International Journal of Research & Method in Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cwse20

Exiting the elephant: hearing the participant voice

in qualitative data collection

Kevin James Rumary, Sally Goldspink & Philip Howlett

To cite this article: Kevin James Rumary, Sally Goldspink & Philip Howlett (2023) Exiting the
elephant: hearing the participant voice in qualitative data collection, International Journal of
Research & Method in Education, 46:3, 248-259, DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2022.2128742

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2128742

Published online: 29 Sep 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 480

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cwse20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 46, NO. 3, 248–259
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2128742

Exiting the elephant: hearing the participant voice in qualitative

data collection
Kevin James Rumary , Sally Goldspink and Philip Howlett
HEMS, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Data collection in qualitative research is intended to capture the Received 15 January 2021
participant experience in relation to defined phenomena. Whilst Accepted 22 June 2022
attention is given to the different ways of gathering qualitative data,
KEYWORDS
the presence of the researcher is a common feature. However, the Data collection; vocational
researcher does not hold an inert position in the data collection process education; insider research;
and may influence the type and level of data obtained. This paper interpretative
highlights and explores the issue of researcher presence by suggesting phenomenological analysis;
a strategy to distance the researcher from the data collection frame via qualitative research; self-
self-governing focus groups. Developed in a study examining vocational governing focus groups;
student experience in further education, a data collection method is student voice
proposed which aims to reduce the influencing factor of the researcher.
A self-administered structured question schedule replaces the
interviewer to promote authentic access to the participant voice in an
environment which is familiar, comfortable and safe. Consideration is
given to the construction of the question schedule and recording
procedure which aims to stimulate inclusive and unhindered
contributions, as well as maintaining the research focus. The analysis of
contributions indicates that by standing back, the researcher can see
authentic customary social processes which reveal a meaning of the
phenomena for the participants.

Introduction: contemporary student voice practice

The aim of this paper is to outline how a novel approach in qualitative data collection can be auth-
entically aligned to the context of the research participants. The example in this paper relates to
research with young people in vocational education within a UK Further Education setting.
Research activities designed to gather and use the student voice have become part of contem-
porary educational practice. Contributions from the subjective student experience can inform and
reform educational systems (Cook-Sather 2006; Wilks et al. 2019). As individuals, students carry
with them stories and experiences of the system within which they dwell. Therefore, students
hold a unique perspective of what it means to be in education at a particular point in time.
While there is a large body of research around the use of focus groups in qualitative research (e.g.
Morgan 1996; Gibbs 1997; Kamberelis and Dimitriadis 2013), contemporary studies exploring the
student voice show a tendency towards interviewer led, individual interviews or focus groups as a
method of data gathering (e.g. Macaro and Wingate 2004; Reay et al. 2010; Waters and Brooks
2010; Spohrer 2016; Thornberg and Delby 2019). Examination of the extant body of evidence
could lead to the assumption that the repetition of accepted and common methods for data gather-
ing infers best practice for all situations. However, exploring and articulating the depth and breadth

CONTACT Kevin James Rumary kjr150@pgr.aru.ac.uk HEMS, Anglia Ruskin University, Bishop Hall Lane, Chelmsford,
Essex CM1 1SQ, UK
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 249

of the lived experience can be difficult (Boden and Eatough 2014) but is worthwhile, and research
designs are evolving with innovative, rigorous methods which are epistemologically coherent and
aimed toward complex social scenarios (Larkin et al. 2019).
In school-based research using traditional approaches of interviews or focus groups, the influence
of the interviewer can have an unsettling effect, especially in the context of the teacher–student
relationship with the associated imbalance of power and authority (Campbell et al. 2007). Teachers
as insider interviewers, do not hold a contextually inert position; they are placed in and connected to
the area of research interest. The presence of such an interviewer in data collection tasks is an inher-
ently confounding one (Hox et al. 2004). The scenario of a research interview will also convey some
level of skewing effect (Ecker 2017), which may only become evident via a high level of reflexive
awareness. For example, the interviewer may unintentionally use body language, verbal cues or
simply a misjudged look at a sensitive moment (Gurney et al. 2013). Therefore, the major advantage
of having an interviewer may also be a disadvantage to gaining access to the authentic lived experi-
ence of the participants. By directly guiding the interview, the researcher may miss those elements
which are important to the participants or overlook hidden meanings in taken-for-granted thinking.
Additionally, Campbell (2011) recognized that if students are able to participate in a neutral environ-
ment, their contributions contain valuable insights. The impact of environment is also noted by
McCormack (2012) who observed that more illuminating information was collected away from
teacher supervision.
Decisions about data collection methods include consideration of the power relationship
between student participants and familiar practitioner-researchers (Campbell 2011), while at the
same time, acknowledging the distorting effect which can occur with unfamiliar researchers: Bron-
fenbrenner (1974, p. 3) characterized this presence as a ‘strange adult’ in the room. Hence, not only is
the method of data collection important but the alternative of introducing a neutral or unfamiliar
figure to chair the group may similarly result in skewing the relationship (Bronfenbrenner 1974).

The context of the study

The motivation to explore the experiences of vocational students was prompted by the persistent
and continuing regulatory changes which are a feature of this part of the education system
(Moodie 2002; Independent Panel on Technical Education 2016). The changes that result from
public consultations have a direct impact upon the student participants, making them key stake-
holders. As a teacher–researcher, opportunities to develop a tailored data collection process arose
from observing the social practices of school life, recognizing the students’ use of technology and
the desire to not sway the process of data collection by introducing a social interloper. The aim
was to collect the experience as it is lived and not detach the participant from their customary
context. There is a lack of peer-reviewed literature investigating voices from these key participants
in vocational education, indicating a need for this type of study to take place. In light of these influ-
ences, the study asked the question ‘What is it like to be a Sixth Form vocational student?’.
The exploratory question posed necessitated a research design which encouraged openness to
capture the experience from the participant perspective (Smith et al. 2009). Consequently, an Inter-
pretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) approach was adopted. This methodology seeks to examine
the lived experience and uncover hidden meanings in taken for granted thinking where individuals
are viewed as experts who can offer an understanding of their thoughts, commitments and experi-
ences by telling their own stories (Smith et al. 2009). IPA attends to detailed examination of the
meaning people give to their experience, the analysis relies on rich, thick data produced from
deep engagement by the participant. It should be produced in conditions where the lifeworld
can be described as authentically as possible avoiding ‘wrong-footed’ influential interactions from
the interviewer (Smith et al. 2009; Eatough and Smith 2017). In the design of this study of young
people’s experiences of vocational education, consideration was given to how the participants
might feel most comfortable to share their contemporary insights of being a vocational student.
250 K. J. RUMARY ET AL.

A reflexive research design was required to enable and empower the participants to voice their
experiences and gain insight into the individual and social meanings they ascribe to their edu-
cational world.
The process of interviewing students in unfamiliar situations alludes to ‘the science of the behav-
iour of children in strange situations with strange adults’ (Bronfenbrenner 1974, 3). Many years have
passed since this observation, yet contemporary student voice and qualitative studies still tend
toward the method of semi-structured interviewer-led data collection. The traditional method for
interviewer-participant, semi-structured interviews seemed out of step with the educational back-
drop of the research setting which meant that more creative, ethical and methodologically congru-
ent alternatives had to be sought. A core characteristic of qualitative research is the recognition of
the ordinary milieus in which people or groups operate (Saldaña 2011). As such, the intention of
qualitative research is to offer in-depth conceptualizations of real-world experiences (Denzin and
Lincoln 2018). Decisions about qualitative design and methods hinge on the nature of the research
context, the research question(s) and the approach adopted. Hence, qualitative researchers must
knowledgeably consider the research process and the social processes surrounding their area of
research interest. Furthermore, the researcher does not hold an inert position within the research,
and so careful consideration is needed throughout the research design about the researchers’
own influence, including their physical presence. By adopting a high level of reflexive awareness,
the researcher can implement methods which offer opportunities to look at ordinary situations
and see extraordinary insights.

The elephant in the room

The expression ‘the elephant in the room’ has two facets: the superficial understanding of a large
object or intrusion is one which gains most recognition. In an early use of the phrase, Krylov
(1814) alludes to the second facet, the unintentional ignorance of the phenomena. Over time, this
meaning has morphed into the intentional ignorance or denial of some sociological issues (Zeruba-
vel 2006). As such, attending to the role of the interviewer in qualitative data collection can bring
about an uncomfortable set of realizations about the potential tension between the researcher’s
aim to address the research question and what the data collection experience is like for the partici-
pants. Contemporary studies using IPA within vocational education gave insight into how studies
have been previously designed. For example, Bates (2012, 2014) conducted structured interviews
with vocational students at college or on apprenticeships outside of their usual setting, mostly a
hotel lobby.
While it may be convenient or necessary for some studies to remove the participants from their
usual environment, this decision must be taken in view of the opportunities and barriers that it may
present. The location of this research remained within the school itself and through adopting a
reflexive stance, consideration was given to what would work best for the participants, in view of
the complex dynamics involved in practice-based research and teacher–researcher interactions.
The position of insider researcher allowed the mitigation of several stumbling blocks which often
hamper external researchers, such as access to students and freedom to use innovative methods
with gatekeeper permission. Issues such as duty of care and safeguarding could be addressed in
tandem with ethical approvals and via the existing policies and conventions of routine practice.
The options for the data collection methods had to adhere to practices set out by Keeping Children
Safe in Education guidance for schools (DfE 2020) while still actively listening to the student voice in
context. The interview design in this situation needed to take into account the nature of any power
issues to address the effect of the student/teacher relationship, and to minimize any skewing effect
that the presence of an interviewer may have.
Replication of the natural social environment is intended to encourage the participants to freely
share their experiences (Bronfenbrenner 1974). The ‘elephant in the room’ like presence of the inter-
viewer required rethinking to fully hear the participant voice. This paradox of ‘moving away to gain
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 251

more’ became a central feature to discover what was going on in the participants world. The delib-
erate decision to physically distance the interviewer away from the interview frame – the exiting of
the elephant – by locating the self-governing focus group in a different room to the researcher was
intended to address the issues of power. The removal of the interviewer aimed to open a new kind of
space to hear the participants voices without disrupting the conversational flow. It is impossible to
know what would have happened if the interviewer had been present; however, the objective was to
explore methods that engender autonomy by creating safe environments for participants to freely
share their insights and ideas. In this case, the teacher-researcher was a familiar face, who by
definition of their teaching role had authority, along with their own foregrounded filters that may
unintentionally distort an interview. However, this position also had to be balanced with the advan-
tage of embeddedness in the school environment and access to the authentic lifeworld of the
student. As a result, the interviewer role in this study was replaced by a list of self-administered ques-
tions, carefully designed to elicit in-depth responses from groups of students.

The self-governing focus group

To identify opportunities to remain attentive to participant’s natural social practice and acknowledge
a wealth of experience of focus group use in qualitative research (e.g. Morgan 1996; Gibbs 1997;
Kamberelis and Dimitriadis 2013), the merits and drawbacks of individual and group (focus group)
interviews were examined with regard for this specific case. Both types of interviews have been fre-
quently compared to each other (e.g. Gill et al. 2008; Coenen et al. 2012; Namey et al. 2016) and
superficially these comparisons highlight differences in practical issues such as the time, effort
and cost (Coenen et al. 2012; Namey et al. 2016). In this scenario, situated within a secondary
school, the issues highlighted could be easily mitigated due to the students always being present
on-site during school hours.
The decision to use single interviews or focus groups centred not only on the specific practical
considerations, but the potential type and depth of data that could be gathered. Kaplowitz and
Hoehn (2001) and Gill et al. (2008) advocate for focus groups to have a skilled host to steer the dis-
cussion and ensure attention centres on the area of concern is a major consideration when research-
ing with adolescents. Goodwin and Happell (2009) also point out that focus groups are likely to result
in a collective opinion, rather than an individual one. Dialogue can be stifled when social pressures
prevent the discussion and disclosure of contentious information, which is more likely to be gained
during individual interviews (Kaplowitz and Hoehn 2001; Wutich et al. 2010). However, an important
feature of focus groups is their ability to generate and build ideas through discussion (Lambert and
Loiselle 2008). In this setting, the participants may be enabled to expand on an issue by using dia-
logue to add depth to their responses that otherwise may be lost (Woolley et al. 2018).
To maintain and promote the natural environment of the participants, individual interviews could
not replicate their everyday social experience. The process of removal from peers and setting up an
individual, ‘out of the ordinary’ conversation would impact on the usual style of communication.
Instead, a modified version of a focus group was adopted to establish a participant-orientated
option, whilst preserving the intention to an individual interview to gain idiosyncratic depth and
detail. The method removed the external presence of the interviewer or focus group facilitator
and was consequently described as a ‘self-governing focus group’.
The concept of self-governing focus groups had the advantage of providing a mechanism to
access the unique lived experience of participants who might struggle with traditional interview
formats of data collection. The theoretical basis of IPA consists of a commitment to idiography
(Smith 2004), whereby each participant voice remains heard via the detailed analysis of the single
case prior to progressing to an equally detailed analyses of further cases. As such, using focus
groups to elicit data may appear to be methodologically incongruent. However, methods of data
collection need to ethically weighed up with what works for the participants as well as what
works for the research. There is no one way to fulfil the commitment of IPA to the idiographic
252 K. J. RUMARY ET AL.

approach, instead researchers must use their underpinning theoretical and practice-based knowl-
edge along with their research integrity to sort through the options and possibilities for understand-
ing more about how participants subjectively experience their world. To develop the scope and
usage of IPA, some modifications have been suggested to the analytic process to extend the poten-
tial that varying types of data collection can have (Tomkins and Eatough 2010; Githaiga 2014; Phillips
et al. 2016), this includes the use of focus groups (Love et al. 2020). Innovative data collection designs
are gradually emerging to counter the known pitfalls such as power issues and interviewer influence.
Innovation is required to reflect the complex world of the participants, and to capture the authentic
lived experience modes of data collection must dynamically and responsively move with the needs
of participants.

Data collection tool

In interviews, a schedule of questions should aim to help the interviewer in bringing forth the
descriptions of their experience in as much detail as possible from the interviewee or focus group
(Ennis and Chen 2012). In the case of this research scenario, with a distanced interviewer, the ques-
tions had to be understandable by the participants without any further clarification. This process had
merit in allowing students to decipher and decide meaning without influence, but this meant that
the questions had to be easily readable and avoid ambiguity. Esmond and Wood (2017) character-
ized the vocational sector of education as including students who often need further support in their
education, sometimes around reading. With these factors in mind, the schedule was checked for age
appropriateness on the Flesch Reading Ease scale (Kincaid et al. 1975). While this provided some
empirical guidance to readability, the main influence came from long-standing familiarity with stu-
dents in the school and supervisory input in terms of sense checking.
The questions were devised using guidance about the types of questions that can be applied
(Kvale and Brinkmann 2009; Smith et al. 2009), with a rationale for each question. In other words,
consideration was not only given to how the questions could be asked, but also why they were
being asked. The intention was to avoid making assumptions about the participants’ experiences
and stimulate inclusive and unhindered contributions, whilst placing the spotlight on the area of
research interest. The example of question structuring from Goldspink (2017) was used as guidance
on the interpretation of IPA theory into practice in terms of developing the wording, structure and
clarity of intent for participants.
To address the research question for this specific study, the analysis of socially situated data
aimed to capture the participants’ wider world view, which included and moved beyond their
immediate school life. Bronfenbrenner’s (1981) Ecological Systems model provides a structure,
detailing the types of interaction a student may have with the world around them and the inter-
actions between these operators. The use of Bronfenbrenner (1981) as a conceptual tool highlighted
the individual and contextual systems simultaneously. As a result, the Ecological Systems model was
used alongside the suggestions made by Smith et al. (2009) to produce a ‘hybrid’ of influences which
informed the design of the interview questions.
The process of moving from the superficial and descriptive replies to deeper, more conceptual
and analytical reactions directed the order of the questions (Smith et al. 2009). To enhance the
frame of enquiry, the questions deliberately manoeuvred between Bronfenbrenner’s immediate
microsystem through to the more expansive and distant macrosystem by examining the links
with the exosystem and mesosystem. In other words, the questions took into account features of
the life world which directly and indirectly influenced the participants’ experience of their vocational
education. Therefore, the schedule design encouraged participants to develop their responses by
reflecting on their experiences, as they described them (Table 1).
The relocation of the interviewer necessitated a methodologically congruent and ethical strategy
to record the participant contributions for analysis. Rather than looking outward for options to
record the participant responses, attention turned inward to the internal habits and customs of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 253

school life. The students regularly narrated their lives verbally and digitally with peers, and this
awareness led to the realization that mimicry of natural social processes offered an alternative to
the traditional procedure of the semi-structured interview. The routines of social of interaction
could be used as a method of data collection to enable students to feel comfortable to describe
and explore their lived experiences (Bronfenbrenner 1974). The appreciation of these accepted
ways of being, opened the possibility to authentically learn more about those ways of being,
from the student perspective.
Contemporary secondary school students experience total immersion with mobile phones and
other communication technology (Bennett et al. 2008). To acknowledge and work with the student’s
digital fluency, the mechanism to record the data was positioned in the participants’ world by using
the functional familiarity of a mobile phone. The application of video offered a tool to break down
potential barriers linked to verbal skills and power issues, as the mobile phone represented a device
which is known and predictable as opposed to the unfamiliar and outdated Dictaphone. In other
words, the mobile phone is an accepted object, which is both ordinary and when positively used,
non-threatening. The use of video through sharing and online social interaction often leads students
to contribute more freely and more authentically because it blurs and merges the interface between
digital and face-to-face contact.
The process of physically relocating the interviewer and the participants taking control of record-
ing their interaction should not be seen as a method of completely removing interviewer influence

Table 1. Question schedule used in self-governing focus groups in a secondary setting.

Ecological systems
Question IPA focus focus
1 What courses are you studying? Please describe them. Introductory, pen-
portrait
2 How and why did you choose your courses? How have people reacted Descriptive Microsystem
to your course choices? This could include
– Your parents and family
– Teachers Friends Careers advisors
– Any potential employers
3 What is it like to be a learner on your courses? Evaluative Microsystem
– How do your teachers talk to you?
– How do you feel after a day at school?
– What is hard or easy?
– Is the course what you thought it would be?
4 How do you think people would talk about the courses you have Circular Exosystem
chosen?
Would they say good or bad things, and what do you think they
might be?
These people could be,
– Your parents and family
– Teachers
– Friends
– Careers advisors
– Any potential employers
– Anybody else?
5 What are the main differences between your vocational courses and A- Descriptive Microsystem
Levels?
This could include,
– How the courses are taught.
– How you work with the teachers.
– How these courses fit in with what you want to do after you leave
school.
6 Do you think these courses will help you and other people in the Evaluative Mesosystem
future? How?
7 What are the benefits and difficulties of vocational courses in the area Evaluative Macrosystem
where you live and the whole country?
8 Is there anything more you would like to say? Is there anything missing Evaluative
from these questions?
254 K. J. RUMARY ET AL.

on participant contributions. Rather, it is a method for creating distance between the two, thereby
minimizing the direct influence of the interviewer. However, it is likely that the participants will still
be aware of the aspect of surveillance (albeit it at a distance) that is part of the analysis process and
so subsequently might modify their contributions. In studies of the medical uses of self-controlled
surveillance where the subjects controlled the monitoring device (thereby comparable to this
context), the findings have challenged Foucault’s (1993) ideas of power within surveillance
(Forbat et al. 2008) with patients reporting the experience as ‘positive’. It is, of course, possible
that the inclusion of a recording device into a social situation such as a ‘self-governing focus
group’ will have an impact upon the authenticity of contributions. However, this factor is mitigated
by the voluntary nature of the interviews, the right to withdraw and the participants having control
of the recording device. Participants engaged in the self-governing focus groups with the knowledge
that they could decide what would be kept in the recording and what to erase before returning the
mobile phone to the researcher. The ability to independently erase their individual contribution
signals a shift in the power dynamic because the direct control of what data is given to the
researcher resides with the participant. Therefore, in terms of concerns about the issue of surveil-
lance, those who are observed are empowered to decide what is seen. Primarily, the intention for
recordings being made was ethically minded and participants were informed at all stages about
the process, consequently this research design has received full ethical approval.
In the absence of an interviewer, the use of video in IPA Analysis presents some methodological
challenges, as well as some potential advantages in accessing the contribution of some individuals.
Video content allows for much richness, providing a conduit for participants to talk directly to the
researcher (Nash and Moore 2018). The active process of self-representation in making videos
(Gibson 2005) has an underlying parallel in IPA with that of the generation of art or photos
during the interview process (Kirova and Emme 2006; Bartoli 2019). These methods can give unhin-
dered admission to a conversation that otherwise may not have been heard. In addition, the video
function also provided a safeguarding instrument by ensuring transparency in the participant inter-
actions and the opportunity to see as well as hear what had occurred. In the context of school-based
research, innovation must be balanced with ethical decision-making and the protection of the par-
ticipants (BERA 2018). Video and voice recordings carry greater risks for the identification of the con-
tributor. When these mediums are used it is imperative to follow BERA (2018), stipulations around
digital security, anonymity and confidentiality.
All school-based interviews are subject to the guidelines defined by Department for Education’s
‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’ guidelines (DfE 2020). While the participants were in school with
nearby accessible staff, the key impact of these regulations would be in the reporting of any disclos-
ures of significant safeguarding issues made by any students before, during or after the process. Par-
ticipants were informed of this potential break of confidentiality during the volunteering process
through a participant information form. From the outset, the participants were involved in conversa-
tions about the ethical parameters of this research and informed that no other members of staff
would have access to recordings, unless disclosures were made. If this took place, the participant
would be informed and supported. It was made explicitly clear that the decision to participate
was the participant’s decision, and they would not be coerced into any study using influential
relationships.

Self-governing focus group – in practice

The participants were able to organize themselves within friendship groups of three, this was
intended to encourage the formulation of deeper meanings within the group sessions (Montague
et al. 2020). The self-selection factor of the group make-up empowers the participants by giving
them choice but also permits nuanced insights regarding the social and psychological process
involved in a defined area of research interest. Three groups of three students contributed, this
ensured that enough participants were included to draw secure themes from the discussion, as
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 255

well as provide some protection against unforeseen withdrawals. At the point of recruitment, no
attempts to influence the groups make up by gender or level of study were made. The selection
of certain traits of students to participate was considered to be another potential source of
researcher bias and did not follow the ethos of a ‘self-governing’ focus group. In this study, the
data collection method relied on how each group defined, explored and voiced their responses
to the question schedule. To address the specific research purpose, attention turned to their collec-
tive insights as vocational students rather than attending to their individual protected character-
istics. Therefore, no parameters were set about who could participate, other than the academic
year as it was not the intention of this research to identify specific groups of students, but to seek
the views of members of the student community in one-sixth form provision.
For the self-governing focus group, a mobile phone capable of recording video was given to each
group of students to do what has been observed to be part of their normal lives, record themselves
independently discussing the questions provided. A suitable quiet office within easy reach of the
researcher was chosen as the venue. In their small groups, the participants recorded their discussion
of questions by themselves. The researcher intentionally did not single out any participant to lead or
read out the questions. The way the participants approached the questions was intended to be
organic within the group with the aim of preserving the natural social practices, with the researcher
stepping away from structuring the discussion.
After the interview, the recording device was handed back to the researcher. An initial viewing of
the video was then made to ensure that no participant had disclosed any information which required
to be reported to ensure student safeguarding. To prepare a package of data for IPA analysis, the
audio content was then transcribed with particular attention to ensuring that all contributions
were aligned to the appropriate participant. Participants were then asked to review the transcript
individually and expand on any points. This secondary contribution was not recorded but had its
content noted down on the transcript with the intention of capturing any more contentions
points as well as finalizing the consent process. All personally identifiable content was then
removed from the transcript to create an added layer to preserve confidentiality.
The control of recorded data was actively considered by the researcher to comply with ethical and
GDPR regulations. The mobile phone recording device supplied was disconnected from all networks
and contained no other data that students could access. Immediately after use, the data were trans-
ferred from the phone onto password-protected, encrypted USB memory sticks and deleted from the
phone. The USB sticks were held in a locked facility at the researcher’s professional establishment. In
this manner, data security was assured as was the privacy and autonomy of the participants and
organization. Through the consent process, students gave permission for data collection, storage
and its specific use in this study. Students were given a participant information sheet confirming
the data controllers contact details.

The outcome
The recordings show the participants contributing in a strikingly natural and relaxed manner. Any
preconceived fears that the participants would steer away from the focus were unfounded. The par-
ticipants skilfully and confidently operated the recording equipment, producing data sets ranging
between 35 and 60 min. In each recording, all questions were attempted, and each group
handled the conversation with deliberate care and attention. The participants created their own col-
laborative and supportive conversational milieu, liberally employing humour to rouse further
nuanced detail, whilst moments of bluntness punctuated the conversation, replacing tact with
obtrusive clarity. The accounts gave rise to many stories and experiences which, to this point
were hidden to the teacher–researcher. As demonstrated in the two transcript excerpts below, par-
ticipants took their time to give considered and detailed answers to the camera, ensuring that their
viewpoints were clearly recorded with contentious content in the form of specific criticism present in
all three recordings from the outset.
256 K. J. RUMARY ET AL.

Excerpt 1
Molly: Oh, okay. I chose my courses in year 11. I chose food and nutrition because I was like, ‘Well, I’m shit at art.’
So, I’ll choose Food and Nutrition because I’m pretty good at cooking. And that’s basically why I chose that and
my friends, family teachers, they were like, ‘Yeah, choose cooking.’ And my art teacher like ‘don’t choose art
you’re not– you know, like, you’ll probably do better in cooking.’ I was like, ‘Cool. All right then.’ And I chose
CAPA because it got me out of PE, but also because I always, like, I kind of regretted not doing drama as like
a GCSE. So, when that opportunity came up, like you can get out PE if you do like a CAPA in drama. I
jumped at the chance. I was like, ‘Yay, acting’ and then I had an emotional breakdown, and now I hate
acting, so that.

Excerpt 2
Vicky: Um, on my courses it was alright when we had a teacher. Food and Nutrition since I suppose– Since it
wasn’t taken as seriously, cover wasn’t taken as seriously so we spend half of year 10 without a teacher. Remem-
ber that? That was fun. Basically, not doing anything. People saw it as an easy subject you had a bunch of rowdy
kids not caring thinking they didn’t have to do anything. That was annoying. You had um, but it’s when the tea-
chers were there it was all right ‘cause they saw the state we’re in they’re like, ‘ah, bollocks, we have to do a lot of
stuff now to make up for it.’ But I mean, I’ve got a distinction in it. So, it was all right.

The design of the self-governing focus group re-positions the interviewer outside the immediacy
of the conversation. Within IPA research, an assumed function of the interviewer is to probe partici-
pants in order to learn more about their lifeworld by establishing a rapport and following up on
arising matters. This position also allows the observation of subtle gestures or indications which
could help to clarify a point (Berger 2015) or lead to richer data (Merriam et al. 2001). It is impossible
to judge the significance of these factors on the outcomes; in this case, a thick package of data was
produced which enabled meaningful analysis. The probing role of the interviewer was effectively re-
cast to participants resulting in a discourse of developing ideas among friends, with shared silences
often drawing attention to key points and understandings. This was enhanced by the video content
which allowed a greater understanding of the verbatim transcript as it brought to life the colloqui-
alisms, vocal intonation, subtle (but important) aside comments and irony. This media could also be
reviewed to revisit the gentle nuances of a developing point: as Berger (2015) notes, when inter-
preted with local knowledge, the insider position can attain greater depths of understanding.

Exit the elephant

Re-positioning the interviewer away from the interview frame is a considered effort to promote a
greater sense of participant autonomy via familiarity of the interaction with their social peers. This
is a change from a typical research interview, although still with limitations in terms of following
a semi-structured question schedule and background researcher function and presence. In this
instance, participants were asked to contribute to a situation which actively aims to reduce the
impact of power issues, lessening the stress and tension during the data gathering process. The con-
struction of a well thought through schedule of questions, combined with a structured, ethically
driven approach to bringing participants together can facilitate the gathering of rich, thick and indi-
vidually orientated data. Data are offered to the research in an environment which promotes self-
efficacy and uses familiar equipment, with the support of friends to develop ideas. The self-governed
focus group is grounded in the realization of gathering information from the participant standpoint
and moves away from the common and comfortable (to the researcher) researcher-centric position.
The researcher must recognize and accept that the participants will provide the data that they view
as important, in a way that is meaningful and authentic to them in their social context. Hence, as the
researcher relinquishes their sense of direct conversational control and influence in the room, pos-
sibilities develop for discovering novel insights that the researcher does not possess themselves.
Therefore, the opportunity to gather vibrant and unique conversational narratives alleviates con-
cerns about what may be lost without the interviewer presence. Stepping away from the participants
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 257

in this case allowed a close observation of participants inner lives. Through innovation and creative
thinking, researchers can adopt a range of methods aligned to the assumptions and principles of
qualitative research that value the importance of first-person perspectives in gaining subjective
understanding of the designated area of research interest. However, without considered and critical
review of the methods for collecting qualitative data, some research projects may easily slip into the
tracks made by those in previous research by ignoring the participants unique needs and abilities to
contribute thought adopting a standard interview process. The data collection strategy outlined in
this paper demonstrates the importance of tackling take-for-granted assumptions in qualitative
research design. To fully examine the subjective, lived experience, qualitative researchers must
find the courage to knowledgeably and ethically develop novel ways to access the participants’
social world and discover authentic, unique and meaningful insights.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Kevin James Rumary http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7014-3013
Sally Goldspink http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4265-2766
Philip Howlett http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7561-7510

References
Bartoli, A., 2019. Every picture tells a story: combining interpretative phenomenological analysis with visual research.
Qualitative social work, 19 (5-6), 1007–1021. doi:10.1177/1473325019858664.
Bates, E., 2012. The transformative power of learning: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of the learning
experience of apprentices. In: Proceedings of the international academic conference. Lisbon, Portugal: Novotel
Lisboa Hotel. doi:10.21427/D7HR5B
Bates, E., 2014. College is where the real learning happens: perceptions from Irish craft apprentices using interpretative
phenomenological analysis. International journal of arts and sciences, 7 (3), 419–429. doi:10.21427/D7J22M.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., and Kervin, L., 2008. The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. British journal of
educational technology, 39 (5), 775–786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.
Berger, R., 2015. Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative
research, 15 (2), 219–234. doi:10.1177/1468794112468475.
Boden, Z., and Eatough, V., 2014. Understanding more fully: a multimodal hermeneutic-phenomenological approach.
Qualitative research in psychology, 11 (2), 160–177. doi:10.1080/14780887.2013.853854.
British Educational Research Association (BERA). 2018. Ethical guidelines for educational research. Available from:
https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-for-Educational-Research_4thEdn_
2018.pdf [Accessed 29 Dec 2020].
Bronfenbrenner, U., 1974. Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child development, 45
(1), 1–5. doi:10.2307/1127743.
Bronfenbrenner, U., 1981. The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Campbell, F., et al. 2007. Hearing the student voice: promoting and encouraging the effective use of student voice to
enhance professional development in learning, teaching and assessment within higher education. Napier University.
Available from: http://www2.napier.ac.uk/studentvoices/prodev/publications.htm.
Campbell, F., 2011. How to hear and to heed the student voice, edited by W. Kidd and G. Czerniawski, eds. Student voice
handbook: bridging the academic/practitioner divide, 268. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
Coenen, M., et al., 2012. Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of
two qualitative methods. Quality of life research, 21 (2), 359–370. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9943-2.
Cook-Sather, A., 2006. Sound, presence, and power: ‘student voice’ in educational research and reform. Curriculum
inquiry, 36 (4), 359–390. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00363.x.
Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S., 2018. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Department for Education (DfE). 2020. Keeping children safe in education. Available from: https://assets.publishing.
service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/912592/Keeping_children_safe_in_
education_Sep_2020.pdf [Accessed 29 Dec 2020].
258 K. J. RUMARY ET AL.

Eatough, V., and Smith, J.A., 2017. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: C. Willig, and W Stainton-Rogers, eds.
Handbook of qualitative psychology. 2nd ed. London: Sage, 193–211.
Ecker, J., 2017. A reflexive inquiry on the effect of place on research interviews conducted with homeless and vulnerably
housed individuals. Forum qualitative social research, 18 (1), 1–20. doi:10.17169/fqs-18.1.2706.
Ennis, C.D., and Chen, S., 2012. Interviews and focus groups. In: K. Armour and D Macdonald, eds. Research methods in
physical education and youth sport. New York: Routledge, 217–236.
Esmond, B., and Wood, H., 2017. More morphostasis than morphogenesis? The ‘dual professionalism’ of English further
education workshop tutors. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 69 (2), 229–245. doi:10.1080/13636820.
2017.1309568.
Forbat, L., et al., 2008. The use of technology in cancer care: applying Foucault’s ideas to explore the changing dynamics
of power in health care. Journal of advanced nursing, 65 (2), 306–315. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04870.
Foucault, M., 1993. The birth of the clinic. London: Routledge.
Gibbs, A., 1997. Focus groups. Social research update, 19 (8), 1–8. Available from: https://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/her-
macdonaldsbs2000fall2015b/files/2011/06/Focus-Groups_Anita-Gibbs.pdf [Accessed 29 Dec 2020.].
Gibson, B.E., 2005. Co-producing video diaries: the presence of the ‘absent’ researcher. International journal of qualitative
methods, 4 (4), 34–43. doi:10.1177/160940690500400403.
Gill, P., et al., 2008. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal,
204 (6), 291. doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192.
Githaiga, J.N., 2014. Methodological considerations in utilization of focus groups in an IPA study of bereaved parental
cancer caregivers in Nairobi. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11 (4), 400–419. doi:10.1080/14780887.2014.933918.
Goldspink, S., 2017. A phenomenological exploration of adult, asynchronous distance learning. Ed.D diss. Anglia Ruskin
University. Available from: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/703124.
Goodwin, V., and Happell, B., 2009. Seeing both the forest and the trees: a process for tracking individual responses in
focus group interviews. Nurse researcher, 17 (1), 62–67. doi:10.7748/nr2009.10.17.1.62.c7341.
Gurney, D.J., Pine, K.J., and Wiseman, R., 2013. The gestural misinformation effect: skewing eyewitness testimony
through gesture. The American journal of psychology, 125 (3), 301–313. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.3.0301.
Hox, L., de Leeuw, E., and Kreft, G., 2004. The effect of interviewer and respondent characteristics on the quality of survey
data: a multilevel model. In: P. Biemer, R. Groves, L. Lyberg, N. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman, eds. Measurement errors in
surveys 439–461. doi:10.1002/9781118150382.ch22
Independent Panel on Technical Education. 2016. Report of the Independent Panel on Technical Education [Sainsbury
Review]. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, London. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536046/Report_of_the_Independent_Panel_
on_Technical_Education.pdf [Accessed 4 Apr 2019].
Kamberelis, G., and Dimitriadis, G., 2013. Focus groups. London: Routledge.
Kaplowitz, M.D., and Hoehn, J.P., 2001. Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for
natural resource valuation? Ecological economics, 36 (2), 237–247. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00226-3.
Kincaid, J.P., et al. 1975. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch
reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training, U. S. Naval Air Station, 1975. http://
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA006655.
Kirova, A., and Emme, M., 2006. Using photography as a means of phenomenological seeing: ‘doing phenomenology’
with immigrant children. Indo-pacific journal of phenomenology: method in phenomenology, 6, 1–12. doi:10.1080/
20797222.2006.11433934.
Krylov, I., 1814. The inquisitive man, edited by W. R. S. Ralston, ed. Krilof and his Fables, 43–44. London: Strahan and Co.
Kvale, S., and Brinkmann, S., 2009. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lambert, S.D., and Loiselle, C.G., 2008. Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness.
Journal of advanced nursing, 62 (2), 228–237. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04559.x.
Larkin, M., Shaw, R., and Flowers, P., 2019. Multiperspectival designs and processes in interpretative phenomenological
analysis. Qualitative research in psychology, 16 (2), 1–17. doi:10.1080/14780887.2018.1540655.
Love, B., Vetere, A., and Davis, P., 2020. Should interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) be used with focus
groups? navigating the bumpy road of “iterative loops, idiographic journeys, and phenomenological bridges.
International journal of qualitative methods, 19. doi:10.1177/1609406920921600.
Macaro, E., and Wingate, U., 2004. From sixth form to university: motivation and transition among high achieving state-
school language students. Oxford review of education, 30 (4), 467–488. doi:10.1080/0305498042000303964.
McCormack, M., 2012. The positive experiences of openly Gay, Lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students in a
Christian sixth form college. Sociological research online, 17 (3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2461.
Merriam, S.B., et al., 2001. Power and positionality: negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures.
International journal of lifelong education, 20 (5), 405–416. doi:10.1080/02601370120490.
Montague, J., et al., 2020. Expanding hermeneutic horizons: working as multiple researchers and with multiple partici-
pants. Research methods in medicine and health sciences, 1 (1), 25–30. doi:10.1177/2632084320947571.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH & METHOD IN EDUCATION 259

Moodie, G., 2002. Identifying vocational education and training. Journal of vocational education and training, 54 (2), 249–
265. doi:10.1080/13636820200200197.
Morgan, D.L., 1996. Focus groups. Annual review of sociology, 22 (1), 129–152. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129.
Namey, E., et al., 2016. Evaluating bang for the buck: a cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and
focus groups based on thematic saturation levels. American journal of evaluation, 37 (3), 425–440. doi:10.1177/
1098214016630406.
Nash, M., and Moore, R., 2018. Exploring methodological challenges of using participant-produced digital video diaries
in Antarctica. Sociological research online, 23 (3), 589–605. doi:10.1177/1360780418769677.
Phillips, E., Montague, J., and Archer, S., 2016. Worlds within worlds: a strategy for using interpretative phenomenolo-
gical analysis with focus groups. Qualitative research in psychology, 13 (4), 289–302. doi:10.1080/14780887.2016.
1205692.
Reay, D., Crozier, G., and Clayton, J., 2010. Fitting in or standing out: working-class students in UK higher education.
British educational research journal, 36 (1), 107–124. doi:10.1080/01411920902878925.
Saldaña, J., 2011. Fundamentals of qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, J.A., 2004. Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to
qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 1 (1), 39–54. doi:10.1191/1478088704qp004oa.
Smith, J.A., Flowers, P., and Larkin, M., 2009. Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research.
London: SAGE.
Spohrer, K., 2016. Negotiating and contesting ‘success’: discourses of aspiration in a UK secondary school. Discourse:
studies in the cultural politics of education, 37 (3), 411–425. doi:10.1080/01596306.2015.1044423.
Thornberg, R., and Delby, H., 2019. How do secondary school students explain bullying? Educational research, 61 (2),
142–160. doi:10.1080/00131881.2019.1600376.
Tomkins, L., and Eatough, V., 2010. Reflecting on the use of IPA with focus groups: pitfalls and potentials. Qualitative
research in psychology, 7 (3), 244–262. doi:10.1080/14780880903121491.
Waters, J., and Brooks, R., 2010. Accidental achievers? international higher education, class reproduction and privilege in
the experiences of UK students overseas. British journal of sociology of education, 31 (2), 217–228. doi:10.1080/
01425690903539164.
Wilks, J.L., et al., 2019. Working towards ‘doing It better’: seeking the student voice in teacher education. Australian
journal of teacher education, 44 (1), 76–92. doi:10.14221/ajte.2018v44n1.5.
Woolley, K., Edwards, K.L., and Glazebrook, C., 2018. Focus group or individual interviews for exploring children’s health
behaviour: the example of physical activity. Advances in paediatric research, 5 (2), 1–10. doi:10.24105/apr.2018.5.11.
Wutich, A., et al., 2010. Comparing focus group and individual responses on sensitive topics: a study of water decision
makers in a desert city. Field methods, 22 (1), 88–110. doi:10.1177/1525822X09349918.
Zerubavel, E., 2006. The elephant in the room silence and denial in everyday life. New York: Oxford University Press.