Group Interviewing

In selecting an appropriate method for reflecting the views of migrant students with regards to their experiences within integration educations, the policy of giving voice and choice to migrant students dictated arrangements. In addition, the question posed earlier by Baltra-Ulloa (2013) – am I creating space or taking space? – kept reintroducing itself. Asking participants from often vulnerable groups to engage in critical reflection and its related challenges necessitates creating a safe environment. This includes allowing them to preserve their own sense of dignity and integrity.

Therefore, “treading the fine line between protecting the vulnerability, but allowing openness to change, is a constant and delicate balancing act”

(Fook & Gardner 2007, p.189). Another deciding factor in selecting this interview format revolved around the nature of integration educations.

Although institutional arrangements are experienced in a myriad of ways by individuals, they do not act on individuals alone but rather on groups of individuals. These groups (i.e. school classes), develop their own unique coping and supporting strategies. Thus, in choosing group interviews, I attempted to address the collective component of experience in integration educations as well as create opportunities for individual expressions.

Linhorst (2002) has pointed to the relevance of group interviewing by highlighting its consciousness raising, anti-discriminatory and empowering potential. Group interviews are also suitable for interrogating sensitive topics where groups can provide a safer and more empowering environment than one-to-one interviews with someone less familiar. From a pragmatic point of view, given the time constraints dictated by the fieldwork periods, group interviews saved time and allowed for the collection of a rich variety of data.

Interview groups of migrant students typically comprised 3-6 persons and were partly pre-selected by the responsible class instructors at NorQuest while students at Arbis and Medis chose their own groups.

Group constellations varied though ethnic affiliations sometimes played a part. This was especially noticeable when seeking language support. For example, at Medis, a group of Thai students chose to be interviewed together in order assist each other when encountering language difficulties.

In these situations, it also helped to extend the option to students in Finland to speak either Swedish or English, the latter often being the preferred choice as most students’ competence in English exceeded their current Swedish language proficiency. While administrators were not undividedly supportive of the choice of language, I argued for it from and anti-oppressive, student-centered perspective by placing student agency in a pivotal role. The fact that they were able to use their stronger language also improved the quality of the interaction and the subsequent data collected.

In drawing on an ethic of researching multilingually, I opted to foreground language plurality and choice where possible. Such a choice exposes the diversity of realities of both the researcher and study participants (Cannella

& Lincoln 2011).

The ease of collaboration was further enhanced by not insisting on a preselected set of questions to be answered. Instead, topics and

conversations were co-created allowing for optimal student agency in shaping the interview situation. In addition, the choice of interview venue was, wherever possible, decided by students. At NorQuest for example, we often sat in groups on the campus lawn while at Arbis, the cafeteria or the park served as alternative interview spaces. Establishing a climate conducive to critical reflection entailed exploring what respect and partnership meant in the context of the study and what the aim of the process is or should be. It also became apparent that my role as a researcher changed in a group interview situation from that of an interviewer to that of a moderator or facilitator. This meant that one focused more attention on promoting interest in the issues, displaying subtlety in maneuvering among and negotiating topics and allowing for the discussion focus to shift and flow naturally. Carey (2010, p.128) also emphasized the need for the researcher to focus on the needs of “those on the edges” in group interviews. In my student groups, these “edges” often consisted of migrant students whose more limited language skills prevented them from engaging as actively as some others in conversations. In such cases, I addressed individuals specifically in order to give them time and space to formulate thoughts. Otherwise, I tried to “get out of the way” of the organic flow of discussions by consciously limiting my direction and involvement with the result that some interviews ranged further afield than others, consumed more time and in many cases became arenas for reaffirmation and building solidarity.

It has been suggested that because of the inherent inconsistencies and ellipses in oral reports, verbal data must be supplemented with other methodologies in developing comprehensive interpretations in multiple case study approaches. These limitations can be mitigated, however, by combining interview data with data from extended periods of participant observation in cultural or institutional contexts (Woodside 2010). It must be said that without the months spent in classrooms with groups of migrant students, it would have been impossible for me to attain similar levels of familiarity and trust and consequently derive such in-depth critical reflections on their experiences within integration educations.