Organizational Behavior

Qualitative Research
http://qrj.sagepub.com

Reflexive accounts about qualitative interviewing within the context of
educational policy in North Cyprus
Sefika Mertkan-Ozünlü
Qualitative Research 2007; 7; 447
DOI: 10.1177/1468794107082301

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

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

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

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

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

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

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

Citations (this article cites 21 articles hosted on the
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/7/4/447

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

A RT I C L E

Q 447

Reflexive accounts about qualitative
interviewing within the context of
educational policy in North Cyprus
R
Qualitative Research
Copyright © 2007
SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles,
London, New Delhi
and Singapore)
vol. 7(4) 447–459
S E F I K A M E RT K A N - Ö Z Ü N L Ü
University of Nottingham, UK

ABSTRACT Located within policy studies and politics of education in North
Cyprus, this article is a medium through which methodological
quandaries about reflexive accounts of qualitative interviewing arise in a
dialogic fashion within the arena of education reform. Relying primarily
on field notes, it explores the two-way management and negotiation of
identity work, its effects on data gathering, and the public and private
sides of interviewing. The researcher, present author, argues through
numerous examples that both interviewees and the interviewer are
actively engaged in identity crafting. These co-constructed identities
influence the data-gathering process and the emerging intersubjective
narratives of lived experiences in social worlds. She also makes a
case that reflexive accounts of identity work are intersubjective,
co-constructed identities are not genuinely knowable and the identity
work is not genuinely comprehensible.
KEYWORDS: interviewing, identity work, policy research, research methodology

A mutual friend and an experienced ethnographer encouraged me to take a journey
that would last long. ‘Why don’t you research something your community would
benefit from? Why don’t you explore home where your heart beats even when you
are miles away?’ she asked one day while driving in North Cyprus. ‘You would be a
perfect match,’ she said, letting the idea grow in me. She was right. Here I am a year
later 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)

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

DOI: 10.1177/1468794107082301


448 Qualitative Research 7(4)

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 of
the past, literature presented tips and strategies to be employed prior to and
during the interview process, but did not demonstrate the complexities of
interviewing, experiences of interviewers and the pitfalls of the research
process (Ball, 1993; Coffey, 1999; Darlington and Scott, 2002; Davies, 1999;
Delamont, 2002; Powney and Watts, 1987; Walford, 2001). To the potential
research student of today, it presents a much more complex and interactive
research 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 widely
exercised, self-conscious, reflexive accounts of the research process in general
and interviewing in particular are no longer uncommon (Coffey, 2002; Denzin
and Lincoln, 1994).
This article reflects this trend and seeks to contribute to the fast growing
knowledge 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. It
is, thus, a medium through which methodological quandaries about qualitative
interviewing arise in a dialogic fashion within the politicized arena of educa-
tional reform in North Cyprus. It stresses three interrelated theoretical positions
in relation to the current analysis of the interviewing process it represents:

1. Interviewing is an interactive process during which representations of social world
experiences are conditioned by the socio-political and socio-historical context of
the 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 the
other in relation to the image of ‘the-other-for-me’ in Bakhtinian terms (Morson
and Emerson, 1990) and transformation of my crafted self to another through
informed interpretations of different readers at different times in different places
(Crotty, 2003; Straw, 1990). It is, thus, impossible, to achieve fully transparent and
truthful reflexive accounts.

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


Mertkan-Özünlü: Reflexive accounts about interviewing 449

The study within its socio-political context
Cyprus was parted by the green line in 1964 due to growing intercommunal
hostility and violence, and physically divided into North and South in 1974.
This partition is a visible scar of the historic ‘Cyprus Problem’ resulting from
diverse nationalist realities and aspirations and bi-polar nationalism (Bryant,
2001). Today Turkish Cypriots live in the north governed by the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) founded in 1983; Greek Cypriots reside
in the south controlled by the Republic of Cyprus established in 1960. TRNC
has not been recognized as legitimate and the north has suffered from inter-
national embargoes seriously threatening its economic, political, and social
well-being.
Soon after the ‘Cyprus Problem’ took its place within the European political
agenda with the application of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union
in 1990, the world witnessed heated international interventions in the island
to 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 North
Nicosia, 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 early
2004. Speakers emphasized the need for social and political reengineering, peace
and EU membership. People agreed wholeheartedly. I was one of them. And so was
one of the policy makers sitting in front of me. (Personal notes)
As I discuss in more detail later, supporting the political and social ideals
people now in power stand for helped to establish a common ground that
proved invaluable for gaining access, building trust and yielding more truthful
data. I trust discourses around my political ideas played a significant role in the
construction of my identity by the participants.
The new political agenda was dominated by two critical objectives: social
and political reengineering and EU membership. This new agenda resulted
from long-lasting social and political dilemmas and was pregnant with impor-
tant changes. Supported by a large majority, supporters of the new political
agenda came to power in the North. One of the objectives was achieved. The
other, finding a solution to the ‘Cyprus Problem’ and becoming a member of
the EU as an undivided island was not. UN interventions culminated in 2004
with the approval of the final comprehensive UN plan by Turkish Cypriots and
the 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 a
socio-political framework. My main objective was to investigate the recent
large-scale reform initiatives at the policy level and the impact of public policy
dilemmas on these change efforts. Qualitative interviewing was employed as



the main data-gathering method. A first set of interviews was carried out with
five members of the educational elite from the Ministry of Education to
observe the opening stage of the initiatives and the impact of public policy
dilemmas on their efforts. A second set of interviews was carried out with
three school heads and six teachers from schools most affected by demographic
fluctuations, a critical matter of policy concern. Everyday conversations were
also held with economists, politicians and researchers to further investigate the
public policy dilemmas raised by the educational planners during the first set of
interviews conducted. Interviews and planned ‘conversations’ differed from
everyday conversations in the degree of planning and structure imposed (Kvale,
1996; Radnor, 1994; Rubin and Rubin, 2005; Warren, 2002). As the research
lens was on educational planners’ experiences, generating data on a range of
experiences was deliberately avoided. Adopting a more inclusive case approach
would 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 a
knowledge base on education in Cyprus that was more democratic and more
representative of the practical realities on the island. A review of scholarly lit-
erature reveals representations that reduce education on the island to the one
in the south, and present scenarios recognizable only to Greek Cypriots and
untrue 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 to
be heard. This attempt to give voice to the voiceless, an important aspect of
qualitative research (Rubin and Rubin, 2005), was thus the main backbone of
the study this article revisits. In attempting such work, I inevitably found
myself forced to reflect on my own identity and how this shaped my motivation
and knowledge gathering.

Identity work in the policy research process
A Turkish Cypriot myself, my longing was that of an insider provided with
advanced inside knowledge of Turkish Cypriot culture, historical developments,
and political and social structures in the North. This advanced knowledge came
from lived experiences; the emotions I was loaded with were products of these
experiences. My positionality comes with some power, but not the ability to
paint a fully portrayed picture of any kind. My partiality is undeniable. It is
informed by dynamic, ever-changing historical culture and my partial stance to
it (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 the
ones 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 the
phenomenon 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 of
education. Interviewing people in power, I had expected the research identities
to be defined by a sense of power and hierarchical difference; I was wrong.
Having presented myself as a doctoral student studying Educational
Leadership 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 for
planning 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 planners
convey their message and contribute to the reform efforts by playing an active
role as a teacher trainer. They constructed me as an experienced professional
equipped with advanced knowledge.
My MPhil in Teaching and Teacher Education from the University of
Cambridge must have influenced the construction of these assumptions. So
must 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 previous
governments’ recruitment policies were also not uncommon. Among these
accounts were civil servants employed for their political views rather than
their knowledge and skills. Planners’ identities in this context were defined by
these difficulties and were constructed as depowered by previous policy
actions. I was invited to have a more insider position than my positionality at
the time of the study permitted. Accepting the request would help to establish
good relationships and provide the opportunity to help; denying it without any
apparent reason would decrease the likelihood to do so. I accepted the offer. I
was 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 could
avoid discussing socio-political dilemmas in the north. It was the most contro-
versial topic. I had previously protested together with those currently in power
and voiced political views slightly to the left during the initial meetings I held
with the planners. Assumptions defined by these positioned me as belonging to
the 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 demographic
changes and their impact on education. Having grown up in North Cyprus, I
was fully aware of how difficult it would be to look into demographics on the
island. Migration has long been the most controversial issue and research of
any kind into migration was not traditionally welcomed. I was interested in
looking into schools most influenced by demographic fluctuations. I assumed



this would put me in a threatening position. Demographical issues, migration
in particular, were long used by opposition parties to attack those in power. I
was partially right, partially wrong:
The director was very positive. Not to my surprise, he admitted that it would not be
very easy to get the permission to carry out such research in schools and that even
though the study would lead to important insights, he was not authorized to give
me the permission to look into schools without consulting the directors and experts
for primary and secondary education. I was also warned that getting the informed
consent 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, so
straightforward as the following footnote stresses:
As soon as I handed in the interview themes, I was approached by one of the
experts. He said I needed to submit a highly structured interview agenda to get the
permission sought. He insisted this was to prevent me from focusing on politically
inappropriate themes. I was very reluctant to do so. I do not believe structured
interviews 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 in
private. I felt at a crossroad. I would either stop here or switch to an interview type
that 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 he
would take the responsibility for granting me the permission to do so. At that
moment, I better understood the burden and the responsibility I had had on me
and the significance of the gift I had been given by the director.

Perceived as unthreatening by the director, I was positioned as threatening by the
expert working in the same organization. As Walford (2001) stresses, discourses
around my political views and ‘shared experience’ were significant in the con-
struction of my identity as a threatening researcher to be monitored closely or an
unthreatening one to be confided in. So were initial meetings and interviews in
establishing 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 a
researcher willing to understand practical realities within schools most affected
by demographic fluctuations. During these interviews, I was treated very differ-
ently and positioned as someone expected to challenge planners of education
with 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 and
for our future. Most people think we over exaggerate when we say these things, but
we see the reality from inside. If migrants from mainland Turkey, such as the ones
situated around our school, are going to stay on the island and live with our
people, some serious work on the issue must take place. I hope your research will
guide some people to do so.

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



of parents were common. While head teachers constructed an identity almost
identical to heroes achieving the best possible within these conditions, teach-
ers projected an image of hopelessness, disappointment and helplessness. As is
clear 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 could
observe things as over exaggerated and was warned that this has happened
many times before. There seems also to be a hidden hope that I would not do so
and that my findings would guide others to take these issues more seriously.
Earlier research has shown that identity work is an important part of the
research process (Cassell, 2005; Warren and Fassett, 2002). Identities are
crafted out of a dialogic relationship among the researcher, respondents and
the 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 people
involved in this process (Baker, 2004; Cassell, 2005; Coffey, 1999; Crotty,
2003). Self-defined identities could differ from the ones defined by others and
the positionality intended might differ from the positionality constructed
because any impersonation of the second consciousness essential for viewing
oneself from the perspective of another is socially constructed a process through
which many voices of one’s culture, experiences and feelings are heard
(Morson and Emerson, 1990). This identity work influences the narratives
crafted 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-presentation
and narrative crafting, elites find it easier to do so (Ozga, 2000; Ozga and
Gewirtz, 1994). Where elites are involved, identity work becomes more signif-
icant, particularly in the knowledge-gathering process.

Knowledge-making work in the research process
Qualitative 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 stressing
methodological and theoretical appropriateness for purpose, and agreement
between 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 and
understanding others’ experiences from their viewpoints. Elaborate insights
into their views were thus imperative to my partial representation, the result of
multiple representations from the moment I hear interviewees’ subjective sto-
ries of their lived experiences in social worlds they operate within. As Miller



and Glassner (2004: 127) note, ‘knowledge of social world emerges from the
achievement of intersubjective depth and mutual understanding’. Access to
research sites does not automatically grant access to narratives (Miller, 2004).
Identities constructed in the field and beyond and the social categories we are
a member of influence interviewees’ responses and thus the understanding
achieved (Baker, 2004; Miller and Glassner, 2004; Riessman, 1993).
From the outset of the research process, I was aware that my ambiguous insider
status would help in gaining access to the research site, but would not automati-
cally grant access to interviewees’ accounts situated in social worlds outside the
interview context. For political reasons, gathering truthful accounts on some issues
such as challenges arising from demographic dilemmas would be particularly diffi-
cult. Establishing rapport and building feelings of comfort and competence would
be 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 convey
my enthusiasm and interest in the topic. Challenges around time management
were not limited to the pre-interview stages. Interviews and meetings were also
often interrupted by phone calls and visitors. These made each interview last
longer than planned or made it essential to continue later. They also provided
opportunities to express my concern about privacy and confidentiality. When
interviewees 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 of
phone calls, but you did not get disappointed or angry when I answered. You
stopped the tape-recorder and I made the call. These are very important.

Tight agendas are often presented as one of the main challenges policy
researchers face. In my case, they presented themselves as opportunities to
seize to establish mutual trust and understanding rather than challenges to
overcome. Likewise, challenges arising from resistance to disclose some infor-
mation were perceived as opportunities to establish mutual trust and exerting
pressure was deliberately avoided. Exerting pressure on such issues would posi-
tion me as a threat to privacy and would jeopardize my efforts to establish
mutual trust and understanding. I rephrased my questions in ways that would
allow 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 uncensored
representations, 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 in
length, 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 after
interviews and spending time in research sites provided the opportunity to
observe the multiple identities in operation and to check the truthfulness of
interviewees’ narrative accounts, an action imperative to judge the credibility
of 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 immense
efforts to establish rapport, my established identity as a politically unthreaten-
ing researcher, and conducting research in a small country where many
people 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 to
go outside to provide more privacy to the interviewees. Most often, before I had
time 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 about
during the interviews. Some other visits were by other people involved in the
reform process, particularly teachers and committee members planners of
education had worked with or by people from other units in the Ministry. I was
privileged to have earned trust. I was also self-conscious of my responsibilities
as a researcher to be worthy of this trust. During the informal conversations
observed, interviewees’ identities shifted from interviewees to colleagues, advi-
sors, school principals, committee leaders and back to interviewees soon after
I repressed the record button on the tape-recorder. Different situations invoked
different sets of membership categorization devices (Baker, 2004).
I had met some of the interviewees earlier. One of them had earlier attended
one of the workshops I presented as part of a bicommunal training initiative
funded by the United Nations Office for Project Services; the others had known
me since I was a teenager. During the informal conversations I had with them
prior to and after the interviews, I was positioned as an acquaintance even though
we all were aware of my role as a researcher. As soon as the interview started, I
sensed the identity work in progress and my new position as a researcher result-
ing from it. Informal conversations were more intimate and detailed. Details
were hidden in names disclosed and in emotions expressed. Recorded informa-
tion was not a distorted and contradictory version of the private, but a censored
one. This contradicts previously reported experiences of the ‘validity’ of
responses and of explicit ‘lies’ (Sikes, 2000). Russell (2005) stresses the impact



of trust and good rapport on every aspect of the research process from data
generation to data analyses, and Stanley and Slattery (2003) emphasize the
impact of the characteristics of research on the levels of access, rapport and
trust 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 the
researcher, researched and the research context further. It also illustrates that
the impact of trust and rapport is not limited to what happens in the interview
process, but goes beyond. It extends to time spent at the research sites.

A concluding note
Throughout this article, I have argued that identities are co-constructed
through the interplay among the interviewer, interviewees and the context.
Both interviewees and the interviewer are actively engaged in identity crafting
and co-constructed identities influence the data-gathering process and the
emerging intersubjective narratives of lived experiences in social worlds. This
process is multidirectional, multidimensional and active. It involves a multi-
faceted interrelationship between the researcher’s intended identity in relation
to other selves, available discourses and contexts. Managing the elements we
can control is an important aspect of this process. So is learning to live with
the elements we have no control over and with the discomfort of acknowledg-
ing that research identities can be pre-planned, but not pre-crafted. Though
researchers might desire to construct particular self-identities and position
themselves accordingly, the range of discourses available for interviewees to
drive on makes this impossible. Pre-planned identities are transformed soon
after 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 other
research 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 not
know. Identities crafted at any time in any setting are not genuinely knowable, nor is
the identity work genuinely comprehensible. I can only impersonate the second con-
sciousness imperative for viewing myself from the perspective of another. Any
impersonation I am able to achieve is socially constructed through which many
voices of my culture and my feelings are heard. My own self cannot be the same for
someone else (Morson and Emerson, 1990). Not can someone else’s be for me.

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S

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



REFERENCES

Atkinson, E. (2001) ‘Deconstructing Boundaries: Out on the Inside?’, Qualitative Studies
in Education 14(3): 307–16.
Atkinson, P. and Silverman, D. (1997) ‘Kundera’s Immortality: The Interview Society
and 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 in
Ehnographic 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’, Qualitative
Studies 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 Management
Research Process’, Qualitative Research 5(2): 167–79.
Chaudhry, L.N. (1997) ‘Researching “My People”, Researching Myself: Fragments of a
Reflexive Tale’, Qualitative Studies in Education 10(4): 441–53.
Christensen, D.H. and Dahl, C.M. (1997) ‘Rethinking Research Dichotomies’, Family
and 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: University
of California Press.
Corbin, J. and Morse, J.M. (2003) ‘The Unstructured Interactive Interview: Issues
of Reciprocity and Risks When Dealing With Sensitive Topics’, Qualitative Inquiry
9(3): 335–54.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1990) ‘Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and
Evaluative 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 the
Research 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 of
Qualitative Research’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative
Research (2nd Edition), pp. 1–28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deutsch, C.P. (1981) ‘The Behavioral Scientists: Insider and Outsider’, Journal of Social
Issues 37: 172–91.
Fontana, A. and Frey, J.H. (2000) ‘The Interview: From Structured Questions to
Negotiated Text’, in D.L. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) The Handbook of Qualitative
Research (2nd Edition), pp. 645–72. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.



Gubrium, J.E. and Holstein, J.A. (2002) ‘From the Individual Interview to the Interview
Society’, 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 in
Cyprus within Scholarly Literature’.
Miller, J. and Glassner, B. (2004) ‘The “Inside” and the “Outside”: Finding Realities in
Interviews’, 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 in
Research 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 of
Interviewing 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 Education
Policy Elite’, in D. Halpin and B. Troyna (eds) Researching Education Policy: Ethical and
Methodological Issues, pp. 121–35. London: Falmer Press.
Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd Edition).
Pillow, W.S. (2003) ‘Confessions, Catharsis or Cure? Rethinking the Use of Reflexivity
as Methodological Power in Qualitative Research’, Qualitative Studies in Education
16(2): 175–96.
Powney, J. and Watts, M. (1987) Interviewing in Educational Research. London: Routledge
and 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.
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 and
Culture, 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 Inquiry
7(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 and
Interaction. London: Sage.
Stanley, C.A. and Slattery, P. (2003) ‘Who Reveals What to Whom? Critical Reflections
on Conducting Qualitative Inquiry as an Interdisciplinary, Biracial, Male/Female
Research 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 and
Criticism, 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. Thousand
Oaks, 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 at
the University of Nottingham. Previously, Sefika was a senior instructor and course
organizer at the Eastern Mediterranean University where she also acted as a researcher
and team leader in the European Higher Education Harmonization Committee. She
completed her MPhil in Teaching and Teacher Education at the University of
Cambridge as a Cambridge Chevening Scholar. She also participated in the Cyprus
Intercultural Training Initiative funded by UNOPS as a trainer and education group
leader. Her research interests are in educational change, educational policy, school
improvement and research methods. Her current research focuses on large-scale edu-
cational reform initiatives in North Cyprus and the representation of education in
Cyprus within scholarly literature. Address: Flat 16, Seymour Court, Eversley Park
Road, London N21 1JG, UK. [email: smertkan1@yahoo.co.uk]


Organizational Behavior

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Organizational Behavior

Semelhante a Organizational Behavior (20)

Mais de guest5e0c7e

Mais de guest5e0c7e (20)

Último

Último (20)

Organizational Behavior