Principales recomendaciones

The primary source of data generation was repeated semi-structured interviews. Focus group interviews and participant observation were adopted as sub-primary data sources in order to generate the meaning of participants’ perceptions in a more holistic view of the phenomenon. These methods were chosen because they are congruent with the interpretivist/social constructivist research paradigm and methodology, and allowed access to participants’ perceptions.

Interviews

An interview is a form of communication, “a means of extracting different forms of information from individuals and groups” (Byrne, 2004:180). In hermeneutic phenomenology, interviewing is useful within very specific purposes. Firstly, it is employed as a means for exploring and gathering a person’s narrative of experience that is accessible to a richer and deeper understanding of human phenomenon. Secondly, the interview is a way to encourage the development of a conversational relationship with participants about the meaning of an experience (Van Manen, 1997).

There are various interview options available to the interviewer: telephone, email, and face-to-face (Gillham, 2005). The primary advantage of telephone interviewing for this study is that it could save time because of the geographical spread of the participants, while retaining efficiency for prompting and probing in order to elicit deeper information. However, it may miss “non-verbal elements which are a major part of live communication” (Gillham, 2005:103) and also lose much of the empathy that the researcher would like to build with the participants. In addition, telephone interviews might be a form of intrusion on personal privacy (Gillham, 2005), so this method was not considered as a primary source of data generation. An email interview is a type of distance interview that is considerably less intrusive

136

than telephone interviews as it allows participants to respond in their own time and at their own rate of response (Lowades, 2005). This type of interview is hard to access for Thai people in rural areas where computers and the internet are not used widely in accommodation because of their prohibitive prices. Further, a part of the sensitive issue of the research topic is likely not to emerge from a written form of information in e-mail interviews. This method was therefore not regarded to be the most effective way to gain participants’ greater depth and complexity of information. Face-to-face interviews were chosen as a main source of data generation because a greater amount of information required from these interviews would be best generated by social interaction with the participants. Importantly, a rapport between participants and the researcher was likely to be easier to establish and develop in face-to-face interaction. A further advantage of face-to-face interview is that it can motivate the respondent to participate in answering (Barriball and While, 1994). This was important for Thai people as the alternatives may have reduced their response rates as they may not have the confidence or willingness to write down their responses.

Semi-structured interviews

Several forms of face-to-face interviews are possible in conducting research. They range from the questionnaire-based interview (structured interview), which is a more rigid format where they allow very little opportunity for the participant to express their own perceptions in the manner of their choosing, to totally open-ended interviews (unstructured interviews) that might begin with a single question (Byrne, 2004; Minichiello et al., 2000). A semi- structured interview was chosen in this research to provide the advantages of both structured and unstructured interviews (see the examples of semi- structured individual interviews in appendix X, XI). Unlike structured interviews, semi-structured interviews are interpretive and allow the expansion and complexity of answers to emerge. Drever (1997) identified the meaning of semi-structured interview as ‘The interviewer sets up a general structure by deciding in advance what ground is to be covered and what

137

main questions are to be asked’ (p. 1). S/he and then allows participants the freedom to respond to questions and probes, and to describe their experiences without being fixed on specific answers. This type of interview is very suitable when the objective of the research is to explore of ‘the perceptions and opinions of respondents regarding complex and sometimes sensitive issues and enable probing for more information and clarification of answers’ (Barriball and Whiles, 1994, p. 330). A further advantage over unstructured interviews is the ability to compare across interviews as some of the questions are guided (Minichiello, Madison, Hays, Courtney, and St. John, 1999).

The informal nature of the semi-structured interview has been referred to as ‘conversations with a purpose’ (Byrne, 2004 p.181) which may create a friendlier environment where the interviewer is in a very flexible form of information gathering in which a conversation-type style is adopted. Barriball and Whiles (1994), in citing a number of authors concerned with qualitative research, note a number of advantages in using this type of personal interview technique as a kind of data generation:

1. it has the potential to overcome the poor response rates of a questionnaire survey

2. it is well suited to the exploration of attitudes, values, beliefs and motives

3. it provides the opportunity to evaluate the validity of the respondent's answers by observing non-verbal indicators, which is particularly useful when discussing sensitive issues

4. it can facilitate comparability by ensuring that all questions are answered by each respondent

5. it ensures that the respondent is unable to receive assistance from others while formulating a response.

There are, nevertheless, some considerations when using the semi- structured interview method. Many concerns rest on the interviewer’s skills required to elicit the quality of information from a participant, for example

138

(Barriball and While, 1994; Drever, 1997; Patton, 2002). It is also important at an early stage to understand how the data will be used since it may provide a rich and varied amount of information that is not easily interpreted or analysed (Cohen et al., 2000). The very nature of the interview also includes a degree of subjectivity that must be factored into any analysis. Despite these considerations, this method was still considered the most appropriate for the objectives of this research.

These limitations were reduced when I stayed longer in the field work, developed a good relationship with the participants and conducted repeated semi-structured interviews. These issues were detailed in the role of the researcher and rigour and trustworthiness sections.27

Participant Observation

In this research, participant observation was used for a variety of purposes. First, it was a part of the developmental process involving the follow-up of the training course which was aimed at helping participants to improve their teaching skills (Angrosino, 2007). Second, it was used as a data source to gain an insight into the culture of the research setting (Patton, 2002). Thirdly, it was a means of building-up the rapport between participants and the researcher and thus it is a ‘strategy that facilitates data collection in the field’ (Bernard, 1988 p. 150, cited in Angrosino, 2007). The term participant observation can be defined as a ‘process of learning through exposure to or involvement in the day-to-day or routine activities of participants in the research setting’ (Schensul et. al., 1999 p. 91, cited in Angrosino, 2007). It is a method of generating data with the researcher submerging himself or herself in a research setting (Mason, 1996). Participant observations were implemented during the school visits, informal interactions with teachers,

139

staff, children, and their parents and workshops on the follow-up training at the university.

As mentioned by Patton (2002), participant observations in natural settings have several advantages. The participant observations enabled me to understand the participants and the context of the research better, to be open, discovery-oriented and inductive. It also allowed me to discover any important point that might have been missed between the participants in the setting, and to uncover issues that the participants might not freely talk about in interview situations, especially information on sensitive topics. Participant observation enabled me to interpret data so as to understand a holistic perspective of the cultural context.

The research role of involvement varies from study to study. Gold (1958, as cited in Angrosino, 2007) classifies four types of participation: complete observer, observer-as-participant, participant-as-observer, and complete participant. In this study, I defined my role as a participant-as-observer or in an active membership role as defined by Adler and Adler (1994, cited in Angrosino, 2007). I interacted and engaged more closely with my participants. Particularly, in the special education centre at the university, I developed close relationships with all participants as the research progressed, sharing meals, conversing after school time, going to the beauty salon and restaurant and so on. I was an advisor, friend and researcher. The degree of my involvement in the other two research settings, however, was less close than in university, as the opportunity to observe the participants at the university was much more readily available. During participant observations, all participants and staff at the settings were aware of my presence and the purpose of my study.

When observing Intensive Interaction teaching sessions at school I used an observation schedule as a tool for developing their pedagogic approach, and sharing supervisions and experiences, as provided in appendix XIII. After the session, although I had an agenda of issues for observation, I remained open to the variety of evidence presented to me and recorded in my research

140

diary after the event. This kind of observation can be classed as a semi- structured observation, as discussed by Cohen et al (2007), in that it can ‘gather data to illuminate these issues in a far less predetermined manner than structured observation and allow the situation in each setting to be compared’ (p.97). In this study, I retained the chance for the other elements of the situation to speak freely as I believe that the actions and interactions of participants and their situation evolve over time.

Research diary

From the outset of this study I have kept a diary as a reflective journal in which I recorded my unstructured observations, thoughts, fears and problems, as well as critical incidents, events and breakthroughs that I considered important for the development of each aspect of the research. Thus, I used my writing to develop a richer understanding of the phenomena under investigation. Within the diary, I could document my theorising about ideas, concepts and their relationships as they struck me whilst in the field of action and during data analysis (Burgess 1982; Lincoln and Guba 1985). This procedure was used to keep track of emerging ideas and categories, to stimulate further analysis and data collection, and served as a means for the development of assertions and theoretical integration.

I kept writing my self-reflection in a research diary to establish whether my own behaviour was having an effect on the behaviours of the participants and, if so, what that was and what actions I might take in order to help minimise threats. Research diaries and field notes also recorded my research experiences, problems and ideas that arose during each stage of my fieldwork. They enabled me to construct the environment setting in which the participants spend time, which helped in describing and interpreting the circumstances surrounding the lived experienced of those being studied. In addition, throughout my fieldwork, I often spoke to my colleague in order to consult her about my concerns and prevent myself from becoming immersed in the participants’ situation as an insider researcher and strengthen what I

141

interpret. Meanwhile, I discussed my concerns in the data collection process with my supervisors via email to obtain professional advice and guidance.

Focus group Interview

Focus group interviews were used as another data source combined with one-to-one interviews and participant observation. They were carried out at the end of the research project to find out the overall experiences of participants throughout the project. Focus group interviews are a research technique that ‘collects information through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher’ (Morgan, 1997, p. 6). It thus also provides a larger amount of information about the experiences, attitudes, views and emotional processes of participants within a group context (Morgan and Kreuger 1993). The advantage of using the focus group interview method in this research was that it would provide the opportunity for new information different from the previous two sources to emerge. In these combined uses of multiple qualitative methods, the goal was to use each method so that it contributed something unique to my understanding of the phenomenon under study.

The focus group interviews, as shown in appendix XII, were led by a research assistant who was recognised as a friend of my participants. She knew about Intensive Interaction as she had attended the two-day training course and participated in the workshop, as well as having applied the Intensive Interaction approach with some of her pupils. She graduated from a university with all female teachers and obtained her master’s degree in the psychology of advice. She is a colleague of my participants and is similar in age, status, and interests with my study participants. She also talked with my participants in their regional dialects and transcribed the collected information in the focus group herself.

142