Data collection procedures

The method of questionnaire administration can have potential influences on the response rate and the quality of the data collected (Marshall, 2005). Therefore, how the questionnaire would be administered in this study was carefully considered. In an attempt to maximise the response rate of the survey, the researcher decided to travel to the research sites to directly distribute the questionnaires to the participants. As noted by Mathers, Fox, and Hunn (2007), handing out the questionnaire encourages a much higher response rate than a postal survey. Punch (2005) also contended that “if it is a choice between the researcher administering the questionnaire, and somebody else on the researcher’s behalf, the former is the better” (p. 100). After being granted permission to conduct the study in the two colleges, I consulted the two principals about appropriate times and procedures for collecting data in their institutions. Following the arranged plan with the principals, 52 sets of questionnaires, each including an information sheet (Appendix D), a questionnaire (Appendix F), a consent form for survey participation (Appendix G) and an addressed return envelope, was prepared for the 52 potential participants invited to participate in the survey only. Eight other sets of questionnaire sets, each included an information sheet (Appendix E), a consent form for

survey participation (Appendix G), a consent form for interview participation (Appendix H), and an addressed return envelope, were prepared for the eight participants invited to participate in both the survey and the follow-up interviews. All participants were informed that they might decide not to participate in the survey and in that case, they did not need to return the consent forms and the questionnaires. They were also encouraged to contact the researcher through the contact details provided on the information sheets if they needed any further information about the study and the questionnaires. They were instructed to place the completed questionnaires together with the consent forms in a collection box in the Administration Unit of their college within a week from the day they received the questionnaires. This allowed the respondents to complete the questionnaire at their convenience and to have sufficient time for reflection before responding.

In each college, I first met and greeted the principal and delivered to him/her the sets of questionnaires. After that, an administrative assistant was arranged in each college to accompany me to the offices of the potential participants to hand out the questionnaires. At those meetings, I briefly introduced myself and the objectives of the study, and invited them to participate in the study. I spent some time in the meetings with the potential interviewees to discuss further the aims and methods of conducting the interviews. It took me four days (two days in each college) to meet the potential participants and distribute the questionnaire sets. The administrative assistants helped me to deliver the questionnaire sets to four potential survey participants who were not present in the colleges during the time I worked there. I telephoned rang the absentee participants and invited them to join the study.

Two weeks after the questionnaires had been distributed, I received 60 completed questionnaires and consent forms for the questionnaire from the 60 staff members. All eight ‘key’ staff members also signed the consent forms indicating their willingness to take part in the follow-up interviews.

Follow-up interviews

The two-phase approach of the study permitted me to initially analyse the survey data and to tailor the interview instruments to follow up on the survey responses. All the returned questionnaires were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 19) software and by the end of week 2 at the research site, I had finished the initial analysis of the survey data. Eight different interview protocols were then prepared in Vietnamese and sent to the interviewees two to three days before the interviews were held. The protocols informed the interviewees of the topics to be discussed so that they could prepare and be comfortable with the interviews.

The interviews were conducted in week 3 of the fieldwork time. The time and locations of the interviews were arranged at the interviewees’ convenience, mostly in their offices. All the interviews were conducted in Vietnamese. The researcher started the interviews with informal conversations to build rapport and create a natural and friendly atmosphere for the interviews. I briefly explained the purpose of the interviews, and how the information and data collected would be used and treated as confidential. Before starting the interviews, I sought the interviewees’ permission for audio-recording the interviews and they all agreed.

In the interviews, the interview protocols were employed to direct the flow of the conversation. The order of the questions in the interview guides, the wording of those questions and the additional questions in the interviews varied depending on the responses of the interviewees. It is worth noting that I took into account the interviewees’ positions in their institutions and their roles in the accreditation processes before deciding any additional probing questions. For example, for an interviewee who was the coordinator of the programme accreditation in college A, I asked her more questions regarding programme accreditation than those regarding institutional accreditation although she was involved in both processes. The informal manner of the interviews relaxed the interviewees and this allowed them to openly share their thoughts about accreditation. I also took notes of their important answers as well as their interesting non-verbal responses during the interviews. The duration for the interviews ranged from 45 to 65 minutes and was determined by each interviewee’s convenience.