Data collection methods and procedures

4.2.1.1 Data collection methods

Although observation, interview and document review are common methods of data collection in case study research (Stake 1995), the following methods were selected for my study: interview and document review. This selection was made based on the scope and the overall aims of the study. The researcher intended to investigate how quality assurance practices were being implemented in the case study universities. The quality assurance framework of investigation covers broad areas and it would require lengthy periods of observation to gather a comprehensive picture. This was not within the scope of this research in terms of time constraints. Therefore, the researcher opted for interviews through which to gather primary data on the actual implementation, and document reviews to gain supplementary data on the contexts.

Specifically, semi-structured in-depth interview techniques were applied. This approach is generally considered to be the most important type of interview in case study research, producing the richest single source of data if conducted well (Gillham, 2010). Similarly, Seidman (2006) also highlighted the fact that the in- depth interview is the primary or even singular method of investigation and, when conducted with skill, is the most appropriate method for some research situations.

92

In this regard, the researcher could approach the experience of the people in a contemporary educational organisation by examining the institutional documents and through the review of existing literature. More importantly, the researcher could understand the meaning that the people involved in this study make of their experience, through in-depth interviews. As Seidman (2006) stated, for such an investigation goal, ‘interviewing provides a necessary, if not always completely sufficient, avenue of inquiry’ (p. 11).

4.2.1.2 Interviews: some theoretical considerations

By definition, an interview is an inter-view, an interchange of views between two or more people on a topic of mutual interest (Kvale, 1996, cited in Cohen et al., 2007). Interviews enable both the interviewer and the interviewee to discuss their interpretations of the world in which they live, from their own perspectives (Berry, 1999). As the interviewer and interviewee construct knowledge together, the interview is neither totally subjective or objective; it is, as Laing (1967, cited in Cohen et al., 2007) claimed, inter-subjective. Unlike a naturally occurring conversation, an interview has a specific purpose, is question-based, often follows a pre-established protocol that controls the order of the interview while at the same time allowing for spontaneity, requires explicit and detailed responses, and the interviewer may express ignorance (Creswell, 2007; Cohen et al., 2007).

Regarding the limitations of this method, a researcher should be aware that interviews, like many other methods, take a great deal of time and sometimes money. Interviews are also open to interviewer bias, and the issues of inconvenience, fatigue, and exposure experienced by some respondents are difficult to avoid (Seidman, 2006; Cohen et al., 2007; Miles et al., 2014).

These possible interview method drawbacks can be addressed if the researcher has skills and abides by the “rules of the game”. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) put it, the human instrument (the interviewer) can be smart, flexible and adaptable and respond to situations with skill, tact and understanding, rather than influence

93

the data collection process with their bias. Although the interview can be a mutually active meaning-making venture (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004), based mainly on the participant’s construction and reflection, the interviewer should be aware that the meaning could be, to some extent, a function of the participant’s interaction with the interviewer (Seidman, 2006). Therefore, interviewer skills are needed in order to minimise the distortion that can occur because of their role.

According to Seidman (2006), a researcher can improve the validity of the study, responding to the question “are the comments of the participant valid?”, by interviewing a number of participants. In doing so, the researcher can connect their experiences, and cross-check their comments on the same situation or issue.

In addition, in terms of validity, the interviewer should skilfully structure the interview with a set of ready-designed questions, with spontaneous probing and scaffolding questions. The interviewer should also apply specific tactics, such as keeping quiet, not interrupting, and not trying to redirect the participant’s flow of thoughts. This allows the participant to make sense to themselves and to the interviewer (Creswell, 2007; Seidman, 2006). Ultimately, the goal of the study is to understand how the participants, at the time of their interview, understand and create meaning of their experience, through language.

In short, the interview is a powerful implement, used to gain insights into educational issues through understanding the experience of the individuals whose lives reflect those issues (Seidman, 2006; Cohen et al., 2007).

4.2.1.3 Data collection procedures

The data collection was conducted using an approved procedure (Ethics clearance reference number HRE13-172). A case study database, as recommended by Yin (2009), was set up so that the researcher could store all the data files and related paperwork. First, archival data were collected, then interview data. The primary data was sourced via the semi-structured interviews with senior managers and quality assurance officials, while a document review helped provide the context.

94

The procedures that the researcher set up for the interview data collection followed the stages developed by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007) for interview investigation, based on the work of Kvale (1996, cited in Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). These stages were: thematising, designing, interviewing, transcribing, and verifying.

First, the review of relevant literature and the study of the current contexts of the case study universities helped the researcher form the key themes for investigation. Then, two sets of interview questions were developed, based on the thesis research questions, for two target groups - national policy-makers and institutional policy-makers and implementers. The semi-structured interview format enabled open-ended questioning around the themes of the research. Together with these, an interview protocol was set up, as suggested by Creswell (2009), as a guideline for the interviews. The next step was to conduct pilot interviews, with revisions subsequently made in order to refine the questions. After the interview schedule had been planned and booked, the interviews were conducted. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcriptions were then sent to the interviewees for their review and verification.

During the data collection process, the researcher allowed for flexibility. After the first two interviews, I reviewed the questions and modified them as needed. As the process progressed, I also added some scaffolding questions, particularly if any respondents raised a new aspect of quality assurance practice in their own university context. Specifically, two scaffolding questions were added to explore how collaborative research and collaborative learning were promoted at the case universities. To address the issue of missing data in the earlier interviews, I sent the extra questions to the previous interviewees via email, requesting their answers. Finally, all the audio files and transcriptions were compiled into the case study database.

95

During the conduct of the interviews, the researcher applied Creswell’s (2007) suggested interview protocol, and Cohen, Manion and Morrison’s (2007, pp.366- 367) guidelines for the conduct of interviews.