Common use of Conversational interviews Clause in Contracts

Conversational interviews. As previously stated, I conducted 14 conversational interviews with the young people (see appendix A and B), 6 with parents (see appendix C) and 5 with Hoshūkō teachers (see appendix D). The interviews with the young people ranged from 20 to 59 minutes in length, the interviews with parents ranged from just over 45 minutes to 4 hours and the interviews with the teachers ranged from just over an hour to 2 hours. In total this was approximately 30 hours of recorded interviews. As I did not receive permission to conduct interviews in Hoshūkō buildings they took place in various locations: the informants’ homes, my home, university foyer, university classroom, university café/bar and in hotels in both London and Cambridge. I chose to interview the young people for many reasons. The conversational interviews allowed me to listen to their own interpretations and thoughts because the interviewees could ‘speak in their own voices and with their own language’ (Xxxxx, 2004, p. 182), which was predominately English with some Japanese words (cultural concepts) inserted. I listened to their voices rather than relying on the interpretations of other adults (Xxxx and Xxxxxxxxx, 2002). They allowed me to discuss topics which were salient to their lives (ibid). In addition, I chose to interview some parents and teachers to supplement the accounts of the young people. I obtained some insider information about what it means to be a parent of a young person attending Hoshūkō and the workings of Hoshūkō (see chapter 5). However, I am not claiming to provide real ‘facts’ about their social worlds (Xxxxx, 2004), rather it is ’one possible version of the social world’ (Xxxxx, 2004, p. 182). In other words, ‘it is a particular representation or account of an individual’s views and opinions’ (Xxxxx, 2004, p. 182). I felt I collected accounts of what the interviewees felt was important to their lives and how they wanted to represent their lives which was made possible through the use of conversational interviews. In the research methods literature, the term conversational interview (Xxxxxx, 2006) does not seem to be widely used. Some of the preferred terms include: ethnographic interviews (Xxxx, 2001), qualitative interviews (Xxxxx, 2004; Xxxxxx, 2002), or just simply interviews (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007; Holstein and Gubrium, 2004). However, Xxxxx (1984, p. 226) and Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx (2010, p. 44) believe that an (ethnographic) interview is a conversation. I feel that the word conversational interview is a more precise term as it implies that a conversation is taking place rather than a formal interview. Therefore, I, as did Xxxxxx (2006), regarded myself as an ethnographic researcher conducting conversational interviews. During the conversational interviews I had a list of topics rather than questions (Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx, 2010). I also had the questionnaires so I could form statements: ‘You wrote /’You said’ rather than ‘the bomb shell effect of a point-blank question’73 (Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx, 2010, p. 47). This helped to give the feeling of an informal discussion rather than an interview. When I did ask questions, I tried to make them open ended. No two interviews were exactly the same as some branched off in different directions to others (see Xxxxxxxxx and Dong, 2010). Traditionally interviews may not have been regarded as valid accounts by ethnographers in the ‘doing ethnography’ (Green and Xxxxxx, 1997) tradition. This was because such ethnographers tended to regard unsolicited accounts more valid than solicited accounts (Xxxxx, 2004; Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007). Naturally occurring data was thought to be more spontaneous and less “staged” than interviews (Holstein and Gubrium, 2004). However, Xxxxxxxx and Gubrium (2004, p. 155) believe that ‘the interview is becoming more and more commonplace, increasingly making it a naturally occurring occasion in its own right for articulating experience’. Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (2007, p. 103) also stress that, ‘there is an increasing tendency for qualitative research, even that labelled as ethnographic, to rely exclusively on interview data.’ Thus, interviews can be used when adopting an ethnographic perspective because: 73 This would seem to be in contrast to Xxxxxxx et al.’s (2010, p. 93) interviews in a Chinese complementary school whereby the interviewer asks a ‘point blank question’ and the respondent has to answer the question, which gives the respondents less agency over the interview. [t]here is no reason, then, for ethnographers to shy away from the use of interviews, where these are viable. Interviewing can be an extremely important source of data: it may allow one to generate information that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain otherwise […] (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007, p. 102). Moreover, [T]he aim of ethnography goes beyond the provision of a description of what occurred in a particular setting over a certain period of time, there may be positive advantages to be gained from subjecting people to verbal stimuli different from those prevalent in the setting in which they normally operate. In other words, the ‘artificiality’ of the interview, when compared with ‘normal’ events in the setting, may allow us to understand how participants would behave in other circumstances, […] (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007, p. 108). However, it is necessary to remember that interviews ‘are never simply conversations, because the ethnographer has a research agenda and must retain some control over the proceedings’ (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007, p. 117). As a conversation is a two way process, I audio recorded the interviews as I could not make any field notes due to my participation in them. I believed that the making of the field notes would have been off putting to the interviewees as was the case with one of the interviewers in Xxxxxxxx et al.’s (2003) study. In this study the interviewer felt that it was because they had not informed the interviewee about the use of note taking during interviews. However, I feel that it would still be distracting to the interviewees because it would lead to a break in eye contact which would make it difficult to generate data (Xxxxxx, 1996). During the conversational interviews, I was careful to focus on the ‘doing’ of ethnicity (Xxxxxxx, 1996) so I focused on the practices in which the young people engaged and avoided the word ‘feel’ as it is linked with the ‘being’ of ethnicity74 (ibid). One particular British-Based Japanese- Japanese (BBJ-J) young person who was known to me spoke openly about his Japanese ethnicities which surprised me because when I had met him previously in my role as a parent he had been very shy. I felt that some of the young people were reluctant to talk about everyday activities and the mundane so it was sometimes difficult to generate a conversation. This could have been because there was a lack of ‘cooperativity’ ‘a shared desire to talk to one another’ (Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx, 2010, p. 44). This was not always the case as Xxxx (aged 18) talked openly and at length with me for nearly one hour. Alternatively, it could have been because some of the young people (5) were not known to me, which meant that I was a stranger to them. This was not always the case as Xxxxxxx (aged 12) had never met me before and she was keen to talk to me. I feel it was partly because some of the young people were at times puzzled about why I wanted to know about the everyday taken-for-granted practices in which they engaged as many of them (9) were known to me through long term friendships with the parents or other networks. 74 This would seem to be in contrast to Xxxxxxx et al. (2010a, p. 88) who report on how the Chinese pupils ‘feel’ about the complementary school and whether attendance at the complementary school made them ‘feel’ more ( or less) Chinese. In addition, I felt that although they seemed to value their mixed ethnicities, their mixedness did not seem to be ‘central to their day to day lives’ (Aspinall, 2008, p. 25). When talking to some of the adults I had very little to fall back on so at times it was difficult to generate a conversation. So I tended to ask more questions but I tried to encourage them to speak as freely as possible. With the Japanese mothers it was generally easy to generate a conversation. This could be because I had met them in the library at Hoshūkō so we had developed a ‘rapport’ (Xxxxxxxx et al., 2003; Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007). However, even with some of the teachers I had not met before I felt a real sense of ‘cooperativity’ because they also asked me questions about my family, which suggested they had a ‘shared desire to talk’ to me (Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx, 2010). With some of the mothers and teachers there was a problem with language as they were less than fluent in English. When trying to transcribe the interviews it was difficult to understand what they were trying to say so there were sections of the interviews which I could not use. Many of the interviewees mixed English and Japanese speech which made it easier for me to understand as this was how I communicated at home with my family. When they tried to speak in purely English speech it made it more difficult to understand. Although I never used the word’ interview’75 with the mothers, two of them seemed to be anxious about talking to me. At the beginning of Xxxx’s interview I was surprised when she said ‘are you interviewing me in English I hope my English is good enough for you’ (field notes, 11.06.2010). I felt this question was very odd as I had spoken to her many times previously over many years both at Daikon Bunkō and at Hoshūkō. In addition, when I bumped into Sawako at Hoshūkō prior to her interview she commented that: she does not know much about Hoshūkō and that she can introduce me to another Japanese women living in Cambridge who has more experience than her. I try to explain that it doesn’t matter and I want to talk to her (field notes, 06.06.2012). Again I felt this was rather odd as I had met her in the library and had spoken to her on several occasions76. These reactions could have been because in my guise as an interviewer, they no longer viewed me as a parent but I was ‘imagined as a figure of authority’ (Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxx, 2010, p. 50). In addition, I was attached to King’s College which is a ‘prestigious institution we call university surrounded by assumptions of intellectual brilliance and sophistication’ (ibid, p. 50).

Conversational interviews. As previously stated, I conducted 14 conversational interviews with the young people (see appendix A and B), 6 with parents (see appendix C) and 5 with Hoshūkō teachers (see appendix D). The interviews with the young people ranged from 20 to 59 minutes in length, the interviews with parents ranged from just over 45 minutes to 4 hours and the interviews with the teachers ranged from just over an hour to 2 hours. In total this was approximately 30 hours of recorded interviews. As I did not receive permission to conduct interviews in Hoshūkō buildings they took place in various locations: the informants’ homes, my home, university foyer, university classroom, university café/bar and in hotels in both London and Cambridge. I chose to interview the young people for many reasons. The conversational interviews allowed me to listen to their own interpretations and thoughts because the interviewees could ‘speak in their own voices and with their own language’ (XxxxxByrne, 2004, p. 182), which was predominately English with some Japanese words (cultural concepts) inserted. I listened to their voices rather than relying on the interpretations of other adults (Xxxx Eder and XxxxxxxxxFingerson, 2002). They allowed me to discuss topics which were salient to their lives (ibid). In addition, I chose to interview some parents and teachers to supplement the accounts of the young people. I obtained some insider information about what it means to be a parent of a young person attending Hoshūkō and the workings of Hoshūkō (see chapter 5). However, I am not claiming to provide real ‘facts’ about their social worlds (XxxxxByrne, 2004), rather it is ’one possible version of the social world’ (XxxxxByrne, 2004, p. 182). In other words, ‘it is a particular representation or account of an individual’s views and opinions’ (XxxxxByrne, 2004, p. 182). I felt I collected accounts of what the interviewees felt was important to their lives and how they wanted to represent their lives which was made possible through the use of conversational interviews. In the research methods literature, the term conversational interview (XxxxxxHarris, 2006) does not seem to be widely used. Some of the preferred terms include: ethnographic interviews (XxxxHeyl, 2001), qualitative interviews (XxxxxByrne, 2004; XxxxxxWarren, 2002), or just simply interviews (Xxxxxxxxxx Hammersley and XxxxxxxxAtkinson, 2007; Holstein and Gubrium, 2004). However, Xxxxx Cohen (1984, p. 226) and Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and Xxxx Dong (2010, p. 44) believe that an (ethnographic) interview is a conversation. I feel that the word conversational interview is a more precise term as it implies that a conversation is taking place rather than a formal interview. Therefore, I, as did Xxxxxx Harris (2006), regarded myself as an ethnographic researcher conducting conversational interviews. During the conversational interviews I had a list of topics rather than questions (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010). I also had the questionnaires so I could form statements: ‘You wrote /’You said’ rather than ‘the bomb shell effect of a point-blank question’73 (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010, p. 47). This helped to give the feeling of an informal discussion rather than an interview. When I did ask questions, I tried to make them open ended. No two interviews were exactly the same as some branched off in different directions to others (see Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and Dong, 2010). Traditionally interviews may not have been regarded as valid accounts by ethnographers in the ‘doing ethnography’ (Green and XxxxxxBloome, 1997) tradition. This was because such ethnographers tended to regard unsolicited accounts more valid than solicited accounts (XxxxxWalsh, 2004; Xxxxxxxxxx Hammersley and XxxxxxxxAtkinson, 2007). Naturally occurring data was thought to be more spontaneous and less “staged” than interviews (Holstein and Gubrium, 2004). However, Xxxxxxxx Holstein and Gubrium (2004, p. 155) believe that ‘the interview is becoming more and more commonplace, increasingly making it a naturally occurring occasion in its own right for articulating experience’. Xxxxxxxxxx Hammersley and Xxxxxxxx Atkinson (2007, p. 103) also stress that, ‘there is an increasing tendency for qualitative research, even that labelled as ethnographic, to rely exclusively on interview data.’ Thus, interviews can be used when adopting an ethnographic perspective because: 73 This would seem to be in contrast to Xxxxxxx Francis et al.’s (2010, p. 93) interviews in a Chinese complementary school whereby the interviewer asks a ‘point blank question’ and the respondent has to answer the question, which gives the respondents less agency over the interview. [t]here is no reason, then, for ethnographers to shy away from the use of interviews, where these are viable. Interviewing can be an extremely important source of data: it may allow one to generate information that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain otherwise […] (Xxxxxxxxxx Hammersley and XxxxxxxxAtkinson, 2007, p. 102). Moreover, [T]he aim of ethnography goes beyond the provision of a description of what occurred in a particular setting over a certain period of time, there may be positive advantages to be gained from subjecting people to verbal stimuli different from those prevalent in the setting in which they normally operate. In other words, the ‘artificiality’ of the interview, when compared with ‘normal’ events in the setting, may allow us to understand how participants would behave in other circumstances, […] (Xxxxxxxxxx Hammersley and XxxxxxxxAtkinson, 2007, p. 108). However, it is necessary to remember that interviews ‘are never simply conversations, because the ethnographer has a research agenda and must retain some control over the proceedings’ (Xxxxxxxxxx Hammersley and XxxxxxxxAtkinson, 2007, p. 117). As a conversation is a two way process, I audio recorded the interviews as I could not make any field notes due to my participation in them. I believed that the making of the field notes would have been off putting to the interviewees as was the case with one of the interviewers in Xxxxxxxx Roulston et al.’s (2003) study. In this study the interviewer felt that it was because they had not informed the interviewee about the use of note taking during interviews. However, I feel that it would still be distracting to the interviewees because it would lead to a break in eye contact which would make it difficult to generate data (XxxxxxSanger, 1996). During the conversational interviews, I was careful to focus on the ‘doing’ of ethnicity (XxxxxxxFishman, 1996) so I focused on the practices in which the young people engaged and avoided the word ‘feel’ as it is linked with the ‘being’ of ethnicity74 (ibid). One particular British-Based Japanese- Japanese (BBJ-J) young person who was known to me spoke openly about his Japanese ethnicities which surprised me because when I had met him previously in my role as a parent he had been very shy. I felt that some of the young people were reluctant to talk about everyday activities and the mundane so it was sometimes difficult to generate a conversation. This could have been because there was a lack of ‘cooperativity’ ‘a shared desire to talk to one another’ (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010, p. 44). This was not always the case as Xxxx Carl (aged 18) talked openly and at length with me for nearly one hour. Alternatively, it could have been because some of the young people (5) were not known to me, which meant that I was a stranger to them. This was not always the case as Xxxxxxx Eleanor (aged 12) had never met me before and she was keen to talk to me. I feel it was partly because some of the young people were at times puzzled about why I wanted to know about the everyday taken-for-granted practices in which they engaged as many of them (9) were known to me through long term friendships with the parents or other networks. 74 This would seem to be in contrast to Xxxxxxx Francis et al. (2010a, p. 88) who report on how the Chinese pupils ‘feel’ about the complementary school and whether attendance at the complementary school made them ‘feel’ more ( or less) Chinese. In addition, I felt that although they seemed to value their mixed ethnicities, their mixedness did not seem to be ‘central to their day to day lives’ (Aspinall, 2008, p. 25). When talking to some of the adults I had very little to fall back on so at times it was difficult to generate a conversation. So I tended to ask more questions but I tried to encourage them to speak as freely as possible. With the Japanese mothers it was generally easy to generate a conversation. This could be because I had met them in the library at Hoshūkō so we had developed a ‘rapport’ (Xxxxxxxx Roulston et al., 2003; Xxxxxxxxxx Hammersley and XxxxxxxxAtkinson, 2007). However, even with some of the teachers I had not met before I felt a real sense of ‘cooperativity’ because they also asked me questions about my family, which suggested they had a ‘shared desire to talk’ to me (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010). With some of the mothers and teachers there was a problem with language as they were less than fluent in English. When trying to transcribe the interviews it was difficult to understand what they were trying to say so there were sections of the interviews which I could not use. Many of the interviewees mixed English and Japanese speech which made it easier for me to understand as this was how I communicated at home with my family. When they tried to speak in purely English speech it made it more difficult to understand. Although I never used the word’ interview’75 with the mothers, two of them seemed to be anxious about talking to me. At the beginning of XxxxYuri’s interview I was surprised when she said ‘are you interviewing me in English I hope my English is good enough for you’ (field notes, 11.06.2010). I felt this question was very odd as I had spoken to her many times previously over many years both at Daikon Bunkō and at Hoshūkō. In addition, when I bumped into Sawako at Hoshūkō prior to her interview she commented that: she does not know much about Hoshūkō and that she can introduce me to another Japanese women living in Cambridge who has more experience than her. I try to explain that it doesn’t matter and I want to talk to her (field notes, 06.06.2012). Again I felt this was rather odd as I had met her in the library and had spoken to her on several occasions76. These reactions could have been because in my guise as an interviewer, they no longer viewed me as a parent but I was ‘imagined as a figure of authority’ (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010, p. 50). In addition, I was attached to King’s College which is a ‘prestigious institution we call university surrounded by assumptions of intellectual brilliance and sophistication’ (ibid, p. 50).

Conversational interviews. As previously stated, I conducted 14 conversational interviews with the young people (see appendix A and B), 6 with parents (see appendix C) and 5 with Hoshūkō teachers (see appendix D). The interviews with the young people ranged from 20 to 59 minutes in length, the interviews with parents ranged from just over 45 minutes to 4 hours and the interviews with the teachers ranged from just over an hour to 2 hours. In total this was approximately 30 hours of recorded interviews. As I did not receive permission to conduct interviews in Hoshūkō buildings they took place in various locations: the informants’ homes, my home, university foyer, university classroom, university café/bar and in hotels in both London and Cambridge. I chose to interview the young people for many reasons. The conversational interviews allowed me to listen to their own interpretations and thoughts because the interviewees could ‘speak in their own voices and with their own language’ (Xxxxx, 2004, p. 182), which was predominately English with some Japanese words (cultural concepts) inserted. I listened to their voices rather than relying on the interpretations of other adults (Xxxx and Xxxxxxxxx, 2002). They allowed me to discuss topics which were salient to their lives (ibid). In addition, I chose to interview some parents and teachers to supplement the accounts of the young people. I obtained some insider information about what it means to be a parent of a young person attending Hoshūkō and the workings of Hoshūkō (see chapter 5). However, I am not claiming to provide real ‘facts’ about their social worlds (Xxxxx, 2004), rather it is ’one possible version of the social world’ (Xxxxx, 2004, p. 182). In other words, ‘it is a particular representation or account of an individual’s views and opinions’ (Xxxxx, 2004, p. 182). I felt I collected accounts of what the interviewees felt was important to their lives and how they wanted to represent their lives which was made possible through the use of conversational interviews. In the research methods literature, the term conversational interview (Xxxxxx, 2006) does not seem to be widely used. Some of the preferred terms include: ethnographic interviews (Xxxx, 2001), qualitative interviews (Xxxxx, 2004; Xxxxxx, 2002), or just simply interviews (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007; Holstein and Gubrium, 2004). However, Xxxxx (1984, p. 226) and Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and Xxxx Dong (2010, p. 44) believe that an (ethnographic) interview is a conversation. I feel that the word conversational interview is a more precise term as it implies that a conversation is taking place rather than a formal interview. Therefore, I, as did Xxxxxx (2006), regarded myself as an ethnographic researcher conducting conversational interviews. During the conversational interviews I had a list of topics rather than questions (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010). I also had the questionnaires so I could form statements: ‘You wrote /’You said’ rather than ‘the bomb shell effect of a point-blank question’73 (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010, p. 47). This helped to give the feeling of an informal discussion rather than an interview. When I did ask questions, I tried to make them open ended. No two interviews were exactly the same as some branched off in different directions to others (see Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and Dong, 2010). Traditionally interviews may not have been regarded as valid accounts by ethnographers in the ‘doing ethnography’ (Green and Xxxxxx, 1997) tradition. This was because such ethnographers tended to regard unsolicited accounts more valid than solicited accounts (Xxxxx, 2004; Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007). Naturally occurring data was thought to be more spontaneous and less “staged” than interviews (Holstein and Gubrium, 2004). However, Xxxxxxxx Holstein and Gubrium (2004, p. 155) believe that ‘the interview is becoming more and more commonplace, increasingly making it a naturally occurring occasion in its own right for articulating experience’. Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (2007, p. 103) also stress that, ‘there is an increasing tendency for qualitative research, even that labelled as ethnographic, to rely exclusively on interview data.’ Thus, interviews can be used when adopting an ethnographic perspective because: 73 This would seem to be in contrast to Xxxxxxx et al.’s (2010, p. 93) interviews in a Chinese complementary school whereby the interviewer asks a ‘point blank question’ and the respondent has to answer the question, which gives the respondents less agency over the interview. [t]here is no reason, then, for ethnographers to shy away from the use of interviews, where these are viable. Interviewing can be an extremely important source of data: it may allow one to generate information that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain otherwise […] (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007, p. 102). Moreover, [T]he aim of ethnography goes beyond the provision of a description of what occurred in a particular setting over a certain period of time, there may be positive advantages to be gained from subjecting people to verbal stimuli different from those prevalent in the setting in which they normally operate. In other words, the ‘artificiality’ of the interview, when compared with ‘normal’ events in the setting, may allow us to understand how participants would behave in other circumstances, […] (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007, p. 108). However, it is necessary to remember that interviews ‘are never simply conversations, because the ethnographer has a research agenda and must retain some control over the proceedings’ (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007, p. 117). As a conversation is a two way process, I audio recorded the interviews as I could not make any field notes due to my participation in them. I believed that the making of the field notes would have been off putting to the interviewees as was the case with one of the interviewers in Xxxxxxxx et al.’s (2003) study. In this study the interviewer felt that it was because they had not informed the interviewee about the use of note taking during interviews. However, I feel that it would still be distracting to the interviewees because it would lead to a break in eye contact which would make it difficult to generate data (XxxxxxSanger, 1996). During the conversational interviews, I was careful to focus on the ‘doing’ of ethnicity (Xxxxxxx, 1996) so I focused on the practices in which the young people engaged and avoided the word ‘feel’ as it is linked with the ‘being’ of ethnicity74 (ibid). One particular British-Based Japanese- Japanese (BBJ-J) young person who was known to me spoke openly about his Japanese ethnicities which surprised me because when I had met him previously in my role as a parent he had been very shy. I felt that some of the young people were reluctant to talk about everyday activities and the mundane so it was sometimes difficult to generate a conversation. This could have been because there was a lack of ‘cooperativity’ ‘a shared desire to talk to one another’ (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010, p. 44). This was not always the case as Xxxx (aged 18) talked openly and at length with me for nearly one hour. Alternatively, it could have been because some of the young people (5) were not known to me, which meant that I was a stranger to them. This was not always the case as Xxxxxxx (aged 12) had never met me before and she was keen to talk to me. I feel it was partly because some of the young people were at times puzzled about why I wanted to know about the everyday taken-for-granted practices in which they engaged as many of them (9) were known to me through long term friendships with the parents or other networks. 74 This would seem to be in contrast to Xxxxxxx et al. (2010a, p. 88) who report on how the Chinese pupils ‘feel’ about the complementary school and whether attendance at the complementary school made them ‘feel’ more ( or less) Chinese. In addition, I felt that although they seemed to value their mixed ethnicities, their mixedness did not seem to be ‘central to their day to day lives’ (Aspinall, 2008, p. 25). When talking to some of the adults I had very little to fall back on so at times it was difficult to generate a conversation. So I tended to ask more questions but I tried to encourage them to speak as freely as possible. With the Japanese mothers it was generally easy to generate a conversation. This could be because I had met them in the library at Hoshūkō so we had developed a ‘rapport’ (Xxxxxxxx et al., 2003; Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2007). However, even with some of the teachers I had not met before I felt a real sense of ‘cooperativity’ because they also asked me questions about my family, which suggested they had a ‘shared desire to talk’ to me (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010). With some of the mothers and teachers there was a problem with language as they were less than fluent in English. When trying to transcribe the interviews it was difficult to understand what they were trying to say so there were sections of the interviews which I could not use. Many of the interviewees mixed English and Japanese speech which made it easier for me to understand as this was how I communicated at home with my family. When they tried to speak in purely English speech it made it more difficult to understand. Although I never used the word’ interview’75 with the mothers, two of them seemed to be anxious about talking to me. At the beginning of XxxxYuri’s interview I was surprised when she said ‘are you interviewing me in English I hope my English is good enough for you’ (field notes, 11.06.2010). I felt this question was very odd as I had spoken to her many times previously over many years both at Daikon Bunkō and at Hoshūkō. In addition, when I bumped into Sawako at Hoshūkō prior to her interview she commented that: she does not know much about Hoshūkō and that she can introduce me to another Japanese women living in Cambridge who has more experience than her. I try to explain that it doesn’t matter and I want to talk to her (field notes, 06.06.2012). Again I felt this was rather odd as I had met her in the library and had spoken to her on several occasions76. These reactions could have been because in my guise as an interviewer, they no longer viewed me as a parent but I was ‘imagined as a figure of authority’ (Xxxxxxxxx Blommaert and XxxxDong, 2010, p. 50). In addition, I was attached to King’s College which is a ‘prestigious institution we call university surrounded by assumptions of intellectual brilliance and sophistication’ (ibid, p. 50).