Conducting the Research

The research interview is always steered by the goals of the study (Ruusuvuori &

Tiittula 2005, 23). Semi-structured interviews proceed according to certain themes chosen beforehand and some supporting questions. Methodologically, interview emphasizes interpretations and meanings. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2011, 75; Hirsjärvi &

Hurme 2001, 48) The benefit of interviewing is its flexibility; the interviewer has a possibility to repeat and clarify the question and have a conversation. The questions can be asked in a flexible order, the most important aim being gathering as much data as possible. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2011, 73) Tuomi & Sarajärvi (2011) suggest giving the interview questions to the interviewees beforehand. The interviewees taking part

in this study were offered the possibility to get the questions through email, but neither of the interviewees saw it necessary since the subject was so personal and internalized. The questions are basically in three categories: interviewees’

backgrounds and education, the vocal pedagogy courses and their content, and the future prospects. For the original frames for the interviews, see Appendix 4.

Tienari, Vaara & Meriläinen (2005, 103) focus on the construction of cultural community in an interview. By cultural, they refer to national, but stress that national is not static or monolithic, but variable and multiform. National cultures exist only in the so-called live interaction of people, such as a research interview. In an interview situation, performance and action are to a large degree linguistic action. In addition to language, the interviewer and interviewee interpret each other through each other’s appearance and behavior. (Tienari, Vaara & Meriläinen 2005, 103) Rastas (2005, 84–

85) write that cultural differences might cause problems if they prevent the interviewer and interviewees from understanding each other. A suggested solution for the researcher to prevent such from happenings is either to belong in the same cultural group as the interviewee or to get familiar with the culture as best possible.

The first interview took place in December 2011 in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. The interviewee had already agreed the request to do the interview in September, but it was better to conduct it after the researcher had gotten a better understanding on the course and knew the professor better. The semi-structured interview in this context meant that a list of questions was written to help remember the goals of the study. It still allowed keeping the interview conversation-like and open to all new themes that might emerge in the moment. The interview was recorded with a Zoom H4N recorder, and it took about 33 minutes. Because it was conducted at Berklee in a teachers’

room, which was available for any professor to use, the interview was briefly interrupted when a man walked in the room. The presence of the man, however, did not have an impact on the interview. The second interview was conducted in March 2012 in Helsinki, Finland. The interview was conducted in Finnish and took about an hour. Toward the end, two women entering the meeting room interrupted the interview, but again, the interruption did not have a remarkable impact on the interview. In both interviews all of the beforehand drafted questions and many

The semi-structured approach worked well, but because the interview was not tested in advance and the structure was different on both times, the questioning could have been more specific or better structured in general. Because the interviewer was familiar with both of the interviewees beforehand, she had certain conscious and unconscious expectations. When transcribing the interviews, it was noted that some of the questions were suggesting a certain kind of answer based on the preset assumptions. Fortunately, because the subject was well internalized by the interviewees, they did not seem to get confused by the questions, but dared to even object.

According to Eskola & Vastamäki (2001, 25–26), the most common motivators for taking part in a research are the possibility to make one’s opinion heard, sharing one’s own experience, and former positive experience on taking part in a research. Another reason is hoping that sharing one’s experience might help other people in the same situation. The interviewees were chosen due to obvious reasons; both of the professors are the founders of the courses and pioneers in their environment.

Including more interviewees in the study was considered, but this proved as a difficult task, since similar courses seem to be quite rare. It would not have been an equal situation for other courses either, since the researcher would not have had the possibility to observe the courses in the same manner as the previous courses. The understanding would not have been on the same level and the analysis could not have been as deep as with the other two.

5.3.2 Examined Data: Curricula and Course Material

Most of the course material and course outlines have been received from the interviewees during their courses or the interviews. The course material includes articles, book chapters, lecture slides, song examples, and personal lecture notes, for example. All of the material has been analyzed by themes and divided into larger categories. The three categories are: 1) course content/topics, 2) homework/tasks, and 3) course material. The lists of material can be found in the appendices section. These

lists have then been categorized again to a summarizing list of ten general factors, which is presented at the discussion chapter.

The material has been fairly easy to analyze since the researcher is familiar with the content of the material. Categorizing the material under three domains has been rather straightforward, but categorizing the content into general factors of ten was more difficult. Many of the factors tend to overlap and some are left vague. Because of this the focus of some categories is specified with more detailed examples.

5.3.3 Schedule

The gathering of the research material was started in fall 2011 in Boston. Also the first research plan and interview took place at the end of 2011. In spring 2012 after returning to Finland, research plan was reviewed and more research material was gathered based on the new plan. The second interview was conducted in March and both of the interviews were transcribed and partly analyzed during the spring 2012.

The analysis continued throughout the summer, when also half of the text was written and more reference was gathered. The thesis was pre-presented at the end of the summer and fully presented in October 2012. Due to a couple of major simultaneous projects, the personal need to make further adjustments, and review the text and language, releasing the final version has been prolonged and is hereby released at the end of March 2013.

Fall 2011 Research plan’s first draft.

Gathering research material about Berklee and America.

First interview in December.

Spring 2012 Research plan reviewed. Gathering more research material.

Second interview in March.

Transcripts.

Summer 2012 More research material. Organizing and analyzing research material. Writing.

Pre-presenting the results.

Fall 2012 Writing, revising, correcting.

Asking for feedback from the interviewees.

Presenting the results in October.

Spring 2013 Final adjustments.

Proofreading and language check.