Reconocimiento de sí mismo.

4.5.1. Interviews

The purpose of interviewing…is to allow us to enter into the other person’s

perspective. Qualitative interviewing begins with the assumption that the perspective of others is meaningful, knowable, and able to be made explicit. We interview to find out what is in someone else’s mind, to gather their stories. (Patton, 2002, p. 341) While I had many choices about the method I would use to gather my data, it became clear to me, after reviewing various methods, that using interviews would best align with the goals of this inquiry. I wanted to use interviews because I felt this method would allow me to gather important details within the data, and that each participant would be able to share his or her own story in a unique way and determine his or her own focus. Since an interview is a way to explore how “subjects experience and understand their world” (Kvale, 2007, p. 9), it aligns well with decolonizing methodologies that focus on the understanding of the participants rather than solely the questions of the researcher.

85

There are many types of interview methods. I was drawn to both the general

interview guide approach and the conversational interview method. While each method has its own qualities, I felt that this combination of methods would be the most useful.

The general interview guide approach is outlined by Patton (2002). This interview type:

provides topics or subject areas within which the interviewer remains free to build a conversation within a particular subject area, to word questions spontaneously, and to establish a conversational style but with a focus on a particular subject that has been predetermined. (Patton, 2002, p. 343)

I was drawn to this approach as it would ensure that critical, key points were focused upon, but would not put in a structure that was so rigid that a flow of discussion would disabled. The guide allowed me to begin the interviews in a generous, caring, easing going manner, as I knew that I would get to the key points since the interview guide “list[s] the questions or issues that are to be explored in the course of the interview” (Patton, 2002, p. 343).

To combine with the interview guide, I used a conversational interview method, which offered “maximum flexibility to pursue information in whatever direction appears to be appropriate…from talking with one or more individuals in that setting” (Patton, 2002, p. 342). It is this flexibility that drew me to this interview method. I felt it was imperative to offer the Inuit educators the opportunity to share what I might not have considered, allowing the data to go beyond what I anticipated and encapsulate the real stories that needed to be told.

One of the major concerns with conversational interviews is the analysis of the data. Since there is not a set of questions to follow, conversation can go in multiple directions and

86

being able to analyze the data, as well as to look for themes and develop understandings, can be very challenging. It is this challenge that led me to combine conversational and interview guide approaches.

By using a combined approach I was able to have “flexibility in probing and in determining when it is appropriate to explore certain subjects in greater depth, or even to question about new area of inquiry that were not originally anticipated” (Patton, 2002, p. 347) by the interviewer. The best qualities of both conversational interviews and interview guides allowed me to preselect topics and questions, but at the same time to encourage the participants to lead the interview by sharing what was important to them. To follow the tenets of a decolonizing methodology, it was imperative that the interviews build on each

participant’s thoughts, while the interview guide allowed me to foresee gaps in the data collection, and ensure that these were covered.

While deciding on the type of structure my interviews would use was rather easy, creating the guiding questions to support the interview process was much more challenging. There are many types of questions that can be used during interviews: experience and behaviour, opinion and values, feeling, knowledge, sensory, and background/demographic questions (Patton, 2002). Selecting questions and question types is a precarious undertaking. When thinking about types of questions and their purpose, it was important to consider my personal bias and what I really wanted to gain through the interview process: an

understanding of the life of the Inuit teacher. In order to create meaningful questions, I used my research questions and from there, extrapolated specific, in-depth questions that would link directly to answering the research questions. I attempted to use many of these

87

questioning types in order to gain a thick, rich description. The interview guide with questions can be found in Appendix 1 and 2.

“The research interview is an interpersonal situation, a conversation between two partners about a theme of mutual interest. It is a specific form of human interaction in which knowledge evolves though a dialogue” (Kvale, 1996, p. 125). It is imperative to create a space for a dialogue, and a sense of security, in a very short time in an interview. As well, I had to continually remind myself of Lather’s (1986) warning not to “impose meanings on situations rather than constructing meanings through negotiations with research participants” (p. 265). This negotiation is the core of the interviews I completed. Where the open structure with the interview guide allowed me to build the connection needed and supported the construction of meaning. I supported the validity of my understanding during the interview process by using an ongoing feedback loop. At times I would interpret by asking if the participant meant this or that. Often I was told, “No!” and then the participant would

reinterpret for me. Using this type of question is imperative to the work I have done. During this process the participants would often correct my understanding and support me in gaining a clearer portrait.

As suggested by Lincoln and González (2008), working within a decolonizing

framework mandates a focus on the voices of the Inuit and a collaborative effort. This guided me and prohibited me from shifting the focus within the interview as suggested by Kvale and Brinkmann (2009). Instead, I allowed each participant to go as long as he/she wanted. I felt that due to this, my results were richer and ensured a full response. At times this was

challenging. Silence during an interview can be difficult, especially for a person brought up in a Western tradition. I worked very hard to allow silences to be present during the

88

interview. As a woman growing up in a Western culture, I am nervous about silence. This was and continues to be a challenge for me.

4.5.2. Change in plans

My actual research design was altered during the research process. Maxwell (2012) shares that a plan for any study can be completed in great detail, but flexibility must be allowed in order to get the greatest results from your research. This was true for me.

My original intention was to use focus groups, with six to eight Inuit educators, and to discuss and share feelings and concepts surrounding notions of race, equity, and education in the North. I wanted people to have an opportunity to diverge from one idea to another, to build their own ideas based on the brave words of other educators, and to feel safe within a group structure. I wanted to delve deeply into ideas, to give opportunities to talk, draw, create, and grow. I was hoping to continue working with this group and to use the research to begin something that could support the Inuit educators. I wanted to take the research and create a dramatization of the counter narrative that would be shown and shared amongst the Inuit and the school board.

I was not able to do all I wanted to do, but I was able to do something that I feel is important—not just to complete the requirements of a PhD, but to shed light on Inuit educators and to take time to consider their perspective. My desire to work with a group of educators for one entire week was not possible given schedules, new meetings, previous engagements, and school board policies. However, I was able to interview 36 educators, who willingly gave of their time and shared their own ideas and perspectives. They shared in depth details about being a teacher, they considered the role of the Qallunaat teacher and administration and the tensions and joys that comes from working across cultures. They

89

answered my questions and asked more. We cried, laughed, chatted, and cried again: and I learned a great deal through the process. I was so glad to be able to ask these questions, to make a space, however small, for voices of Inuit educators to be heard. I felt that the study reached its goal of empowering the researched (Lather, 1986).

If I did not have the status of a partial insider, I am not sure that I would have been able to complete this research. In order to connect to the tenets of decolonizing

methodologies, my connection to the North and sense of belonging was critical. It allowed me to interview a wide variety of educators and gain access to groups I may not have had access to otherwise.