Data Collection

While collecting the documents was quite straightforward, collecting the research participants’ perceptions through semi-structured interviews required some planning and careful consideration of tools and procedures. Semi-structured interviews provided flexibility in exploring a participant’s understanding about the case without neglecting the focus of the research agenda (Gillham, 2005). Compared with unstructured interviews, which allowed the participants to share their understanding of the case as open and as freely as possible, semi-structured interviews helped to align the interview with the purpose of the present study by utilising formalised questions (Fontana & Frey, 2003). The semi-structured interviews were not overly rigid as they did not pose identical pre-determined questions with a limited set of response choices to all participants as in structured interviews, and they allowed the interviewers to adjust the formalised questions in accordance with the context (Gillham, 2005; Lichtman, 2010). To ensure that each level of interview participants, such as university leaders and lecturers, were asked the appropriate questions, there were different sets of questions specifically designed to capture the type of information each category of participants may have possessed.

Within these sets of questions, there were general core questions asked to all the participants regarding the KT process. Some more specific aspects of the KT process, such as the curriculum design and marketing of the programs, were asked to the appropriate participants. Due to the differences in the number of specific questions asked, the length of the interviews also varied. The shortest interview was

about 15 minutes and the longest interview was approximately 80 minutes. On average the interviews lasted for 43 minutes, as stated earlier in Chapter 1.

3.5.1 Validation of Interview Data

Trialling the interview questions prior to the actual data collection was desirable for most qualitative studies (Gillham, 2005; Silverman, 2010). In Brisbane, there were several Indonesian lecturers from universities that had DDPs with Australian universities undertaking their further studies. The researcher sought input from three lecturers regarding the appropriateness of the interview questions. From this exercise, there were three main recommendations on the process of conducting interviews. First, the terms used in the earlier interview questions, such as KT and means of communication, might pose some difficulties for participants and require explanation and clarification before the interview. As a result, it was decided that the interview questions were to be sent to participants electronically prior to the actual interview. This provided the participants time to prepare themselves and seek clarification if there were problems with understanding the questions beforehand.

Second, it was deemed necessary to translate the English version of the questions into Indonesian as some of the targeted participants might not be comfortable to be interviewed in English. The researcher then translated the research questions into Indonesian and this proved to be a worthwhile undertaking as some participants preferred to speak in Indonesian. Third, in line with the semi-structured nature of the interviews, it was recommended that the number of questions should be limited so that there would be opportunities to explore the participants’ insights using probes.

Probes are questions to get the participants reveal more detailed explanation (Creswell, 2012; Patton, 2002). These probes were noted under each main question to ensure that all areas of interest were covered by the interviewer during the interview. These probe questions were only asked if the participants’ answers were relevant, and an opportunity arose to explore further. They were not included in the list of questions sent to the participants prior to the interviews. Table 3.5 provides examples of two interview questions with their probes.

Table 3.5 Examples of Probes in Interview Questions

Question Probes

1. Why did the university initially open DDPs? 1.1 How did the reason fit with the vision or mission of the university

1.2 Which reason was most prioritised?

As exemplified in Table 3.5, the question was regarding the university’s purpose for establishing DDP. Probe 1.1 sought to elicit more information in line with the university’s vision and mission, particularly when the participant mentioned them as the basis for opening DDP. Probe 1.2 was only asked if the participants gave more than one purpose for establishing DDP. Appendix A provides a greater detail on the probes used to accompany the main questions during the interviews. By using main questions and probes, the semi-structured interviews maintained a clear focus without overly being fixated on the interviewer’s preferred topics. Semi-structured interviews also benefit from the use of interview protocols as they allow a structure to be followed (Patton, 2002; Silverman, 2010).

3.5.2 Interview Protocols

Interview protocols require the researcher to list the interview questions, settings, and procedures, ensuring that all interviews are conducted in an appropriate and consistent manner (Creswell, 2007; 2012; Lichtman, 2010). The settings of the interview, such as the place, date, time, and brief information about the participant can be recorded in the interview protocol (Creswell, 2012). Procedures for administering the interview are written to ensure that no important step is missed and that all interviews are done in a comparable manner (Lichtman, 2010). The procedures included: introductory sentences about the aim of the current study, what will be done to protect the confidentiality, the anticipated length of the interview, signing of the consent form, asking permission to tape the interview, explanation about what will be done to the information provided, and closing sentences (Creswell, 2007; Gillham, 2005, Lichtman, 2010). By having such interview protocols, this current research was done in a more trustworthy and dependable manner as the researcher recorded relevant contextual information and consistently use comparable procedures to conduct interviews. Moreover, by following the procedures, simple, yet significant gestures such as providing an introduction and thanking the participants were observed. Hence, the researcher built good rapport with the participants (Creswell, 2012). The interview protocols used in the current study can be found in Appendix A.

3.5.3 Conducting the Interviews

In terms of conducting the interviews, as the questions were sent prior to the actual interview, the actual interview itself was not time consuming. Sending the interview questions in advance also facilitated participants’ readiness to provide relevant information and the pertinent documents they kept. Some participants informed the researcher which questions that they could confidently answer and which questions were better answered by other colleagues upfront, thus saving the time from posing unnecessary questions. Thirteen Indonesian participants chose to speak in Indonesian, and the rest were interviewed in English. As some of the interviews were in Indonesian, translation of the interview transcripts was required, and the method for upholding the trustworthiness of the translation result is discussed in the subsequent section. By providing the questions beforehand, the semi-structured nature of the interviews was not altered. The researcher was able to expand and contextualise the interview in light of what was uttered by the participants. Because case studies seek the real-life experience of the participants (Simons, 2009), the location of the interviews should be as natural, familiar and convenient as possible for them (Berg & Lune, 2012). The researcher came to the participants’ campuses and conducted the interviews at their place of work. Setting up appointments with selected participants was challenging and the researcher had to accommodate their availability for an interview. The first interview in Indonesia took place on 25 October 2011, whereas the last interview in Australia took place on 29 March 2012. After the interview and document data were collected, the data analysis commenced.