organizational behavior

http://qrj.sagepub.com

Qualitative Research

DOI: 10.1177/1468794107082301 2007; 7; 447 Qualitative Research

Sefika Mertkan-Ozünlü educational policy in North Cyprus

Reflexive accounts about qualitative interviewing within the context of

http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/4/447 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Qualitative Research Additional services and information for

http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://qrj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/7/4/447SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 21 articles hosted on the Citations

© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 http://qrj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://qrj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/7/4/447


ABSTRACT Located within policy studies and politics of education in NorthCyprus, this article is a medium through which methodologicalquandaries about reflexive accounts of qualitative interviewing arise in adialogic fashion within the arena of education reform. Relying primarilyon field notes, it explores the two-way management and negotiation ofidentity work, its effects on data gathering, and the public and privatesides of interviewing. The researcher, present author, argues throughnumerous examples that both interviewees and the interviewer areactively engaged in identity crafting. These co-constructed identitiesinfluence the data-gathering process and the emerging intersubjectivenarratives of lived experiences in social worlds. She also makes acase that reflexive accounts of identity work are intersubjective,co-constructed identities are not genuinely knowable and the identitywork is not genuinely comprehensible.

KEYWORDS: interviewing, identity work, policy research, research methodology

A mutual friend and an experienced ethnographer encouraged me to take a journeythat would last long. ‘Why don’t you research something your community wouldbenefit from? Why don’t you explore home where your heart beats even when youare miles away?’ she asked one day while driving in North Cyprus. ‘You would be aperfect match,’ she said, letting the idea grow in me. She was right. Here I am a yearlater writing reflexively about my initial field experiences at home. Can I authenti-cally represent my self and my experience? I do not think so! The complex interre-lationship among the self and the potential other(s) would not allow me to do so(Morson and Emerson, 1990). And nor would the ‘double vision’ (Rosaldo, 1993).I start a new journey with these issues and concerns in mind. (Journal entry)

IntroductionInterviewing is a key research method the qualitative researcher often employsand research students are trained to use. It is an important feature of the‘interview society’ we live in (Atkinson and Silverman, 1997; Fontana and

A RT I C L E 447

Reflexive accounts about qualitativeinterviewing within the context ofeducational policy in North Cyprus

DOI: 10.1177/1468794107082301

Qualitative ResearchCopyright © 2007SAGE Publications(Los Angeles,London, New Delhiand Singapore)vol. 7(4) 447–459

QR

S E F I K A M E RT K A N - Ö Z Ü N L ÜUniversity of Nottingham, UK



448

Frey, 2000; Gubrium and Holstein, 2002). Given this significance of inter-viewing, it is not surprising that there is an ongoing search for the advance-ment of our knowledge of the interviewing process. To the potential student ofthe past, literature presented tips and strategies to be employed prior to andduring the interview process, but did not demonstrate the complexities ofinterviewing, experiences of interviewers and the pitfalls of the researchprocess (Ball, 1993; Coffey, 1999; Darlington and Scott, 2002; Davies, 1999;Delamont, 2002; Powney and Watts, 1987; Walford, 2001). To the potentialresearch student of today, it presents a much more complex and interactiveresearch process during which meaning is co-constructed through the inter-play among the researcher, respondents and the context. Even though‘uncomfortable reflexivities’ advocated by Pillow (2003) are not yet widelyexercised, self-conscious, reflexive accounts of the research process in generaland interviewing in particular are no longer uncommon (Coffey, 2002; Denzinand Lincoln, 1994).

This article reflects this trend and seeks to contribute to the fast growingknowledge base on qualitative interviewing as interactive and reflexive practice.Located within policy studies and politics of education in North Cyprus, it reflex-ively explores the complex nature of qualitative interviewing within policy set-tings as the main data-gathering method employed during the study revisited. Itis, thus, a medium through which methodological quandaries about qualitativeinterviewing arise in a dialogic fashion within the politicized arena of educa-tional reform in North Cyprus. It stresses three interrelated theoretical positionsin relation to the current analysis of the interviewing process it represents:

1. Interviewing is an interactive process during which representations of social worldexperiences are conditioned by the socio-political and socio-historical context ofthe interview process. No absolute truth claims can be held on these representa-tions (Hammersley, 1992; Holliday, 2002; Miller and Glassner, 2004).

2. Interviewing is a medium influenced by identity work (Cassell, 2005; Seale, 1998).It is imperative to reflect on the interviewer’s role in identity construction (Rapley,2001).

3. The act of writing involves transformation of ‘I-for-myself ’ to an image for theother in relation to the image of ‘the-other-for-me’ in Bakhtinian terms (Morsonand Emerson, 1990) and transformation of my crafted self to another throughinformed interpretations of different readers at different times in different places(Crotty, 2003; Straw, 1990). It is, thus, impossible, to achieve fully transparent andtruthful reflexive accounts.

These positions have already informed previous research and so some readersare already aware of the complexity of the issue. However, reflexive accountslocated within policy studies and politics of education are rare. In addition,research on interviewing does not often distinguish elites from non-elites andpresents generic difficulties. This article seeks to address this area and to doso through reflection on my experiences of researching elites in a highly politi-cized and contested context – that of North Cyprus.

Qualitative Research 7(4)



The study within its socio-political contextCyprus was parted by the green line in 1964 due to growing intercommunalhostility and violence, and physically divided into North and South in 1974.This partition is a visible scar of the historic ‘Cyprus Problem’ resulting fromdiverse nationalist realities and aspirations and bi-polar nationalism (Bryant,2001). Today Turkish Cypriots live in the north governed by the TurkishRepublic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) founded in 1983; Greek Cypriots residein the south controlled by the Republic of Cyprus established in 1960. TRNChas not been recognized as legitimate and the north has suffered from inter-national embargoes seriously threatening its economic, political, and socialwell-being.

Soon after the ‘Cyprus Problem’ took its place within the European politicalagenda with the application of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Unionin 1990, the world witnessed heated international interventions in the islandto find a solution to the ‘Dispute’. Turkish Cypriots united to pressure all par-ties involved to reach a workable solution and in the early 2000s NorthNicosia, Ínönü Square in particular, saw mass demonstrations for peace,reunion and EU membership:

Gathered in Ínönü Square in north Nicosia were over 70,000 people in early2004. Speakers emphasized the need for social and political reengineering, peaceand EU membership. People agreed wholeheartedly. I was one of them. And so wasone of the policy makers sitting in front of me. (Personal notes)

As I discuss in more detail later, supporting the political and social idealspeople now in power stand for helped to establish a common ground thatproved invaluable for gaining access, building trust and yielding more truthfuldata. I trust discourses around my political ideas played a significant role in theconstruction of my identity by the participants.

The new political agenda was dominated by two critical objectives: socialand political reengineering and EU membership. This new agenda resultedfrom long-lasting social and political dilemmas and was pregnant with impor-tant changes. Supported by a large majority, supporters of the new politicalagenda came to power in the North. One of the objectives was achieved. Theother, finding a solution to the ‘Cyprus Problem’ and becoming a member ofthe EU as an undivided island was not. UN interventions culminated in 2004with the approval of the final comprehensive UN plan by Turkish Cypriots andthe rejection of it by Greek ones (UN Press Release SC/7723, 2003). ‘Cyprus’joined the EU in 2004 as a divided island.

Soon after the government came to power, large-scale education reform ini-tiatives took significant importance in the political agenda. As a doctoral stu-dent, I commenced an assignment to explore these initiatives within asocio-political framework. My main objective was to investigate the recentlarge-scale reform initiatives at the policy level and the impact of public policydilemmas on these change efforts. Qualitative interviewing was employed as

449Mertkan-Özünlü: Reflexive accounts about interviewing



450

the main data-gathering method. A first set of interviews was carried out withfive members of the educational elite from the Ministry of Education toobserve the opening stage of the initiatives and the impact of public policydilemmas on their efforts. A second set of interviews was carried out withthree school heads and six teachers from schools most affected by demographicfluctuations, a critical matter of policy concern. Everyday conversations werealso held with economists, politicians and researchers to further investigate thepublic policy dilemmas raised by the educational planners during the first set ofinterviews conducted. Interviews and planned ‘conversations’ differed fromeveryday conversations in the degree of planning and structure imposed (Kvale,1996; Radnor, 1994; Rubin and Rubin, 2005; Warren, 2002). As the researchlens was on educational planners’ experiences, generating data on a range ofexperiences was deliberately avoided. Adopting a more inclusive case approachwould undeniably add variation and depth to the study (Corbin and Strauss,1990), but would change the research emphasis.

A critical motivator for this study was to contribute to the construction of aknowledge base on education in Cyprus that was more democratic and morerepresentative of the practical realities on the island. A review of scholarly lit-erature reveals representations that reduce education on the island to the onein the south, and present scenarios recognizable only to Greek Cypriots anduntrue to the practical realities on the island (Mertkan-Ozunlu and Thomson,in preparation). The other significant motive was to illuminate the unques-tioned and unchallenged aspects of North Cyprus and help Turkish Cypriots tobe heard. This attempt to give voice to the voiceless, an important aspect ofqualitative research (Rubin and Rubin, 2005), was thus the main backbone ofthe study this article revisits. In attempting such work, I inevitably foundmyself forced to reflect on my own identity and how this shaped my motivationand knowledge gathering.

Identity work in the policy research processA Turkish Cypriot myself, my longing was that of an insider provided withadvanced inside knowledge of Turkish Cypriot culture, historical developments,and political and social structures in the North. This advanced knowledge camefrom lived experiences; the emotions I was loaded with were products of theseexperiences. My positionality comes with some power, but not the ability topaint a fully portrayed picture of any kind. My partiality is undeniable. It isinformed by dynamic, ever-changing historical culture and my partial stance toit (Clifford, 1986; Rosaldo, 1993). Not coming from the institutions I investi-gated, at some other level I am an outsider. I lack the knowledge available to theones embedded in these organizational cultures. During the research process,my positionality shifted and the boundaries blurred as the study progressed.This multiplicity of selves, judging status on a continuum in relation to thephenomenon studied is critical, and shifting positionalities and blurred




boundaries are realities in the field (Atkinson, 2001; Brayboy, 2000; Chaudhry,1997; Christensen and Dahl, 1997; Deutsch, 1981; Labaree, 2002; Mullings,1999; Sherif, 2001).

The first half of this research work has been conducted with the planners ofeducation. Interviewing people in power, I had expected the research identitiesto be defined by a sense of power and hierarchical difference; I was wrong.Having presented myself as a doctoral student studying EducationalLeadership and specializing in large-scale educational reform, I self-defined my identity as a student willing to learn about planners’ experiences of large-scale reform. From my first initial meeting with the director responsible forplanning and research, however, I was positioned differently due to my privi-leged educational background abroad and my over five years of teaching expe-rience in higher education. Assumptions were made that I could help plannersconvey their message and contribute to the reform efforts by playing an activerole as a teacher trainer. They constructed me as an experienced professionalequipped with advanced knowledge.

My MPhil in Teaching and Teacher Education from the University ofCambridge must have influenced the construction of these assumptions. Somust have the lack of human capital in the country. Accounts of the difficul-ties caused by lack of well-trained human capital were often made by the plan-ners of education. Accounts of the difficulties resulting from previousgovernments’ recruitment policies were also not uncommon. Among theseaccounts were civil servants employed for their political views rather thantheir knowledge and skills. Planners’ identities in this context were defined bythese difficulties and were constructed as depowered by previous policyactions. I was invited to have a more insider position than my positionality atthe time of the study permitted. Accepting the request would help to establishgood relationships and provide the opportunity to help; denying it without anyapparent reason would decrease the likelihood to do so. I accepted the offer. Iwas positioned as a professional researcher learning about policy while help-ing policy to develop.

While researching in policy settings at the time of the study, no one couldavoid discussing socio-political dilemmas in the north. It was the most contro-versial topic. I had previously protested together with those currently in powerand voiced political views slightly to the left during the initial meetings I heldwith the planners. Assumptions defined by these positioned me as belonging tothe same or a similar political camp as the planners, and as a politically unthreat-ening researcher to support and confide in as the following experience illustrates.

One of the public policy dilemmas voiced by the planners was demographicchanges and their impact on education. Having grown up in North Cyprus, Iwas fully aware of how difficult it would be to look into demographics on theisland. Migration has long been the most controversial issue and research ofany kind into migration was not traditionally welcomed. I was interested inlooking into schools most influenced by demographic fluctuations. I assumed




452

this would put me in a threatening position. Demographical issues, migrationin particular, were long used by opposition parties to attack those in power. Iwas partially right, partially wrong:

The director was very positive. Not to my surprise, he admitted that it would not bevery easy to get the permission to carry out such research in schools and that eventhough the study would lead to important insights, he was not authorized to giveme the permission to look into schools without consulting the directors and expertsfor primary and secondary education. I was also warned that getting the informedconsent of the interviewees would be difficult due to the sensitivity of the topic.

I easily got permission from the Department of Secondary Education. My expe-riences with the Department of Primary Education were not, however, sostraightforward as the following footnote stresses:

As soon as I handed in the interview themes, I was approached by one of theexperts. He said I needed to submit a highly structured interview agenda to get thepermission sought. He insisted this was to prevent me from focusing on politicallyinappropriate themes. I was very reluctant to do so. I do not believe structuredinterviews are most suitable to gathering in-depth data on experiences of daily life.After some discussion, I was told to wait while the expert talked to the director inprivate. I felt at a crossroad. I would either stop here or switch to an interview typethat would not be appropriate to the research objectives. About 10 minutes later,the director came back and I was informed that I could do the research and that hewould take the responsibility for granting me the permission to do so. At thatmoment, I better understood the burden and the responsibility I had had on meand the significance of the gift I had been given by the director.

Perceived as unthreatening by the director, I was positioned as threatening by theexpert working in the same organization. As Walford (2001) stresses, discoursesaround my political views and ‘shared experience’ were significant in the con-struction of my identity as a threatening researcher to be monitored closely or anunthreatening one to be confided in. So were initial meetings and interviews inestablishing a degree of trust and comfort (Corbin and Morse, 2003).

I conducted the second set of interviews with three school heads and teachers.My identity in this context was defined primarily by the attribute that I was aresearcher willing to understand practical realities within schools most affectedby demographic fluctuations. During these interviews, I was treated very differ-ently and positioned as someone expected to challenge planners of educationwith her findings and to impact policy, as the following account illustrates:

Doing interviews in schools like ours is very important for us, for the country andfor our future. Most people think we over exaggerate when we say these things, butwe see the reality from inside. If migrants from mainland Turkey, such as the onessituated around our school, are going to stay on the island and live with ourpeople, some serious work on the issue must take place. I hope your research willguide some people to do so.

Accounts of difficult conditions within these schools due to demographicfluctuations, very low socio-economic conditions and educational background




of parents were common. While head teachers constructed an identity almostidentical to heroes achieving the best possible within these conditions, teach-ers projected an image of hopelessness, disappointment and helplessness. As isclear from ‘most people think we over exaggerate when we say these things,but we see the reality from inside’, I was positioned in this context as an out-sider to listen and learn about the realities of people working in these schools.My identity was constructed as a researcher sensitive to socio-political con-cerns in the north and skilled to represent the inside realities of the intervie-wees and to inform policy. There seems to be a hidden concern that I couldobserve things as over exaggerated and was warned that this has happenedmany times before. There seems also to be a hidden hope that I would not do soand that my findings would guide others to take these issues more seriously.

Earlier research has shown that identity work is an important part of theresearch process (Cassell, 2005; Warren and Fassett, 2002). Identities arecrafted out of a dialogic relationship among the researcher, respondents andthe context, are viewed differently by different people in different places at dif-ferent times, and different scripts for a self can be written by different peopleinvolved in this process (Baker, 2004; Cassell, 2005; Coffey, 1999; Crotty,2003). Self-defined identities could differ from the ones defined by others andthe positionality intended might differ from the positionality constructedbecause any impersonation of the second consciousness essential for viewingoneself from the perspective of another is socially constructed a process throughwhich many voices of one’s culture, experiences and feelings are heard(Morson and Emerson, 1990). This identity work influences the narrativescrafted in the research process and leads to the placement of the self in narra-tives in ways that are socially more acceptable and sympathetic (Measor,1985; Sikes, 2000). Being highly skilled and experienced in self-presentationand narrative crafting, elites find it easier to do so (Ozga, 2000; Ozga andGewirtz, 1994). Where elites are involved, identity work becomes more signif-icant, particularly in the knowledge-gathering process.

Knowledge-making work in the research processQualitative interviewing and field notes were two main data-gathering meth-ods used due to their methodological and theoretical appropriateness for pur-pose. The design of the study concurs with earlier work stressingmethodological and theoretical appropriateness for purpose, and agreementbetween research techniques and research interests (Darlington and Scott,2002; Hatch, 2002; Kvale, 1996; Patton, 2002; Pring, 2000; Seidman,1991). They were employed because I was interested in documenting andunderstanding others’ experiences from their viewpoints. Elaborate insightsinto their views were thus imperative to my partial representation, the result ofmultiple representations from the moment I hear interviewees’ subjective sto-ries of their lived experiences in social worlds they operate within. As Miller




454

and Glassner (2004: 127) note, ‘knowledge of social world emerges from theachievement of intersubjective depth and mutual understanding’. Access toresearch sites does not automatically grant access to narratives (Miller, 2004).Identities constructed in the field and beyond and the social categories we area member of influence interviewees’ responses and thus the understandingachieved (Baker, 2004; Miller and Glassner, 2004; Riessman, 1993).

From the outset of the research process, I was aware that my ambiguous insiderstatus would help in gaining access to the research site, but would not automati-cally grant access to interviewees’ accounts situated in social worlds outside theinterview context. For political reasons, gathering truthful accounts on some issuessuch as challenges arising from demographic dilemmas would be particularly diffi-cult. Establishing rapport and building feelings of comfort and competence wouldbe important. With these concerns, I employed every opportunity to convey a non-judgemental status and communicate my concern about the privacy of the inter-viewees and the confidentiality of the data both prior to and during the interviews.Researching within policy contexts provided many opportunities to do so.

Due to limited time and the exceptionally busy agendas of the interviewees,interviews did not often start on time and some were postponed to a later date.This meant extended waiting time in and many visits to the research site to con-duct an interview. Though tiring, these were valuable opportunities to conveymy enthusiasm and interest in the topic. Challenges around time managementwere not limited to the pre-interview stages. Interviews and meetings were alsooften interrupted by phone calls and visitors. These made each interview lastlonger than planned or made it essential to continue later. They also providedopportunities to express my concern about privacy and confidentiality. Wheninterviewees received phone calls or visitors, I immediately stopped the inter-view temporarily and offered to go outside to provide more privacy. As the inter-view extract below illustrates, this helped to engender trust and comfort:

You asked questions that helped me better organize my thoughts. I received lots ofphone calls, but you did not get disappointed or angry when I answered. Youstopped the tape-recorder and I made the call. These are very important.

Tight agendas are often presented as one of the main challenges policyresearchers face. In my case, they presented themselves as opportunities toseize to establish mutual trust and understanding rather than challenges toovercome. Likewise, challenges arising from resistance to disclose some infor-mation were perceived as opportunities to establish mutual trust and exertingpressure was deliberately avoided. Exerting pressure on such issues would posi-tion me as a threat to privacy and would jeopardize my efforts to establishmutual trust and understanding. I rephrased my questions in ways that wouldallow me to elicit the information I needed and that would permit the intervie-wees to avoid disclosing the information they did not feel comfortable about.Narratives that emerged in interview contexts were not full and uncensoredrepresentations, but partial and censored representations of private in public




influenced by the interview context. As Miller and Glassner (2004: 127) note,‘a story-teller’s narrative…must be partial because it cannot be infinite inlength, and all the more partial if it is not to be unbearably boring’.

Off-record data are as important as recorded information for crafting a narra-tive that better represents interviewees’ subjective experiences in a social world(Warren, 2002; Warren et al., 2003). Similar to earlier research experiences,off the record associations that emerged once I stopped the tape-recorder sig-naling the end of the interview were often the case for the interviews I con-ducted. These ‘informal’ conversations with the interviewees before or afterinterviews and spending time in research sites provided the opportunity toobserve the multiple identities in operation and to check the truthfulness ofinterviewees’ narrative accounts, an action imperative to judge the credibilityof qualitative research (Silverman, 2001).

I trust having access to numerous unrecorded accounts and the opportuni-ties to observe events at the time of happening were the result of my immenseefforts to establish rapport, my established identity as a politically unthreaten-ing researcher, and conducting research in a small country where manypeople know each other. When interviewees were called or visited in the mid-dle of the interview, I was proactive in reacting to the situation and offered togo outside to provide more privacy to the interviewees. Most often, before I hadtime to offer to do so, interviewees introduced me to their visitors and some-times asked for my views on the topic being discussed. These visits were some-times by other interviewees to discuss some of the issues we were talking aboutduring the interviews. Some other visits were by other people involved in thereform process, particularly teachers and committee members planners ofeducation had worked with or by people from other units in the Ministry. I wasprivileged to have earned trust. I was also self-conscious of my responsibilitiesas a researcher to be worthy of this trust. During the informal conversationsobserved, interviewees’ identities shifted from interviewees to colleagues, advi-sors, school principals, committee leaders and back to interviewees soon afterI repressed the record button on the tape-recorder. Different situations invokeddifferent sets of membership categorization devices (Baker, 2004).

I had met some of the interviewees earlier. One of them had earlier attendedone of the workshops I presented as part of a bicommunal training initiativefunded by the United Nations Office for Project Services; the others had knownme since I was a teenager. During the informal conversations I had with themprior to and after the interviews, I was positioned as an acquaintance even thoughwe all were aware of my role as a researcher. As soon as the interview started, Isensed the identity work in progress and my new position as a researcher result-ing from it. Informal conversations were more intimate and detailed. Detailswere hidden in names disclosed and in emotions expressed. Recorded informa-tion was not a distorted and contradictory version of the private, but a censoredone. This contradicts previously reported experiences of the ‘validity’ ofresponses and of explicit ‘lies’ (Sikes, 2000). Russell (2005) stresses the impact




456

of trust and good rapport on every aspect of the research process from datageneration to data analyses, and Stanley and Slattery (2003) emphasize theimpact of the characteristics of research on the levels of access, rapport andtrust between the researcher and the researched. Experiences I had within pol-icy contexts and schools most affected by demographic fluctuations and politi-cal issues resulting from and leading to them illustrate this interplay among theresearcher, researched and the research context further. It also illustrates thatthe impact of trust and rapport is not limited to what happens in the interviewprocess, but goes beyond. It extends to time spent at the research sites.

A concluding noteThroughout this article, I have argued that identities are co-constructedthrough the interplay among the interviewer, interviewees and the context.Both interviewees and the interviewer are actively engaged in identity craftingand co-constructed identities influence the data-gathering process and theemerging intersubjective narratives of lived experiences in social worlds. Thisprocess is multidirectional, multidimensional and active. It involves a multi-faceted interrelationship between the researcher’s intended identity in relationto other selves, available discourses and contexts. Managing the elements wecan control is an important aspect of this process. So is learning to live withthe elements we have no control over and with the discomfort of acknowledg-ing that research identities can be pre-planned, but not pre-crafted. Thoughresearchers might desire to construct particular self-identities and positionthemselves accordingly, the range of discourses available for interviewees todrive on makes this impossible. Pre-planned identities are transformed soonafter participants meet.

Another intriguing issue is the extent to which we are certain about our interpre-tation of the identity work and its effects on the research process. Would otherresearch participants ascribe to me the same identity for the same or some other rea-sons? Would they agree with my reading of the identity work in progress? I do notknow. Identities crafted at any time in any setting are not genuinely knowable, nor isthe identity work genuinely comprehensible. I can only impersonate the second con-sciousness imperative for viewing myself from the perspective of another. Anyimpersonation I am able to achieve is socially constructed through which manyvoices of my culture and my feelings are heard. My own self cannot be the same forsomeone else (Morson and Emerson, 1990). Not can someone else’s be for me.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

The author would like to acknowledge Professor Christopher Day, Dr SimonMcGrath, Dr Andy Hobson and Dr Dorothy Turner for their invaluable com-ments on the earlier versions of this article.




R E F E R E N C E S

Atkinson, E. (2001) ‘Deconstructing Boundaries: Out on the Inside?’, Qualitative Studiesin Education 14(3): 307–16.

Atkinson, P. and Silverman, D. (1997) ‘Kundera’s Immortality: The Interview Societyand the Invention of Self ’, Qualitative Inquiry 3: 304–25.

Baker, C. (2004) ‘Membership Categorization and Interview Accounts’, in D. Silverman(ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, pp. 162–76. London: Sage.

Ball, S.J. (1993) ‘Self-doubt and Soft Data: Social and Technical Trajectories inEhnographic Fieldwork’, in M. Hammersley (ed.) Educational Research: Current Issues,pp. 32–48. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Brayboy, B.M. (2000) ‘The Indian and the Researcher: Tales from the Field’, QualitativeStudies in Education 13(4): 415–26.

Bryant, R. (2001) ‘Justice or Respect: A Comparative Perspective on Politics in Cyprus’,Ethnic and Racial Studies 24(6): 892–924.

Cassell, C. (2005) ‘Creating the Interviewer: Identity Work in the ManagementResearch Process’, Qualitative Research 5(2): 167–79.

Chaudhry, L.N. (1997) ‘Researching “My People”, Researching Myself: Fragments of aReflexive Tale’, Qualitative Studies in Education 10(4): 441–53.

Christensen, D.H. and Dahl, C.M. (1997) ‘Rethinking Research Dichotomies’, Familyand Consumer Sciences Research Journal 25: 269–85.

Clifford, J. (1986) ‘Introduction: Partial Truths’, in J. Clifford and G.E. Marcus (eds)Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, pp. 1–26. California: Universityof California Press.

Corbin, J. and Morse, J.M. (2003) ‘The Unstructured Interactive Interview: Issues of Reciprocity and Risks When Dealing With Sensitive Topics’, Qualitative Inquiry9(3): 335–54.

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1990) ‘Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons andEvaluative Criteria’, Qualitative Sociology 13: 13–21.

Coffey, A. (1999) The Ethnographic Self: Fieldwork and the Representation of Identity.London: Sage.

Coffey, A. (2002) ‘Ethnography and Self: Reflections and Representations’, in T. May(ed.) Qualitative Research in Action, pp. 313–31. London: Sage.

Crotty, M. (2003) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in theResearch Process. London: Sage.

Darlington, Y. and Scott, D. (2002) Qualitative Research in Practice: Stories from the Field.Buckingham: Open University Press.

Davies, C.A. (1999) Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others.London: Routledge.

Delamont, S. (2002) Fieldwork in Educational Settings: Methods, Pitfalls, and Perspectives(2nd Edition). London: Routledge.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) ‘Introduction: The Discipline and Practice ofQualitative Research’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of QualitativeResearch (2nd Edition), pp. 1–28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deutsch, C.P. (1981) ‘The Behavioral Scientists: Insider and Outsider’, Journal of SocialIssues 37: 172–91.

Fontana, A. and Frey, J.H. (2000) ‘The Interview: From Structured Questions toNegotiated Text’, in D.L. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Handbook of QualitativeResearch (2nd Edition), pp. 645–72. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.




458

Gubrium, J.E. and Holstein, J.A. (2002) ‘From the Individual Interview to the InterviewSociety’, in J.E. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein (eds) Handbook of Interview Research:Context and Method, pp. 1–32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hammersley, M. (1992) What’s Wrong with Ethnography. London: Routledge.Hatch, J.A. (2002) Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany: State

University of New York Press.Holliday, A. (2002) Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.Kvale, S. (1996) InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Labaree, R.V. (2002) ‘The Risk of “Going Observationalist”: Negotiating the Hidden

Dilemmas of Being an Insider Participant Observer’, Qualitative Research 2(1):97–122.

Measor, L. (1985) ‘Interviewing in Ethnographic Research’, in R. Burgess (ed.)Strategies in Educational Research: Qualitative Methods. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Mertkan-Özünlü, S. and Thomson, P. (in preparation) ‘Representation of Education inCyprus within Scholarly Literature’.

Miller, J. and Glassner, B. (2004) ‘The “Inside” and the “Outside”: Finding Realities inInterviews’, in D. Silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice,pp. 125–39. London: Sage.

Miller, K.E. (2004) ‘Beyond the Frontstage: Trust, Access, and the Relational Context inResearch with Refugee Communities’, American Journal of Community Psychology 33:217–27.

Morson, G.S. and Emerson, C. (1990) Mikhail Bakhtin: Creating of a Prosaics. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Mullings, B. (1999) ‘Insider or Outsider, Both or Neither: Some Dilemmas ofInterviewing in a Cross-cultural Setting’, Geoforum 30: 337–50.

Ozga, J. (2000) Educational Research in Policy Settings: Contested Terrain. Buckingham:Open University Press.

Ozga, J. and Gewirtz, S. (1994) ‘Sex, Lies and Audiotape: Interviewing the EducationPolicy Elite’, in D. Halpin and B. Troyna (eds) Researching Education Policy: Ethical andMethodological Issues, pp. 121–35. London: Falmer Press.

Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd Edition).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pillow, W.S. (2003) ‘Confessions, Catharsis or Cure? Rethinking the Use of Reflexivityas Methodological Power in Qualitative Research’, Qualitative Studies in Education16(2): 175–96.

Powney, J. and Watts, M. (1987) Interviewing in Educational Research. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

Pring, R. (2000) Philosophy of Educational Research. London: Continuum.Radnor, H.A. (1994) Qualitative/Interpretive Research: Collecting and Analysing Interview

Data. Exeter: University of Exeter.Rapley, T.J. (2001) ‘The Art(fulness) of Open-ended Interviewing: Some Considerations

on Analysing Interviews’, Qualitative Research 1(3): 303–23.Riessman, C.K. (1993) Narrative Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Rosaldo, R. (1993) Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.Rubin, H.L. and Rubin, I.S. (2005) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Russell, L. (2005) ‘It’s a Question of Trust: Balancing the Relationship between

Students and Teachers in Ethnographic Fieldwork’, Qualitative Research 5(2):181–99.




Seale, C. (1998) ‘Qualitative Interviewing’, in C. Seale (ed.) Researching Society andCulture, pp. 202–16. London: Sage.

Seidman, I.E. (1991) Interviewing as Qualitative Research. New York: Teachers College Press.Sherif, B. (2001) ‘The Ambiguity of Boundaries in the Fieldwork Experience:

Establishing Rapport and Negotiating Insider/Outsider Status’, Qualitative Inquiry7(4): 436–47.

Sikes, P. (2000) ‘“Truth” and “Lies” Revisited’, British Educational Research Journal 26(2):257–70.

Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text andInteraction. London: Sage.

Stanley, C.A. and Slattery, P. (2003) ‘Who Reveals What to Whom? Critical Reflectionson Conducting Qualitative Inquiry as an Interdisciplinary, Biracial, Male/FemaleResearch Team’, Qualitative Inquiry 9(5): 705–28.

Straw, R.B. (1990a) ‘Challenging Communication: Reader’s Reading for Actualization’,in D. Bogdan and S.B. Straw (eds) Beyond Communication: Reading Comprehension andCriticism, pp. 21–47. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.

UN Press Release SC/7723 (2003), URL: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7723.doc.htm

Walford, G. (2001) Doing Qualitative Educational Research. London: Continuum.Warren, C.A.B. (2002) ‘Qualitative Interviewing’, in J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein

(eds) Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, pp. 83–101. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Warren, C.A.B., Barnes-Brus, T., Burgess, H., Wiebold-Lippisch, L., Hackney,J., Harkness, G., Kennedy, V., Dingwall, R., Rosenblatt, P.C., Ryen, A. and Shuy,R. (2003) ‘After the Interview’, Qualitative Sociology 26(1): 93–110.

Warren, J.T. and Fassett, D.L. (2002) ‘(Re)Constituting Ethnographic Identities’,Qualitative Inquiry 8(5): 575–90.

SEFIKA MERTKAN-ÖZÜNLÜ is a doctoral student studying Educational Leadership atthe University of Nottingham. Previously, Sefika was a senior instructor and courseorganizer at the Eastern Mediterranean University where she also acted as a researcherand team leader in the European Higher Education Harmonization Committee. Shecompleted her MPhil in Teaching and Teacher Education at the University ofCambridge as a Cambridge Chevening Scholar. She also participated in the CyprusIntercultural Training Initiative funded by UNOPS as a trainer and education groupleader. Her research interests are in educational change, educational policy, schoolimprovement and research methods. Her current research focuses on large-scale edu-cational reform initiatives in North Cyprus and the representation of education inCyprus within scholarly literature. Address: Flat 16, Seymour Court, Eversley ParkRoad, London N21 1JG, UK. [email: [email protected]]


