LI Jiangqi (Raphael), Beijing Normal-Hong Kong Baptist University
As I embark on my qualitative research journey, I recently had the opportunity to conduct a 90-minute in-depth interview with Vice Principal (Academic) LI Xiuhai, who also serves as the head of the International Department at a Foreign Languages School in Zhuhai, Guangdong Province. My overarching research interest lies in how educational leaders navigate the intersection of international curricula and localized cultural contexts. While the interview yielded rich data about his educational philosophy, the process itself served as a profound methodological masterclass. In this blog post, I want to reflect on three critical methodological aspects of this experience: building rapport, facilitating narrative construction to generate thick description, and managing researcher subjectivity.
1. The Dynamics of Building Rapport
In qualitative interviewing, rapport is the foundation of authentic data collection. It is not merely about being friendly; it is about establishing a space of mutual trust where the participant feels safe to share their lived experiences (Seidman, 2006).
When I first met Principal LI, he exuded the aura of a traditional Chinese scholar—humble and elegant. Initially, I felt a distinct power dynamic; he was an experienced leader, and I was a junior researcher. To bridge this gap, I utilized active listening and empathetic engagement. Having done preliminary background research, I learned he was deeply rooted in a four-generation family lineage of educators. Therefore, rather than rigidly sticking to my interview protocol, I proactively adapted my approach, allowing his reflections on this family legacy to guide the opening.
Interestingly, the concept of rapport mirrored his own educational practice. During the interview, he shared how his students call him by his first name, rather than the formal “Teacher Li,” and frequently invite him to “Principal’s Lunches” to reflect on their progress. By discussing his approach to building trust with his students, we inadvertently strengthened the researcher-participant rapport. He realized I was not there to evaluate his school’s performance, but to genuinely understand his pedagogical worldview. This breakthrough allowed the conversation to shift from potentially rehearsed PR narratives to genuine reflections on his career bottlenecks as a university lecturer and his bold transition to foundational education in 2016.
2. Facilitating Narrative Construction and “Thick Description”
A qualitative interview is not a simple Q&A session; it is an active co-construction of meaning between the interviewer and the interviewee (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). My goal was to elicit narratives that could provide what Geertz (2017) famously calls “thick description”—data that captures not just behavior, but its context and cultural meaning.
To achieve this, I used open-ended, probing questions to explore his strategic decisions, such as the introduction of the Ontario Secondary School Diploma curriculum and the localized “Liberal Arts” program. I asked him to walk me through specific critical incidents. One of the most compelling narratives emerged when he described the “Coming of Age Ceremony.” He recounted a specific moment in 2019 when visiting American professors wore traditional Chinese Hanfu, which they later wore to their own graduation ceremonies in the US.
Methodologically, this anecdote was gold. By asking him for specific examples rather than abstract concepts, I gathered rich, contextualized data that perfectly illustrated his abstract philosophy of cultivating “global citizens with roots in traditional Chinese culture.” As researchers, we must prompt our participants to anchor their philosophies in concrete events, transforming abstract educational ideals into analyzable qualitative data.
3. Navigating Researcher Subjectivity
Finally, this interview forced me to confront my own subjectivity. Qualitative research acknowledges that the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection (Patton, 2014). As Principal LI passionately described his commitment to transforming “ordinary students into excellent ones”—specifically recalling a struggling student who had worked in a factory before achieving a 90% average and multiple university offers—I found myself deeply moved. His philosophy of being “strict in teaching, but loving in details” resonated strongly with my own values.
However, as a researcher, I must maintain analytical distance. The challenge lies in utilizing this empathy to dig deeper without losing critical objectivity. I had to constantly ask myself: Am I romanticizing his leadership style? How can I triangulate this interview data with other sources, such as document analysis (e.g. curriculum outlines) or observations, to ensure the validity and credibility of my findings (Patton, 2014)? Acknowledging this subjectivity in my research journal has been a crucial step in enhancing the trustworthiness of my future thesis.
Conclusion
The 90 minutes spent with Principal LI were invaluable, not just for the stories he told, but for the methodological lessons I learned. It reinforced that qualitative interviewing is a delicate dance of building trust, guiding narratives, and maintaining reflexive awareness. As I move forward with my EdD research design, I carry with me the understanding that the richness of our data is directly proportional to the intentionality of our methodological practice.
References
Geertz, C. (2017). The interpretation of cultures (3rd ed.). Basic books.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. sage.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers college press
