Administrating the interview:

Interviews in qualitative research differ in methodological features, such as length, style or the number of participants (King, 2004). In this study both face-to-face and telephone interviews were employed, as these data collection methods allowed more flexibility and freedom to pursue certain topics or questions in greater depth.

In the data collection phase, I was able to interact with the lecturers in a relaxed and informal manner, as most of them were colleagues I knew well. One of the advantages of this informal context, was that I was able to ask follow-up questions based on their responses and, where relevant, I modified questions according to their previous response. While the interviews were semi-structured, modifying the questions slightly allowed me to adopt ‘a more personal

approach’ to each interviewee (Turner, 2010, p. 755). The lecturers were all interviewed individually, and responses were recorded and transcribed (see appendix 7).

One problem that I encountered with face-to-face interviewing was that some of the interviewees had little to say or gave brief and shallow answers. Corbin and Strauss (2015) related this problem to interviewees being uncomfortable. It is of course possible that some participants just felt that they did not have much to say. In such scenarios, the interviewer should have some backup questions, which can be used to give participants a little nudge to speak (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). This experience prompted me to re-examine the interview questions I employed in Stage 1 and develop a much more structured and detailed interview schedule for Stage 3 (see appendix 3). This effectively increased the length and depth of the responses.

The Stage 1 interviews ranged from five to twenty-five minutes as some teachers provided very brief responses. Stage 3 interviews, on the other hand, lasted from twenty to forty-five minutes, perhaps due to the fact that that they were guided by a detailed interview schedule, produced longer and more detailed responses, thus providing the richness and depth characteristic of qualitative data. To reduce brief and shallow answers, King (2004) suggested pausing for few seconds before moving on to the next question, which can give the interviewee the impression that you need to hear more on the subject.

Eleven of the interviews in this study were conducted face-to-face (Stage 1), and took place at KAU at the ELI, were I usually work. The face-to-face interviews were conducted in quiet rooms, free from any distraction. Most of the interviewees were colleagues of mine, whom I knew personally and agreed to be interviewed. To familiarise lecturers with the current study, a summary of the main objectives of the research was introduced and explained before commencing the interviews. All participants were aware of the interview procedures and were given assurance about ethical principles regarding voice recording. The eleven face- to-face interviews were digitally recorded and then transcribed.

As the Stage 3 interviews took place over a year after the first data collection stage, I did not have sufficient time to arrange a second visit in order to carry out further face-to-face

interviews. However, I wanted to ensure that Stage 3 interviewees would be given the freedom to add more details or ask questions during the interviews, in a similar vein to the face-to-face participants in Stage 1. Furthermore, it appeared that some Stage 1 interviewees felt uneasy answering questions face-to-face, thus suggesting that some participants may actually prefer a telephone interview. Chapple (1999), for instance was sceptical about the data she would obtain though telephone interviews, because she had always believed in the importance of face-to-face interviewing, yet she found that her data were unexpectedly rich. Chapple (1999) added that when compared to in-person interviews, telephone interviews provide a number of advantages including decreased cost and decreased space requirement.

Furthermore, telephone interviews allow participants to remain on ‘their own turf’ (McCoyd and Kerson, 2006, p.399), decrease social pressure and increase rapport (ibid.). Carr and Worth, (2001, p. 521) described telephone interviews as a ‘versatile data collection tool’ because of the advantages it provides. In the present study, telephone interviews were viewed as a very effective data collection tool.

Questionnaire:

The greatest advantage questionnaires offer is their efficiency as they can collect a large amount of data without requiring much time, effort and financial resources. By administrating a questionnaire to a group of people, the researcher can collect an extensive amount of information from a large number of participants in a short time and with little personal involvement (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 115). Questionnaires are widely used also to obtain a numeric description of attitudes, trends, or opinions among a population by investigating a sample of that population (Creswell, 2009).

Questionnaires often include both closed-ended and open-ended questions. Unlike closed- ended questions, ‘open-ended questions include items where the actual question is not followed by response options for the respondent to choose from but rather by some blank space (e. g., dotted lines) for the respondent to fill’ (Dörnyei, 2003, p.47). Because there is little personal involvement on behalf of the researcher, participants might feel more at ease answering questions and not feel compelled to provide answers (Nortier, 2008). Munn and

Drever (1990) pointed out three advantages of using questionnaires, namely being time efficient, assuring anonymity, and ensuring that questions are standardised. Additionally, questionnaires can reach a larger number of potential participants in a relatively short time (Munn and Drever, 1990). The absence of the researcher ensures anonymity, which may increase the truthfulness of the responses (ibid.).

By using questionnaires ‘the researcher can be expected to have a fairly advanced understanding of the issue of topic being investigated. That is certainly the case if one is asking about questions involving rating scales; ‘To what extent do you agree that …’ which can be answered on a strongly disagree to strongly agree rating’ (Tymms, 2017, p.175). Questionnaires can also be a useful tool for measuring things such as ‘motivation’ or ‘attitudes’. In such cases, ‘questionnaires seek to answer questions about people’s feelings, attitudes and perceptions, having first decided what kind of attitudes and perceptions are relevant and valued’. Where open ended questions are employed, ‘the questionnaire is less constrained’ and it is used ‘to develop a structure or theory through the analysis to the responses but even there, the questions that need to be asked need to be based on prior knowledge’ (ibid.).

There are, however, also disadvantages of employing questionnaires. While little personal involvement may increase the trustworthiness of responses, this also means that the researcher is often not available to answer any questions participants may have. Furthermore, if only closed items are used, the questionnaire may lack coverage or authenticity, while using exclusively open questions may result in very brief responses (Cohen et al. 2011, p. 354). Furthermore, unlike interviews, which can be carried out at an appropriate speed, ‘questionnaires are often filled in hurriedly’ (ibid.). There is also the risk that not enough questionnaires are returned. Where samples are too small, this can make statistical analysis impossible to carry out and therefore affect the extent to which the researcher can use the data (ibid.). Low response rate is often linked to the method employed when administrating the questionnaire.

In constrained situations, such as in a classroom setting, it is possible to obtain very high response rates, even as high as 100% (Tymms, 2012), however questionnaires are often not

collected in such a controlled way. They may be sent out by post or made available online. In this study, teachers were asked to complete the questionnaire in their own time, so that may have also affected the response rate. While it is acknowledged that ‘low response rates threaten the validity of the information’ in the social sciences it is not uncommon to see response rates below 60% and at times studies with response rates ‘as low as 20%’ are published (ibid., p. 236). The following section describes the pilot phase of the questionnaire.