supporting tiriti-based curriculum delivery in mainstream early ...

4.3.2.4 Interviews
During the analysis of the case studies it became apparent there were
aspects from the case study research meetings that needed to be explored
individually with participants, as it was not always possible to explore ideas and
issues as they arose in the research meetings. Indeed within the meetings, every so
often, with more than one person speaking at a time it was not even possible or
even appropriate to pick up issues as they occurred. I began to consider the best
method of deepening my understanding of the thinking behind participants‟ words.
Data collection for previous research on postgraduate papers I had undertaken had
involved semi-structured interviews, which had drawn on the work of Oakley
(1974, 1985) and so I revisited more recent work of Oakley; it resonated with me
when she said:
The methods of „qualitative‟ research - interviews, observations, focus
groups, life histories - are notable for the closeness they require between
researcher and researched. The two sides of the research process exist in
the same plane, face to face. In depth interviews are the face-to-face
method par excellence, and so have been the chosen method for feminist
researchers. Interviews imitate conversations; they hold out the promise
of mutual listening. (Oakley, 2000, p. 47)
Hancock and Algozzine (2006) state that interviews are a common aspect
of case studies as they enable collection of rich, personal data in relation to the
topic under study. This can be done by identifying key participants in the situation
whose knowledge and opinions may provide important insights regarding the
research questions. Interviews can be both individual, which although time
consuming enables the gathering of significant information from that person's
perspective, or group, which was discussed earlier in the section on focus groups.
Having decided to conduct interviews I heeded Hancock and Algozine
(2006) who suggested researchers consider the setting, means of recording, and the
type of questions: structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. I believed that
semi-structured tape-recorded interviews in a setting that suited each participant
would enable participants to answer how they wished, or to change the question to
counteract any of my assumptions and misinformation (Cannold, 2001). This gave
me the advantage of being able to check participants‟ understanding. Additionally,
participants could check my understanding, as answers in an interview can be less
predictable and challenge existing views (Mutch, 2005).
145