Data collection method

McQueen and Knussen (2002) note that several data collection methods are associated with qualitative studies and the aim of this section is to evaluate some of the methods offered to social inquirers. A focus group is recognised as producing a high level of data accuracy, however, this method was dismissed for practical reasons as it would prove very difficult to secure a reasonable number of CIOs in the same place and at the same time. As noted by McCracken (1988: 10), ‘respondents lead hectic, deeply segmented, and privacy-centered lives. Even the most willing of them have only limited time and attention to give to the investigator’. In addition, since CIOs were requested to reflect upon their own role and contribution, it was anticipated that CIOs would be more willing to discuss some of the issues on a one-on-one basis rather than amongst their peers.

Participant observation is another qualitative data collection method. This method gained much popularity in the 1970s but was dismissed on the basis that finding CIOs willing to participate would have been challenging and this would have involved travelling to the participants’ site, which is inconvenient for a part-time researcher.

Taking into account practical and theoretical elements, the researcher opted for the interview process as the method for data collection. McCracken (1988:9) suggests that interviewing participants is ‘one of the most powerful methods in the qualitative armory’. Acquiring access to a community of professionals can be a challenging task, however, one must not underestimate the therapeutic character of this research study. As pointed out by Ackroyd and Hughes (1981: 80), ‘the interviewer is giving the respondent a chance to talk anonymously without fear of contradiction, signs of boredom, disagreement, disapproval, and so on, often about deeply personal matters; a temptation that few of us would not be able to resist’. The researcher’s experience of working with CIOs enabled a unique understanding of the CIO role and proved particularly useful when establishing a trusted relationship with research participants.

Berg (2007) also acknowledges the therapeutic value offered to interviewees and argues that participants agree to participate for various reasons; curiosity, potential therapeutic benefits or desire to share experiences that they have not felt comfortable sharing with anyone else before. Stewart (2003) while discussing her experience with qualitative research methods also notes that often in qualitative research, participants find it useful to be questioned about their role.

According to McCracken (1988: 9), interviewing is the only data collection method that takes inquirers ‘into the mental world of the individual’ and shows to the inquirer how individuals experience and perceive the social world. On a more practical level, Hakim (1987) posits that in-depth interviews can be done with relatively small budgets, and consequently it is the ideal method for self-funded research studies.

McQueen and Knussen (2002) point out that are many types of interviews, the most common ones being structured and unstructured interviews (or open interviews). Open- interviews are very powerful, but require inquirers to have a strong understanding of their research topic and to be comfortable having this kind of interaction. Ackroyd and Hughes (1981) assert that semi-structured interviews allow for more flexibility and enable the interviewer to probe beyond specific questions. Rodham (2000) suggests that semi- structured interviews allow for a certain level of structure whilst still being sufficiently flexible to allow spontaneous contributions.

Berg (2007) and McQueen and Knussen (2002) note that despite having to follow a structured set of questions, participants in semi-structured interviews are given the freedom to digress to use real-life examples illustrating some of the points that are being made. As noted by Berg (2007), probing questions are particularly useful to draw out a complete story from participants. In the context of this PhD research study, the researcher has used probing questions to encourage participants to elaborate on their responses. The researcher found probing questions particularly useful to draw a complete picture of a

specific situation narrated by the research participants. The probing questions used by the researcher are illustrated in the interview sample presented in Appendix C.

According to McCracken (1988), interview questionnaires are particularly helpful to inquirers and serve different purposes, most importantly they allow researchers to fully concentrate and ‘take part in the conversation in a natural way’ (Burns, 2000: 429). Interview questionnaires also ensure that inquirers conduct each interview in the same way and that each question is posed in the same order. In the context of this PhD research study, semi-structured questionnaires were used as interviewing guidelines (Appendix B).

Out of the 25 in-depth interviews, 22 were conducted over the phone, a method that given the role, level of responsibilities and geographic locations of participants was the only viable option. As noted by Hagan (2006) telephone interviews can have a certain number of advantages, such as being low costs, a non-negligible aspect in partly self-funded studies.

In conclusion, the choice of in-depth interviews has proven to be a highly rewarding method (for both the researcher and the participants). However, it is important to recognise the effort required when conducting in-depth interviews. As noted by McCracken (1988), the inquirers’ level of attention being at its peak means that this process is extraordinarily draining. Berg (2007) asserts that during the interviewing process, inquirers have to simultaneously play the role of actor, director and choreographer.