Written by Yilan Guo (University of Manchester)
This post reflects on my fieldwork practice following Cosmin Nada’s critical methodological consideration of research with international students. He proposed that international students’ experiences are not always ready in mind to be collected like ripe vegetables waiting to be picked up in the garden. Instead, they should be left time and space to establish their own trajectories. Thus, researchers should work more on stimulating international students’ reflexivity and engage both sides in the data co-construction instead of merely data collection. In the following post, based on my 50 individual semi-structured interviews with 25 international students to investigate their silence in group work at a UK university, three main practices of ‘cultivation’ will be reflected. These are informal conversation, environmental preparation, and knowledge co-construction respectively before, at the beginning, and during the interview.
Seeding: Informal conversation before the semi-structured interview
Photo 1: The informal conversation place
A 30-minute individual informal conversation was conducted with each participant about one week before their group formation and two to four weeks before their first interview, during which key information about the interview and ethical issues were introduced. This could be regarded as a ‘seeding’ practice since it leaves enough time for participants to keep an eye on relevant experiences and feelings.
For a better ‘seeding’ effect, three strategies were adopted. First, the meeting place was specifically selected in the public area of the university building (see Photo 1 above). This is like loosening the soil before planting because, compared with an enclosed and quiet space, it helps ease participants’ potential nervousness or strange emotions and thus enables smooth communication.
Second, hard copies of the material – including the participant information sheet, consent form, and core interview question list – were used together with the researchers’ oral introduction. This appears like placing the seed at the appropriate position in the soil to grow because it could deepen participants’ understanding of the research project by saving participants more brain space for thinking than memorizing. It is worth noting that, despite the interview list provision, participants were reminded that these were merely rough and loose references for inspiring their relevant experience sharing.
Third, an additional screenshot of the interview question list was sent to participants’ email after the informal conversation. This aims to create convenience for downloading and viewing it on their mobile phones, like covering the seed and empowering it to actively absorb nutrients from nature.
Fertilizing and watering: Environmental preparation at the beginning of each interview
Photo 2: The interview room
The interviews took place in a self-contained classroom with a capacity of about 20 people that was neither too empty nor too narrow for two people to speak freely. There were two large floor-to-ceiling windows with adjustable roller blinds (see Photo 2 above) where participants were free to decide their preferred level of light transmission in the room. Meanwhile, seating position, orientation, and sitting either side-by-side or face-to-face with me were decided by the participants as well. It is like applying suitable fertilisers based on the characteristics and growth of the seed, these tailored ‘hard’ environmental preparations strive to make participants feel comfortable to recall, organise, and share their relevant experiences during interviews.
As ‘soft’ environmental preparation, a brief 5-10 minute review of the research project and interviews was made before asking the first interview question assisted by hard copies of material employed in the informal conversation. Instead of emphasising some details, the review here was relatively general and holistic to bring participants gradually into the interview status and leave them plenty of freedom to share relevant experiences. Just like the water providing necessary conditions for growth, this practice set key foundations for participants’ meaningful engagement in the interview.
Waiting for the growth: Knowledge co-construction during semi-structured interviews
Acknowledging a person is never an individual but is a universe with fluidity and multiplicity, the semi-structured interviews focused on how participants’ experiences are constantly configured and re-configured rather than merely facts. Vignettes and timely summaries were used and made to engage both participants and me in the data construction. Instead of coming to the garden and harvesting directly, this practice is like patiently accompanying and waiting aside for the seed to grow.
To trigger participants’ reflexivity on ideas they might not even be fully aware of, participants were invited to comment on vignettes that were either opposite or similar to their situations of keeping silent. Based on other anonymous participants’ relevant experience, vignettes were temporarily selected and tailored to participants’ speaking at that time rather than prepared in advance or fixed.
Instead of rushing to progress, after participants’ sharing of each situation of keeping silent, I timely summarised the experience and briefly interpreted their feelings and perceptions in that silent moment. The speed of my speech here was somehow slow, allowing more time for drawing participants’ details adding and meaning growing.
Conclusion
Shifting from a deficit view of research on international students, where international students are perceived as requiring extra attention and their experience is regarded as always ready to collect, the three key ‘cultivation’ practices – informal conversation, environmental preparation, and knowledge co-construction – in conducting semi-structured interviews with international students embodied the research principles of respect and reciprocity. Assisted with materials, space, and some strategies (i.e. review, vignettes, and timely summary), participants’ reflexivity and configured and re-configured of their experience were likely to be encouraged. Thus, my ‘cultivation’ practices might be regarded as an effective attempt to conduct semi-structured interviews with international students with critical methodological considerations.
Author bio
Yilan Guo is a PhD candidate at the University of Manchester. Situated within the research field of internationalisation of higher education and from a posthumanist research perspective, her research focuses on Chinese international students’ silence in collaborative group work at a UK university.
Follow Yilan on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yilanguo/