Data collection methods

The aim of the study necessitated the use of interviews as the data collection method. The reason for this is that through narrative lecturers are able to provide data that is rich and voluminous and would be difficult to convey in another way (Elbaz, 1991:3). The stories, according to Clandinin and Connely (1990:3), are the landscape within which lecturers, in this case, live and make sense of their experiences. Interviews, as a type of data collection tool in this narrative inquiry, allow the respondent to focus on their perception of themselves, of their environment and of their experiences (Burns 2000:425). Kvale (1983:173) is of the view that average people are given the opportunity in the interview to describe their own life-world, their opinions and acts, in their own particular words. In other words, they are afforded the opportunity to stress what they feel is important.

Unstructured interviews, also termed discursively oriented interviews or semi-structured interviews in research literature, were used as the means to collect the data required. Burgess (in Bishop, 1997:32) refers to interviews as conversations. However, Patton (in Bishop, 1997:32) disagrees with this comparison by stating that in daily conversation people interrupt each other, do not listen to each other and do not answer each other’s questions. At the same time he feels that answers which people give generally lack direction. The implication for me, as interviewer here, was the importance in developing “a reciprocal, dialogic relationship based on mutual trust, openness and engagement, in which self-disclosure, personal investment and equality were promoted” (Burgess, Oakley & Haig-Brown, in Bishop, 1997:32-33). This valuable information was kept in mind during each of the nine interviews that took place.

It would be useful to take into account Kvale’s (1996:148-149, in Cohen et al, 2000:125) range of qualifications in order to be an effective interviewer. He explains that the interviewer should:

- Have a sound knowledge of the subject matter so that an informed conversation can take place.

- Clearly state the purpose of the interview and how it will be conducted and concluded.

- Be clear in expressing the subject matter.

- Allow respondents the freedom to verbalise their thoughts and feelings in their own time and way.

- Be aware of and sensitive to the non-verbal communication of the respondent.

- Be an active listener and open to the aspects of the interview that are elaborated on by the respondent.

- Always keep to the point.

- Question the respondent in ways that will allow checking for reliability and validity of statements made.

- Keep track of what has been said earlier in the interview and use these as links in the conversation.

- Interpret through clarifying and confirming what has and has not been said.

In the interviews a small number of open-ended questions were asked. These allowed the respondents to create their own response possibilities (Cresswell, 2002:203-204). At the same time they afforded the respondents the opportunity to voice their perspectives and experiences without being influenced into giving what they felt might be the responses I was looking for. Bruner (1990:123) advocates for meaning-making by narrative recounting rather than the categorical responses obtained in standard interviews.

Bishop (1997:33) is of the view that open ended questions promote free interaction of ideas and opportunities for discussion and clarification between the interviewer and interviewee. The open-ended questions asked in the interview were:

• Tell me about your experiences at this university since your appointment up until now.

• Tell me how you perceive your roles here as a university lecturer.

• Tell me about how you have arrived at an understanding of what your roles at the university entail.

I met each potential participant separately at an agreed upon time and venue suitable to them where I provided them with an explanatory statement of the research study. Any issues surrounding the research were clarified or explained during this time. It was explained that they needed to be willing to take part in one unstructured interview in which, through stories of personal experience, I aimed to investigate how they perceived their professional roles in a university context. I also aimed to investigate how they had made meaning of what their roles at the university entailed. I made it clear to respondents at the outset of the interview that any question which was deemed by a lecturer to be too personal or intrusive did not have to be answered in the interview. This was also clearly stated in my explanatory statement to them.

Along with going through the explanatory statement the potential respondent was reminded of the fact that he or she was under no obligation to participate as participation was voluntary. I gave each lecturer two working days to decide if he or she wished to participate in the research and then sought permission on the third day to phone and seek confirmation of their decision. I explained that the interviews would be audio -taped and then transcribed for analysis. The interviews would take place during working hours at a time convenient to the lecturer. Those agreeing to participate in the proposed interview would be e mailed on an individual basis to set up a date and time for the interview. Potential respondents were also informed that the interview would take between one and one-and-a-half hours to complete. I explained that I was the chief investigator in this research and would conduct the interviews personally.

What transpired was that five lecturers made an immediate, positive decision to take part in the interviews. The other four did not respond to my calls or e mails after three days for various reasons. It took a further three weeks to find suitable respondents who were willing and able to participate in the interviews. I underwent the same process as explained above with the last four lecturers.

The lecturers in a fourth separate academic department, of which I am Manager, were excluded from this study. Although they hold academic positions the ethical issues were far too complex and problematic to include them.

As mentioned previously the interviews were audio-taped. An interview protocol was drawn up prior to the interviews as a way of structuring the interview and taking careful notes. Cresswell (2002:212) explains that audio-taping interviews offers a detailed record of the interview and that an interview protocol provides guidance to the researcher in that it allows the instructions for the process of the interview, the questions to be asked and space for notes to be made to be drawn up preceding the interview. In addition to the major questions drawn up additional probing questions may be included. This interview protocol form with the open-ended questions with clarifying and elaborating probes is included as Appendix B.

The interviews were conducted individually with each respondent in one particular vacant office on the university campus. This was a neutral area to both myself and the respondent involved in the interview. Whilst conducting the interviews, which I characterised as informal I initially aimed at an interview that took on a conversational tone and concentrated on maintaining a high level of social interaction between myself and the respondent. Connely and Clandinin (1990:4) feel that the respondent should be afforded the first opportunity to tell his or her story but they affirm the fact that the researcher must not be silenced. They state that narrative inquiry is “a process of collaboration involving mutual storytelling and restorying as the research proceeds.” This was arguably the most difficult part of the interview process for me. What I found was that lecturers required very little from my side and generally had many stories to tell. I allowed them, as a result, to talk freely and felt no need to provide my own stories. I also felt that my stories might start to change the respondent’s responses in the light of what I was saying.

If the respondent strayed from the topic I gently redirected what they were saying so that their stories did not stray too far from the research study itself (Burns 2000:425). I made

use of probes, mentioned previously as a way to elicit more information. Bishop (1997: 33) explains that interviews should focus on depth, details and probes which go beneath the surface of the conversation to seek detail. Elaborating probes (asking the participant to explain in more depth) in these interviews included examples such as, “Tell me more about …” and, “Could you give some more examples to explain..?” and clarifying probes (asking the participant to explain their response in more detail) such as, “Why?” and “Could you explain your response in more detail?” (Cresswell 2002:208). More of these examples can be found in the Interview Protocol under Appendix B. In addition, as termed by Burns (2000:426), I made use of parroting (mirroring) and minimal encouragers to keep the respondent talking, for example “So you are saying that…”, “mmm…” and “Uh huh…”. In this way the respondent was reassured that I was following with understanding what he or she said. I became a co-constructor of the data itself through prompts, encouragement and interest in what the respondents were saying (Henning 2004:57).

Although I made all attempts to be an understanding listener I had to acknowledge the fact that the notion of power could come into play during the interviews. Schleurich (in Cohen et al, 2000:122) reasons that the interviewer has more power than the respondent in that the respondent is under examination – not the interviewer. In my case, where respondents knew me an amount of reciprocity might take place where they may have provided answers that they may have thought I wanted (Hitchcock & Hughes, in Cohen et al, 2000:123). I found this to be the case in that they all know me as a teacher by profession and so tended to elaborate greatly on their teaching roles in the interviews with lengthy descriptions about their classroom practices and methodologies. Also relevant to my situation is the fact that I am a novice researcher and was interviewing lecturers who were more powerful than me in terms of the university’s cultural professional status. Ball (1994, in Cohen et al, 2000:123) explains that these lecturers may try to control the interview as they have a professional and personal investment in being interviewed. However, I did not experience any lecturers attempting to control the interview. They were generally relaxed and seemed to enjoy the fact that they were being given an

opportunity to talk about themselves and reflect on their experiences. A few even mentioned this in their interviews.