6. Methodology 145
6.2. Expert interviews 151
6.2.2. Data collection 153
Methodological principles to be taken into account when conducting expert interviews according to Gläser/Laudel are the following:207
o scope: a broad spectrum of problems and topics should be discussed, i.e. the interview should
stimulate free flow of ideas and information;
o specificity: not the standardisation of answers is the aim of the interview, but the exhaustive
and specific discussion of raised topics and issues;
o depth: the respondent should be encouraged to illustrate the affective, cognitive and value-
based importance of specific situations as well as his/her involvement;
o personal context: the personal and social context has to be captured or rather knowing it is a
condition for interpreting the reactions of the respondent.
In the following, four basic steps necessary for data collection through expert interviews are described in detail, both in terms of what the relevant literature recommends in relation to each of them, as well as in terms of what was concretely done in Uganda: (1) development of interview guideline, (2) selection/sampling of experts, (3) conducting interviews, (4) analysis of interviews.
(1) Development of interview guideline
The interview guideline or guide was developed on the basis of the research question and a previous survey/analysis of background literature. The guideline should not be a rigid questionnaire, which inhibits free discussion, but should list open-ended questions on major topics and issues to be covered during the interview (see Kumar 1989: 7). The guideline serves as an orientation during the interview: through the consequent application of the guideline, on the one hand the data gains a structure and on the other hand the comparability of the data is enhanced (Mayer 2002, p. 30). The application of the guideline ensures that key aspects related to the research question are not being left out during the interview. The interview guideline has a strong directive function with regard to excluding unproductive topics (see Flick 2006: 89). It also has the function of presenting the researcher as a competent interlocutor (see Meuser/Nagel 2005: 77). However, the interview guideline should not be applied too rigidly by the researcher: this might restrict the benefits of openness and contextual information. “The interviewer can and must decide during the interview when and in which sequence to ask which questions. Whether a question perhaps has already been
answered en passant and may be left out can only be decided ad hoc.”208
In the case of the study undertaken in Uganda, the guideline was sent to all selected experts beforehand, so that they could prepare themselves for the interview. The guideline was divided into two main parts: one more general part aimed at collecting relevant background information on PSD and MSEs in Uganda, the other part related to the limiting and contributing factors to business linkage and value chain development. A copy of the guideline used in the interviews can
207 See Gläser/Laudel 2004: 112. 208 Flick 2006: 92.
154 be found in annex 3. The guideline was formulated in a more general and open manner, in order to avoid “scaring off” the experts with too specific questions related to value chain and business linkage promotion which they might not feel able to answer competently. The main aim was to list the broad themes that would be covered during the interview as a piece of information given to the experts beforehand rather than the exact formulation of questions that would be asked. Divergences between the interview guideline and questions asked during the interviews are highlighted are discussed further on in section 6.2.4.
(2) Selection/Sampling of experts
Unlike in quantitative studies, the representativity in statistical terms is not important, but the representativity in relation to content (Mayer 2002: 38). A manageable number of interviews should be undertaken (around 20 is recommended) and should not exceed 35 cases (Kumar 1989: 9, and Mayer 2002: 38).
Upon arrival in Uganda, the PSD “scene” was scanned and the major players and projects/programmes being implemented and/or planned were identified. Many institutions are active in this field, from the public and private sector, including associations and membership- based organisations, as well as numerous donor organisations and NGOs. Being so, many of them provide overlapping and complementary support. Against this background, it was decided to interview as many experts or key informants as possible to get a better picture of the system as a whole and its interdependencies.
Key informants were selected on the basis of their specialised knowledge and their unique perspectives on PSD in general and in the Ugandan context specifically. It was taken care to select informants with various points of view, which were mainly derived from the experts’ institutional
affiliation. A total of 29 experts were selected and contacted by e-mail during the period of 10th
to 30th of August 2004, when the interview guideline was sent to them for their information; of
these, 23 experts were interviewed during the period of 30th of August and 15th of September
2004. Organisations covered included Ministries, donor agencies (bilateral and multilateral), NGOs, business associations, as well as institutions providing business development and financial
services.209 The main areas of intervention of these organisations were: policy, advocacy, budget
support, micro-finance, business development and advisory services, investment promotion and vocational training. Most of these organisations were related to each other in the sense that they
network and coordinate their activities on a regular basis.210 It is to be noted that the
interviewees are to be considered experts in the field of PSD and MSE promotion, not specifically in business linkage or value chain promotion. With the “value chain approach” being relatively
209 See annex 4 for a list of the interview partners and their specific positions within the institutions they worked for.
The 23 experts interviewed were distributed as follows: representatives of government/ministries and public agencies (5), donor agencies (9) and private sector organisations, NGOs and CSOs (9).
210 As mentioned in the previous chapter, Uganda is commonly cited as a positive example of undertaking
participatory processes, as well as for Government/donor/private sector/civil society-coordination. This also applies to the area of PSD, where the MTCS and CICS provide the framework for donor contributions, where a sectoral donor coordination group exists and consultations between Government/donors and the private sector take place regularly.
155 new in PSD, only one of the 23 experts interviewed was working on a pilot project that was specifically dealing with the development and promotion of value chains. Nevertheless, the concept of value chains is known and the interviews with the experts reflect practitioner’s points of view in relation to the usefulness/applicability and challenges in implementation of an upcoming new approach in development cooperation.
(3) Conducting expert interviews
According to the literature, key informant interviews should resemble a conversation among acquaintances, allowing for a free flow of ideas and information. The guideline should therefore be used to make sure that no important issues or topics are forgotten, but should not serve as a model for sequencing the questions. During the conversation, probing techniques might be applied in seeking elaboration, details and clarifications (see Kumar 1989: 15-16).
Bogner/Menz define six types of perceptions of the interviewer from the expert’s point of view:211
(1) the interviewer as co-expert; (2) the interviewer as representative of another academic culture; (3) the interviewer as layman; (4) the interviewer as authority; (5) the interviewer as potential critic; and (6) the interviewer as accomplice.
Hopf explains typical mistakes that researchers might make when conducting qualitative interviews, mainly due to lack of experience (see Hopf 2004: 359): the tendency to use a dominant communication style, using suggestive questions and suggesting answers and interpretations, or making evaluative or commenting statements; lack of patience in listening and waiting for moments to jump in for further or more detailed inquiry; a rigid application of the interview guideline, mainly due to insecurity on the side of the researcher: the questions formulated in the guideline are being repeated obstrusively or the guideline obstructs the view for interesting and not anticipated aspects.
Meuser/Nagel highlight some difficulties a researcher might encounter when facing the experts (see Meuser/Nagel 2005: 78-79):
o the expert blocks the on-going interview because he or she proves not to be an expert for this
topic, unlike previously assumed;
o the expert tries to involve the interviewer in on-going conflicts in the field and talks about
internal matters of his/her institution rather than sticking to the topic of the interview;
o the interviewee often changes between the roles of expert and private person, so that more
information is collected about him/her as a person rather than about his/her expert knowledge;
o the expert gives a lecture about his/her knowledge instead of joining the question-answer
game. This “rethoric interview” can be considered an intermediate form between success and failure: if the lecture hits the topic of the interview, it might nevertheless be useful.
Some of the experts were already contacted before or upon arrival in Uganda. For the purpose of the expert interview, all experts were first contacted via e-mail and then by telephone. The key
informant interviews were carried out between 30th of August and 15th of September 2004, all
156 based in Kampala, with an average duration of around 45 minutes, the longest being two hours and the shortest being 25 minutes. The criterion used for the final selection of the experts was
their availability.212 All interviews were conducted personally and started with a short
presentation of the interviewer/researcher, as well as the explanation of the purpose of the interview, the intended uses of the information and assurances of confidentiality. Restrictions in terms of time were clarified at the start of the interview. The permission to record the interviews
was obtained from all interviewees.213 The interviews were undertaken in English or German (2
cases) and therefore no translation services were needed. The attempt was made to use an open style of conducting the interview and to ensure a relaxed atmosphere: all key informants should have the feeling they could air their opinions openly and without any concerns for having to correspond to certain expectations or requirements and without any hidden agenda. The open style of conducting the interviews used during the interviews led to interviews of different quality in terms of content. Although it was always paid attention that all important aspects be mentioned or commented by each key informant, not all topics or themes have been worked out by all experts in a satisfactory manner.
(4) Analysis of interviews
The analysis of expert interviews is an issue that is not discussed in the literature, which concentrates more on issues related to approaching the experts and conducting interviews (Meuser/Nagel 2005: 71).
Usually the application of some form of content analysis (whether qualitative or quantitative) is recommended. The idea behind it is to extract information in relation to content, transform this content into a certain format and analyse or process it in this format, i.e. separated from the original text. According to Gläser/Laudel, all procedures of qualitative content analysis have the following points in common: the decomposition of the text into units of analysis; the construction of a closed system of categories; the searching of the text for relevant information; and the attribution of this information to the established categories, the so-called coding of the text (see Gläser/Laudel 2004: 191-192).
In the next section, the analysis of the expert interviews conducted in Uganda is explained in detail. It is done applying the methods of qualitative content analysis and constant comparative analysis.
212 A total of 29 experts was selected and contacted. Of these, in the end only 23 were available before the
researcher’s departure from Uganda.
213 All interviews were fully recorded, except for three: (for technical problems) one was not recorded at all, in two
cases the recording was of very bad quality. Therefore, only a total of 20 interviews were fully transcribed. Nevertheless, notes were taken during and after all conversations, so that the most important declarations could be reconstructed and are included as arguments in the findings.
157