Data collection methods

Different data collection methods have been associated with qualitative research. These include “documentation, archive records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation, and physical artifacts” (Yin 2008: 85). For this study document analysis, direct observation, individual interviews and focus group interviews were selected as research methods on the basis of their instrumentality to gather pertinent and complementary qualitative data that would answer the research questions outlined in section 1.4. Collection of data by means of these strategies also effected triangulation which supported the trustworthiness of this study (for a detailed discussion of each method, see sections 5.2.2.1.1).

1.7.2.1 Document analysis

Document analysis is the process of examining written or visual materials, such as memoranda, reports, correspondence letters, official publications, and photographs to draw meaningful insights that relate to institutional activities of an organisation (Creswell 2012: 223); Patton 2002: 5). Gay et al. (2006: 422) point out that written documents can provide insights into how things became the way they are in institutions. Since this study focuses on the relationship between management strategies and the development of CBLEs of students in multicultural contexts, documentary sources would contribute to an understanding of management processes and related cross-border learning outcomes. Accordingly, relevant documents such as policies, legislations, diversity related rules and regulations and newspaper reports on inter-group relationships at higher institutions, were

28

collected and reviewed in Chapter 2 with the objective to contextualise the study project. The contextual literature review was later employed to refine aspects pertaining to observation and the questions relating to the individual and focus group interviews. Substantive evidence from the contextual review was used to validate the findings drawn from empirical data obtained from study participants (for a detailed discussion of data analysis, see Chapter 6).

1.7.2.2 Interviews

In qualitative research, conducting interviews is a key data collection method for interaction between researcher and participants to obtain qualitative data which would be difficult to obtain otherwise. Interviews provide the researcher with the opportunity to understand the meaning that respondents attach to their experiences (Gay et al. 2006: 418). Interviews are useful to construct knowledge from participants’ stories contained within the microcosms of their consciousnesses (Seidman 2006: 7–8; Cohen et al. 2000: 273). In this section a brief discussion of the types of interviews selected for this study is provided.

1.7.2.2.1 Individual interviews

Individual interview is associated with qualitative research and is a process of collecting data in which a researcher asks questions and only one participant gives answers at a time (Creswell 2012: 218). Individual interview participants are often selected using a non- probability selection strategy for their knowledge and immediate experiences pertaining to the topic under investigation (Gay et al. 2006: 113). Individual interviews were considered appropriate for this study because the selected individuals’ views pertaining to cross-border learning experiences are important in getting to grips with the phenomenon and would contribute towards meaningful recommendations. Although individual interviews were initially planned to be conducted with three key participants from Student Service offices of the three study site universities, five officers were interviewed using semi-structured interview questions (Creswell 2012: 218; Frankfort-

29

Nachmias & Nachmias 1996: 232; see Appendix II-C). These interviewees included one Director of a Student Service office, one Dean of the Students, one Assistant Dean to Student Service office, an officer of Public Relations office of a university and an officer of a Student Affairs office appointed by a Dean of Student Service who did not participate in the interview. A detailed discussion is provided in section 5.2.2.1.1

1.7.2.2.2 Focus group interviews

Focus group interviews and focus group discussions are very often taken as synonyms, although they conceptually designate different activities. The former is often associated with collecting a range of responses from a group of four to six individuals (Creswell 2012: 218; Krueger & Casey 2000 (in Gall et al. 2003: 238) under the strict guidance of an interviewer, while the latter is seen as a technique of gathering collective experiences during open discussions of a group of six to twelve people (Dornyei 2007: 131; Berg 2001:111; Cohen et al. 2000: 288). In focus group interviews, individuals who have shared understanding and experience relating to a study phenomenon are usually grouped together (Creswell 2012: 218) whereas in focus group discussions participants are composed of strangers with a similar background that relates to research issues (Cohen et al. 2000: 288-289). In this study context the groups organised for participation are referred to as focus group interview participants because they are from the same campuses and are most likely familiar with each other (Creswell 2012: 218).

Three different types of focus group interviews were organised and conducted at each university. Participants for the first focus group interviews were selected from Student Service officers and clerks, Student Union representatives and Campus Police members. Three focus group interviews were conducted and twenty-six Student Service officer participants were involved (see Table 5.3). The second focus group interviews were conducted with lecturer participants, one focus group interview at each study site university. Twenty lecturer participants were involved in these focus group interviews (see Table 5.4). The third focus group interviews were conducted with twelve student groups (four focus group interviews at each university). Eighty-nine student participants took part

30

in these focus group interviews for students (see Table 5.5). The detailed procedure for grouping each team is presented in the next section 5.2.2.1.2.

 Student Service officers and clerk participants selected from Student Service offices of each university and the participants of each group were therefore colleagues. The views of the Student Service officers are important, since they would have an influence on the CBLEs of students since they deal with students who do not share their ethnicity or language.

 The lecturer participants teach in the same campus and were familiar with each other. The lecturers’ role in effecting CBLEs is significant since they interact with students from different cultural backgrounds (see section 3.6.3). Their influence on grouping students in class would also bear relation to the CBLEs of students.  The student participants were selected from the universities and organised into

groups from the same campus, on the basis of their ethnicity. The views of student participants are of cardinal importance in this study because this study concerns the CBLEs of students.

The above organisational strategy was used with the assumption that it would facilitate the gathering of data from different perspectives that would corroborate with and validate the views of fellow participants (Creswell 2012: 208).

In this study, focus group interviews were employed to collect verbally expressed views of focus group interview participants in terms of their opinions, attitudes and experiences concerning CBLEs by means of semi-structured interview questions posed by the researcher (Cohen et al. 2000: 288). The answers to the interview questions prompted further questions to accommodate the collection of information on emerging issues (Creswell 2012: 218; Seidman 2006: 15).

31

1.7.2.3 Observation

Observation is a technique of recording real world experiences and impressions in the natural environment as a source of information in studying research phenomena. It provides firsthand information concerning the physical environment, human organisations, social interactions and programme processes (Creswell 2012: 213; Cohen et al. 2000: 305). It is also effective to collect data related to human interests and behaviours (Marczyk, DeMatteo & Festinger 2005:119). Observation is useful to get an insightful explanation about what actually happens in a situation. In this study, non- participant observation technique was used to view participants’ natural environment and its implication to students’ cross-border learning development without manipulating the setting (Gay et al. 2006: 413). A detailed discussion of observation is provided in section 5.2.2.1.2.