Percepción de las madres sobre los servicios y beneficios que brinda el programa Cuna Más

The principal means of collecting data for the study was through individual, semi- structured interviewing: a form of interviewing whereby the same general questions or topics are asked of each of the participants involved (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The interview is a suitable way of obtaining rich data in phenomenological, qualitative research because, as Danaher and Briod (2005) point out, “language is the primary carrier of experience and meaning” (p. 221).

There are many ways of interviewing for qualitative research purposes, but I was aware that I needed to approach the interview from a phenomenological perspective. Although the focus of an interview is to explore the subjective experiences of a

participant around the phenomenon of interest, in phenomenological research more is required. A researcher needs to keep in mind that “the deeper goal, which is always the thrust of phenomenological research, remains oriented to asking the question of what is the nature of this phenomenon … as an essentially human experience” (van Manen, 1990, p. 62).

A phenomenological interview is informal and interactive. While questions are prepared in advance, these are often altered during the interview if the interviewee finds another way to share an experience fully. Mutch (2005) defines a semi- structured interview as “an interview where a set of guiding questions is used but where the interview is open to changes along the way” (p. 225). Questions are

prepared as open-ended and probes can be employed to help elicit fuller descriptions, but these are sometimes added spontaneously during an interview for clarification of responses that may not have been predicted in preparing for the interview (Moustakas, 1994).

The driving force behind any interview should be the research question, about a particular phenomenon, that prompted the need to collect data in the first place. A phenomenological interview has very specific purposes. These are to collect accounts of the experiences of a phenomenon in order to better understand the nature of that phenomenon, and to develop a conversational relationship with the interviewee in order to make the process of this exploration a collaborative one of meaning-making between researcher and participant (van Manen, 1990). The exchange is a time for the participant to reflect on lived experiences and, in conversation with the researcher, attempt to interpret the deeper meanings behind such experiences. Thus, the process of establishing rapport with the interviewee is extremely important. This process is helped if a series of interviews can be arranged, rather than a one off.

I also elected to conduct semi-structured focus group interviews with the students for the third interview. Hennessy and Heary (2005) see focus group interviews as being suitable for adolescents as this age group is likely to be able to keep the conversation going without too much interference from the moderator, something a younger group of children could find more difficult. This kind of interview can provide valuable data. Rather than having to provide all the answers, as in an individual interview situation, a participant can be both acknowledged as the expert and encouraged to formulate

some opinions in greater depth through the interaction with others in the group. Interviewees can snowball off each other and the group situation may provide some security for them to be more candid in their responses, particularly if the group is seen as a safe peer environment (Clough & Nutbrown, 2012; Hennessy & Heary, 2005; Punch, 2009). The researcher acts as a group convenor to what Clough and Nutbrown (2012, p. 92) prefer to call a “focused conversation” and guides the group interaction as experiences and interests are shared. Controlling the dynamics of the group and ensuring an equal sharing of ideas needs to be balanced with the need for openness and the opportunity for challenging and extending ideas.

Electing to be true to the phenomenological interview process did bring about some challenges. An interesting aspect that has arisen in recent times around the interview process is the belief that Western culture has become an ‘interview society’ (Chase, 2005; Fontana & Frey, 2005). Researchers tend to believe that listening to

participants’ voices provides a true account of their ‘authentic’ selves “as if their selves and voices were not already mediated by the social contexts in which they speak” (Chase, 2005, p. 670). How was I to be sure that I was getting from my participants what they really thought? Was it possible that some respondents were ‘parroting’ what they thought I wanted to hear, or, in particular with the adolescents, what they had garnered from parents and other adults? Even adolescents have learned how to ‘do’ interviews these days with the plethora of interview experiences shown in popular Western media culture. This was a challenge for me in terms of relying heavily on the data from interviews.

A major tenet for phenomenology is that a researcher needs to bracket his or her pre- assumptions about the phenomenon being studied before going into the field as a researcher (Ehrich, 2003; Giles, 2008; Moustakas, 1994) (see also Chapter One). Husserl coined the term ‘epoche’ to refer to a suspension of previously held beliefs so that a phenomenon can be looked at with fresh vision, in new and sometimes

unconventional ways (Ehrich, 2003). However, in van Manen’s (1990) six steps of phenomenological research action he begins with the advice that one should select a phenomenon that is of personal value and interest because “ a person who turns towards phenomenological reflection does so out of personal engagement” (p. 154). The challenge is for the researcher to attempt as much as possible to put aside these

personal understandings or biases that may colour the interview or direct participants’ responses (Giles, 2008; Moustakas, 1994).

There is a further challenge for the researcher when interviewing. It is essential to establish rapport with the participant in an interview situation if the goal is to

encourage a smooth flow of conversation resulting in, hopefully, critical reflection on the experiences being explored. However, an interviewee may already hold a

perception of the researcher as the ‘expert.’ There are two aspects to this issue of positionality. Firstly, how does the researcher contribute to the dialogue in order to help ‘give voice’ to the participants? And secondly, at the same time, how can the researcher avoid setting up positions of dominance and bias? How much real control do I as the researcher have over any positioning? Is some of that control in the hands of the participants?

My aim for the interviews that I conducted for this research was to be both conversational and co-constructive, as befits a phenomenological approach. An important focus was to encourage an atmosphere of trust. I felt that the strength of the researcher–participant relationship would have a strong bearing on the quality of the data that I could collect. How was I to marry this with the need to bracket any pre- assumptions about the phenomena of achievement and underachievement for gifted and talented students, garnered over years of being involved in gifted and talented education? Clough and Nutbrown (2012) ask if it is “intellectually honest” (p. 70) to keep our own voices out of the research process and the final interpretation. I was of the view that I did not intend to sit apart from the interviewee and pretend to be a novice in the area I was researching as I did not see this kind of position as

intellectually honest and it did not fulfil my wish to build trust with the participants over the 18 months of interviewing. I declared my position as someone who had been involved in the field of gifted education for several years (as outlined in Chapter One), at the beginning of the interviews. If it came up in conversation during an interview with any of the participants, I also declared my position as a parent of highly able children. However, I did attempt to engage in the epoche process about the phenomena of interest before I went into the field and while I was conducting the interviews I did not continue with any academic reading around the topics.

I also made the decision to include my ‘voice’ in the interviews in response to participants. I saw the interview as a “co-constructive process of meaning-making” (Greene & Hogan, 2005, p. 153) in which both were active participants in the negotiation of meaning. Meaning could not be explored solely by the participant answering my pre-selected questions. I felt that I needed to contribute to the

conversation so that the interviewees could feel more secure in developing their own ideas about the meaning for them around selected concepts. I adhered to the idea of conversational partners (Rubin & Rubin, 2005) which allowed for the individuality of each participant to come through in the interactions.

The process of setting up my position was thus in line with the constructivist- interpretivist knowledge claim espoused for this thesis, for as Merriam succinctly states:

The researcher thus brings a construction of reality to the research situation, which interacts with other people’s constructions or

interpretations of the phenomenon being studied. The final product of this type of study is yet another interpretation by the researcher of others’ views filtered through his or her own. (Merriam, 1998, p. 22)

A further issue that needed consideration was that of managing the shifts of power that could occur during an interview. Through my early attempts at establishing trust and at bracketing my pre-assumptions, I hoped that the power balance would not be weighted towards me but I also knew that I was not the only one influencing the interview. A participant could choose to place me in a certain position, for example as the ‘expert,’ even if I had done my best to put strategies in place to avoid this. I liked the Kaupapa Maori approach to the researcher-participant relationship in which “the positioning is part of participation” (Bishop, 2005, p. 120). The researcher does not choose to position himself or herself but this evolves as the relationship progresses with both researcher and participant taking turns at being in control during a free and open exchange. This became an aim for me as I conducted the interviews.

The ways in which I responded to some of these challenges, particularly in terms of positionality and establishing trust within the researcher-participant relationship, are explored later in this chapter when I discuss the ethical considerations for the study.