Instructor Interviews

The instructors were asked very similar questions as the students about the settings and the overall program (Appendix H). It was the instructor interviews—which turned out to be a group interview with individual email follow–up—that were most influenced by my beliefs, my role as researcher, and my background. I was constantly aware of my dual roles as program administrator and researcher, and these roles changed in different situations. Stake (1995) suggested that one role may work better for certain people and certain situations. At times, I found myself being the researcher when it was important not to be the program administrator in order to distance myself from the program and my perceived leadership role in the program. For example, when asked about the research, I would talk about ideas around literacy and learning and how I saw these fitting into and shaping the program, as opposed to the opinions of instructors and students and how these might influence the program. I also postponed staff evaluations, initiated by the program's managers, which were to be implemented during the data collection phase. This was done so my research would not be confused with my role as a program administrator. Another role I slipped into was that of graduate student when it was important to shift power imbalances that were weighted towards me in my roles as researcher and as program administrator. For example, I changed the structure of the instructor interviews. Instead of having individual interviews, I asked them to establish the interview format. After a casual discussion during coffee break, the instructors decided that they would prefer to participate in a group interview with individual email follow–up. After an hour–long group interview with the three instructors, I transcribed their data then wrote narratives with key quotations. These narratives were sent back to each instructor in an email attachment. Within the narrative, I posed questions to individual instructors to get more detailed information, clarifications, and elaborations on various points. They then returned the attachment with their responses. This procedure worked very well, and I would repeat it in similar circumstances. It shifted the balance of power in the interview session; it permitted instructors to build on each other's ideas; yet, it also allowed for individual reflection and feedback in the follow-up email exchange.