Methods 2 43 introductory question (low-threshold question to introduce the central theme and initiate interaction), a transition question (to build a bridge to the key questions), three (alumni) or six (teacher educator) key questions, and a concluding question (giving participants the opportunity to reflect on what they said) (cf. Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de gezondheidszorg CBO, September 2004). A key component in the conversation guide for alumni was a reallife case from the interview with Daniël. That case describes an extreme situation that can provoke the conversation. This specific case was chosen because the situation was described in detail, and lies at the interface of internal and external religious diversity. For the teacher educators I worked with a visualisation of the estimated entry levels and the desired exit levels of the trainee teachers. The conversation guides were piloted with five teacher educators. Based on that pilot, it was decided that the case indeed contained relevant starting points for conversation in the focus group. It was likewise decided to leave out the case from the conversation guide of teacher educators, as it provided little insight into answering the research question, and given that the desired focus lie rather on the perceived levels that trainee teachers have for the mentioned competences. The conversation guide for alumni can be found in Appendix V and the conversation guide for teacher educators in Appendix VI. Conducting the focus groups Before the focus group started, a few ‘rules of game’ were explained, such as there being no right or wrong responses and that the conversation would be centrally conducted (cf. Evers & De Boer, 2012). The focus groups with alumni took place after school hours, those with teacher educators were held mid-day. The focus groups with alumni lasted 75 and 90 minutes, the ones with teacher educators both lasted over 100 minutes. All focus groups were audio-recorded and the assistant created a report on the spot. The assistant subsequently developed the report further, based on the audio recordings, and the researcher checked it. 2.4 Data Analysis To structure the analysis, the general framework for descriptive/interpretative qualitative research of Elliott and Timulak (2005) was broadly followed. This framework highlights that analysis already starts during the transcription of the data and their first reading (Elliot & Timulak, 2005). I also value involving the writing of the results as an integral part of the analysis, as I believe that the way in which the results are presented is also related to the interpretation (cf. Braun & Clarke, 2006; Holliday, 2007). This means that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw