Although any data collection method can be used in case-study research (Goode and Hatt 1952 in Blaikie, 2010) the interview is a popular method of choice (Silverman, 2011) and the method used in this research. There are various forms of research interview including structured, semi-structured and unstructured, the latter is sometimes referred to as open or in-depth (Saunders et al, 2016; Silverman, 2011). Each form requires a particular approach that is indicative of the philosophy, purpose and style of the research (Saunders et al, 2016).
I chose to conduct semi-structured interviews, which accommodated a subjective interpretivist approach. In this form, the interview would provide me with access to individuals’ understandings, experiences and opinions (Byrne 2004 in Silverman, 2006) of SE.
These would not necessarily be observable or accommodated in more objective approaches such as the structured interview or survey-based approaches, which according to Saunders et al (2016) seeks factual information from witnesses to a reality that exists independently of them. I wanted to understand the socially constructed reality of the tutors that I interviewed,
91
and to actively engage with them in the co-construction of meaning (Silverman, 2006) related to SE. For example, exploring how they interpreted SE and on what experience this interpretation was based. In addition, how they understood the interpretation and treatment of SE and its influence on tutors.
Although it is conceivable that researchers might adapt theoretical concepts and approaches to accommodate their operational requirements, familiarity with the acknowledged approach and content of the different interview formats was an important starting point for me in designing my research. According to Saunders et al (2016): Structured interview questions are pre-determined and standardized. Each interviewee is asked the same set of questions and the interviewer records pre-coded answers and the data produced are quantifiable. In semi-structured interviews, the interviewer works with a key set of questions or themes that may vary between interviews in order or content and the data produced are qualitative. In unstructured, in-depth or open interviews, the aspects of the area of interest that need exploring are clear to the interviewer but there is no pre-determined list of questions. Again, the data produced are qualitative.
Semi-structured interviews were selected for the following reasons. There were four clearly defined questions that I was seeking answers to and I wanted to engage each tutor in a conversation where I could probe for more detail where I felt necessary on the answers they gave.
The interview questions were:
1. What is student engagement?
2. What drives student engagement?
3. What presents barriers to student engagement?
used the same four questions to guide the interviews I conducted. To preserve the anonymity of colleagues I refer to them in this thesis as ‘Tn’; ‘T’ representing Tutor and ‘n’ representing the order (1-20) in which the interviews were conducted. I was interested to establish whether the lack of clarity around the meaning of SE that I had observed in the literature and experienced at the institution was apparent amongst my colleagues. I wanted to know what my colleagues believed were the drivers and barriers of student engagement. Did my
92
colleagues’ beliefs contradict anything suggested in the literature or by the institution? What was the experience and evidence on which their beliefs were based?
The availability of the original recording of the interview means that any ambiguity of meaning or inconsistencies can be clarified without the need to contact the participant concerned (Fasick, 2001 in Halcomb and Davidson 2006). I believed a further advantage of recording the interviews was that I would be able to concentrate on the conversation rather than worrying about notetaking, which would put me at risk of missing valuable contributions. At the start of each interview I obtained the interviewee’s consent to record the interviews using
“Dictaphone”, a free to download iPhone audio-recording application recommended to me by a fellow doctoral student. Each interview lasted between fifty minutes and two hours.
I began each interview by summarising the information in the participant information sheet (see appendix), confirming that the interviewee was happy for me to record our exchanges and then posing the first interview question; what is student engagement? As suggested by Bryman and Bell (2007) the direction the conversation was taking determined the order in which I posed the remaining questions, allowing the tutors to reply as they chose. Additional spur of the moment questions prompted by interviewee responses, if appropriate (Gummesson, 2000) were also posed. I did not add the spur of the moment questions to the list of questions for subsequent interviews because did not want to prompt the interviewees for information. I did probe where points were unclear or warranted elaboration.
Silvermann (2011) notes that each form of interview requires a particular skill set in order to achieve the rich data sought. The skill set required by the semi-structured interviewer includes an understanding of the aims of the project, a rapport with each interviewee and probing skills. I had personally established the aims of the project and had previously conducted semi-structured interviews so felt equipped with the necessary interviewing skills.
Recording the interviews (discussed in more detail below) alleviated some of the concerns I had about capturing the richness in the conversations. I offered the tutors my office or an alternative venue of their choice for the interview. I conducted fifteen interviews in my office, three in the tutor’s office, one in the tutor’s home and another in a quiet private corner of a local café. Written consent for the interview to be recorded was obtained from all interviewees prior to the interview. None of the interviewees wanted to check the interview
93
transcripts I produced but the large majority said they would be interested in findings of the research.
As the interviews progressed, I did consider including a number of focus-group sessions that I felt would allow me to increase the number of colleagues contributions captured within a shorter timeframe. I was however unsure of how I would cope as a novice focus group facilitator and did not have time to develop these skills. I was also conducting and transcribing interviews concurrently and decided I did not want to risk losing the identity of individual contributors in the transcription process that was already proving to be more difficult and time consuming than I had anticipated.
Establishing a rapport with each of the interviewees and interviewing one’s colleagues presented interesting matters for me to grapple with. These matters are now considered.