Conduct of interviews

In order to conduct the interview, approval needed to be obtained from Victoria University Human Resources Ethics Committee. The interview process had to follow the ethics approval to limit the likelihood of any potential risks. The researcher obtained the required approval as discussed in section 2.4.5.

All of the relevant documents were translated into Vietnamese for ethics approval. They were translated by a Professor of Economics at Hanoi Economics University who is fluent in both English and Vietnamese. He is also a PhD candidate of Law at the College of Law and Justice, Victoria University. A declaration of accuracy of the

49

translation by him is attached as Appendix 13. The translations appear in the following Appendices:

1- Interview Schedule

2- Information to Participants 3- Consent Form for Participants 8- Letter of Invitation

9- Information to Lawyers.

The researcher made appointments with potential interviewees by phone or email. In the process, the researcher received significant help from her husband, her friends and her students in identifying the participants, contacting them, and arranging interview times. Her husband works in the MOJ as a researcher in the Institute of Legal Science and has done a lot of fieldwork on economic law and legal reform. She met one friend, who works at the SPC through her work as an academic professional at the conference. Another friend, working at SPP, was a law school classmate. Her former students also assisted. One is working with the Association of Lawyers and one is working in the Department of State Compensation, MOJ. They supported the fieldwork and also collected materials and invited her to conferences.

A letter of invitation was sent to participants before any interview was undertaken. It was also sent to lawyers in cases where the interviewees were their clients. At the beginning of the interviews, the researcher explained the purpose, the benefits and potential adverse effects of the information that could be provided. She further advised informants that they could withdraw at any time. The researcher was aware of the fact that she was dealing with many busy individuals and made herself available at a time and place of their convenience.

The interviews were conducted face-to-face except for three; telephone interviews were held where the researcher could not directly meet participants. With the three telephone interviews, the researcher took notes of the significant points of the conversation. The disadvantage of telephone interviews was the inability to observe the interviewees as they responded to the questions. However, over the phone, the interviewees seemed to be more willing to talk without nervousness and shyness.

50

All of the interviews, except for the telephone interviews, took place at the offices of the participant or at the claimant’s homes. All were conducted in Vietnamese based on the questions in the interview schedule. The interviews took from one to one and a half hours. Before the interview, the researcher confirmed that the interviewee was aware of the nature of the study and ensured that the consent form was signed. This was also done for the telephone interviews. The consent forms had been scanned and sent to the participants by email. The student researcher also indicated that the interviewees would not be asked to reveal specific confidential information including information relating to proposed government policies or to clients. They were again advised that they would not need to answer any question if they did not wish to do so.

The interviewees needed to have trust and confidence in the researcher. Therefore on meeting for interview the researcher reiterated the privacy and confidentiality issues mentioned in the letter sent to them. This was done to enable the interviewee to feel at ease and comfortable, and free to disclose information. Further, the researcher made it clear to the participants that any information provided by them would be kept confidential and not be disclosed to anyone. As a qualitative research exercise, the researcher was gauging people’s views and experiences of situations and “those who lives and expressions are portrayed, risk exposure and embarrassment, as well as a loss of standing, employment and self-esteem”.216 Their names are known only to the researcher. Any information they provided has been recorded using codes (see Appendix 2) to protect their identity.

At the beginning of the interview, some claimants appeared to be shy and not particularly talkative. As they became more familiar with the topics and more confident, they were willing to share more of their own experiences and knowledge. During the interview, several participants were reluctant to answer some specific questions. For them, these questions might have been sensitive or not depending on their experience; in particular, the questions were those relating to the impact of VCP or questions referring to other people experience. In such circumstances, the researcher refrained from asking further questions. As the research used not only the answers given by the participants but also other sources including legislation, literature and cases, the omission of some answers in a few interviews did not have an adverse impact on the research. In many cases, the answers were similar. In those cases, in order to save time,

51

the interviewer did not ask follow up questions and moved on to other questions. If some points made were different or unusual, the researcher invited the interviewee to elaborate on the response in order to establish the individual’s reasons and views.

The questions in the interview schedule permitted some variations so as to allow for the particular knowledge and experience of interviewees to emerge. Due to interviews being conducted during the Solar and Vietnamese Lunar New Year, several interviewees were busy with their families and their annual reports. With respect to the length of the interviews, the researcher introduced the questions by acknowledging that the interviewees are busy people. They had been chosen for their expertise and experience. The researcher informed them that short answers which succinctly summarised their experience would be appreciated. It also became apparent that some questions would not be put to some interviewees as it was clear from the outset, or became clear, that the interviewee had no experience or informed opinion on a particular matter. After the interview, the researcher left an extra interview schedule with the answer sheet to give them more time to reflect and provide further information. In most of the cases, the researcher was able to collect these schedules with additional useful details. The answer sheet is attached as Appendix 14.

During some interviews, the researcher faced difficulties. Because the interviews were often conducted at the participants’ offices, they were sometimes interrupted by their supervisors, colleagues or clients. In these cases, the researcher had to wait until the interviewees could continue. These circumstances affected the interviewee’s engagement in the process. They sometimes forgot the gist of the conversation. In this situation, the researcher joked or asked them about their work before reminding them about the question. In one case, the researcher had arranged an appointment with a well- known private lawyer but when she arrived, he was busy with clients and asked an employee to do the interview. Fortunately, this employee was also experienced with the issues and provided valuable information. Some participants, including state officers and private lawyers, were very enthusiastic. They not only responded to questions, but also asked for other information or materials relating to the topic.

52