed to know. For example I asked questions

which attempted to elicit feedback on the professional development process:

Now we’re coming to the end of the academic year and the training programme so I just wanted to get some of your impressions about how it’s gone and your reflections at this point.

(Interview with German teacher, on 25/05/08)

When we think about PD, does that have an important role in your professional life?

(Interview with History teacher, on 26/11/07)

In spite of this, several interviews which took place while I was still at school

yielded useful data. These are valuable as they reveal what teachers actually wanted

to talk about rather than being directed by the interviewer. Several interviews were

conducted after I left the school and these are much more focused: I was interested

in finding out what had gone wrong and why.

It should be noted that the teachers who were interviewed do not necessarily

represent the full teaching cadre. I had the opportunity to interview mainly teachers

who were particularly interested in the professional development programme. These

teachers tended to speak to me on a regular basis about their teaching and learning

and a rapport developed between us. Those I spoke to after leaving the school were

131

talk about it. In that sense, the interviews cannot be said to be representative of the

teaching staff as a whole.