study of the principal, eschewing for the present a second “situated perspective” level contextualised perspective and a third level contextualised in action perspective. I believed that face-to-face interviews across a range of issues and events would enable me to obtain a rich and comprehensive understanding of the perspectives and styles which principals bring to their work (6). 3.5 Types and Forms of Interview In selecting interview type I avoided the extremes. On the one hand I did not use the verbal questionnaire which I considered was overly structured with its responses redolent of quantitative research with being “reality hammered into shape by the Ribbins (2007:209). On the other hand interviewer” I did not use with adjustable and open agendas or more informal, “discussions” highly I considered that the best way to provide a framework flexible ‘chats’. within which principals would express their views in their own terms was a interview where I as the researcher would control broadly the agenda process of the interview leaving interviewees free, within limits, to “whilst respond as they Like Smith and Bower-Brown (2010:119) I see fit” (209). contend that interviews offer flexibility and allow the researcher “semi-structured to adopt a more I used a semi-structured natural, conversational approach”. interview schedule containing fifteen questions. I put the same questions to each respondent and permitted him/her to respond at ease. Where their responses raised issues that required probing I did this. In this context each respondent was not asked the same supplementary questions; when one respondent illustrated her responses by referring to the Delivering Equality of Opportunity In Schools (DEIS) initiative I pursued this matter with supplementary questions, otherwise useful and colourful data would have been lost. Pursuing DEIS issues with other respondents would not have made sense as their schools had no connection with the initiative. I was flexible to “the serendipity of conversation, in which one aspect gains more ground than another on some and Marland, 1994:31), thus capturing the occasions” (Ribbins enthusiasm and animation of respondents in full flow. I used the schedule in a flexible way when respondents wandered into territory that would be covered by
“situated perspective” study of the principal, eschewing for the present a second level contextualised perspective and a third level contextualised in action perspective. I believed that face-to-face interviews across a range of issues and events would enable me to obtain a rich and comprehensive understanding of the perspectives and styles which principals bring to their work (6). 3.5 Types and Forms of Interview In selecting interview type I avoided the extremes. On the one hand I did not use the verbal questionnaire which I considered was overly structured with its responses redolent of quantitative research with “reality being hammered into shape by the interviewer” Ribbins (2007:209). On the other hand I did not use “discussions” with adjustable and open agendas or more informal, highly flexible ‘chats’. I considered that the best way to provide a framework within which principals would express their views in their own terms was a interview where I as the researcher would control broadly the agenda process of the interview “whilst leaving interviewees free, within limits, to respond as they see fit” (209). Like Smith and Bower-Brown (2010:119) I contend that “semi-structured interviews offer flexibility and allow the researcher to adopt a more natural, conversational approach”. I used a semi-structured interview schedule containing fifteen questions. I put the same questions to each respondent and permitted him/her to respond at ease. Where their responses raised issues that required probing I did this. In this context each respondent was not asked the same supplementary questions; when one respondent illustrated her responses by referring to the Delivering Equality of Opportunity In Schools (DEIS) initiative I pursued this matter with supplementary questions, otherwise useful and colourful data would have been lost. Pursuing DEIS issues with other respondents would not have made sense as their schools had no connection with the initiative. I was flexible to “the serendipity of conversation, in which one aspect gains more ground than another on some occasions” (Ribbins and Marland, 1994:31), thus capturing the enthusiasm and animation of respondents in full flow. I used the schedule in a flexible way when respondents wandered into territory that would be covered by