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

I also allowed for follow-up interviews if needed in order to be able to
probe and unpack for interpretations; to move beyond any of my assumptions; and
explore alternative perspectives with the participants if these became apparent
during the transcribing and analysis stage of interviewing (Petrie, 2005). As I
considered this was required, several participants were invited for follow-up semi-
structured interviews in order to further clarify and expand on the comments that
had been significant in unearthing the original themes during analysis.
In the first instance I was interested in rebuilding rapport between myself
and each participant (Mutch, 2005). One way to do this was to follow the
suggestions of Cannold (2001) that researchers “should provide a non-judgemental
interviewing environment because it is the least exploitative of participants and
most comfortable for them” (p. 183). For this reason interviews were conducted at
the places suggested by participants: cafés, offices, and – as I was providing a meal
and it was central for all participants – the focus group was at my house. The place
of the interviews tended to dictate whether these were tape recorded or whether
notes were taken. There was also one interview via email and three by phone. As
these were towards the end of the time of the data gathering sufficient rapport had
already been established during the case study research so that in each instance
relationships had been already established and maintained.
Two of the interviews were conducted as paired interviews with the two
owners of Case Study One centre. As they were equal partners and worked
together to administer their centres this was a logical step to take. Like Lohm
(2008) I could find little scholarly discussion on paired interviews, which she
describes as making participants feel more comfortable and relaxed. Participants
are able to develop and build on each others‟ thoughts. According to Barker (2005)
“the emphasis of the paired interview is to create a dynamic in which the
participants interact with each other. In so doing, they validate or clearly identify
differences in working practices and terminology” (para 4). This is certainly what
occurred in both the paired interviews with the two centre owners, as they
explained how Tiriti-based programmes operated in their centres. They
encouraged each other to describe more details of their programmes and supported
each other in the telling of their accounts. At times in order to make their meaning
146