Interpretive approaches characteristically seek culturally derived interpretations of the social worlds. Therefore, interviews are important interpretivist data collection tools that help to gain access to the others’ understandings. Since making meaning is an essential part of being human, and humans make meanings through social interactions (Vygotsky, 1978); interviews offer the opportunity to interpret and create meanings. Qualitative interviews are ‘conversations’ (Patton, 1980) but as Kvale (1996) states, they are ‘conversations with purposes’. These views suggest that interviews are mainly informal and friendly
conversations where social hierarchies can be made to take a back seat. The characteristics of interviews (discussed in detail below) show that they compel qualitative researchers to choose interviewing as a data collection tool.
Characteristically, people can be questioned in many ways (formally/informally), and interviewing is a main method that includes individual, group, telephone, or video-
conferencing interviews. Creswell (2005) asserts that the two major types of interviews are structured interviews (using pre-set questions) and unstructured interviews (allowing free- flow of conversation). I opted for individualistic semi-structured interviews for two important reasons. Firstly, the quality of semi-structuredness allows the researcher the freedom to explore participant views further and in depth where necessary. Secondly, as semi-structured
91
interviews consist of open-ended questions; they allow ‘free expression of experience’, encouraging interviewees to clarify their own points of view which can discourage any preconceived attitudes (if any) in interviewees from previous findings (Creswell, 2005).
Therefore, my prepared list of discussion themes (for the semi-structured interviews) included ‘open-ended questions’ that allowed time and scope for interviewees to relate to their life (academic/personal) experiences through personal narratives. Hence, as Kvale (1988) discusses, semi-structured interviews facilitate qualitative interviewers as they prefer to listen, interpret, empathise, sum up relevant data, and identify key patterns/themes for data analysis while conducting the interviews. In Kvale’s view, this is also a kind of ‘co-
authoring’, and Charmaz (2006) who shares the same view, further explains that interpreting qualitative data is co-constructing of truth because researcher values and beliefs integrate into the reproduction of interpreted data. Clearly, semi-structured interviews encompass the capacity to co-construct knowledge facilitating the qualitative researchers.
Another benefit is that semi-structured interviews allow for flexibility in terms of time and the schedules of the researcher/participants. For me, time between interviews and time as to the length of interviews became equally important. For instance, the interviews needed to be conducted during the university working hours (8 a.m. – 6 p.m.) within the SQU premises, choosing the hours that are compatible according to both the interviewer and interviewee timetables. Therefore, after consulting student and teacher participants’ individual timetables, I had the privilege of scheduling; 1 pilot interview, 11 teacher interviews, and 10 student interviews within the period of 3 months that the LCRC (language centre research
committee) granted for the first set of (22) interviews. The estimated time/periods proved appropriate because the actual duration of the interviews did not far exceed the anticipated timings. I estimated; ‘30-45 minutes’ for interview 1 and ‘45 minutes-1 hour’ for interview 2.
Following Yin’s (2014) guidelines, I created an interview protocol. An interview protocol is a guide to conduct the interview well. My interview guide outlined (a) the main research question and the 6 sub-research questions, raising participants’ awareness of the key themes, (b) the ‘follow-up’ questions as probing questions to enhance the participant
descriptions, revealing the complex nature of their own worlds, and (c) the themes where ‘planned prompting’ was relevant. Since the interview plan included relevant and important details for conducting the interviews, I gained the confidence I needed as the only
92
interviewer. However, as the interview guide did not demand a rigid adherence to the order of questions and themes, I was able to allow flexibility for the interviewer and interviewee. For instance, I managed to ask questions that enhance participant responses or offer long
explanations which contributed to enhance the data collection process.
The interview process consisted of two separate interviews. The first interview centred the concept of critical thinking and its development in learners. The second interview focused on finding out the ways that the principles of CHAT can be integrated into EFL teaching, contributing to developing critical thinking in learners. I was also fortunate with participant availability because the teachers and students who participated in the first interview agreed to take part in the second interview. There was a considerable time lag between the first and second interviews, but as I recapped the key ideas of each participant’s first interview recording/transcription at the beginning of the second interview; listening to their own
discussions helped them to re-acquaint with the key themes/own views, lessening any anxiety they felt.
My interview technique included the ‘main, follow up, and probing’ questions that Yin (1994) recommends for qualitative interviews. The main question/s focused on the substance of the research problem, spanning the areas that the six sub-research questions probe into. The themes included: (1) the importance of critical thinking, (2) whether/how the concept is addressed in EFL teaching, (3) contributions of constructivist approaches, grounding the principles of CHAT, (4) out of classroom/social elements, affecting the development of the concept, (5) classroom/social elements that can play hindering effects, (6) context-friendly teaching/learning practices that promote critical thinking in Omani learners. These themes (from the 6 sub-research questions) helped me to stay on target.
On the same topic of interview questions, Creswell (2014) emphasises the need to follow the main interview questions by using sub-questions. Thus, the main questions were designed to elicit individual experiences and understandings, using terms such as “can you tell/describe …” (Leech, 2002). The sub-questions focused on further clarifications, exploring issues in depth and detail. These descriptions provided the rich details that qualitative researchers seek. Similarly, summarizing a lengthy discussion/an interviewee account during the interview, based on the notes I made, was another technique that enhanced the interview conduct. It made me aware of the content, helping me to notice where
93
subsequent questions are needed. Moreover, as Creswell (2014) discusses, summarising helped to interpret meanings, facilitating the interviewee by clarifying his/her own discussion.
Location of the interview was carefully thought out for the reasons of convenience and minimising of power relations. Accordingly, the pilot interview was conducted at a pre- booked consultation room at the LC (within the university premises), showing that the interview venue was neither a teacher’s office nor a classroom. A second noteworthy point for choosing the LC as the interview venue was because it has an adjacent car park open for both teachers’ and students’. A small benefit like a spacious car park can contribute to reducing stress and the social distance between teachers and students. This neutral location helped to create an environment that is as stress-free as possible for the interviewee.
I made an effort to neutralize/lessen the student-teacher power relations by paying attention to the socio-cultural distances (Hofstede & Minkov, 2012). As Al-Issa (2012) writes, Omani students are well-attuned to their sociocultural hierarchies and power
relationships which may influence them to respond to teacher questions out of obligation (and mechanically) rather than with the motivation to learn/raise their own voices. Another
dimension to interviewer-interviewee power relations arises from interviewer having more knowledge about the themes/content. This asymmetry of power can often unknowingly lead to one-directional interviews with interviewer ruling the interview (Kvale, 2006). This shows that neutralising interviewer-interviewee power relations is necessary not only as an ethical stance but also for practical reasons.
Characteristically, semi-structured interviews that are ‘conversations with a purpose’ (Kvale, 2006) need to be well-planned to elicit the relevant information regarding the purpose/s of the interview. Accordingly, I followed Leech’s (2002) idea of a one-minute summary of my research purpose as an effective ice-breaker to alleviate any anxiety in the interviewee. I was also mindful about (a) the greetings, (b) refreshments, (c) off-the-topic conversations, (d) re-emphasising the confidentiality of data, and (e) informing that interviews are only voice-recorded, making the interview-transcript available later,
contributing to reduce any stress. Moreover, (f) I briefly mentioned the topic of my research and indicated that the interviewee’s knowledge of the context is important and that his/her
94
experiences and opinions matter to the success of this research as was the truth. I felt that this declaration contributed to building trust between the interviewee and interviewer.
The interview commenced with the simpler questions, leading to the complex questions that needed ‘prompting’ with student participants, since teacher participants did not need prompting. Prompting (the interviewee) indicates the extent that an interviewee should be helped to understand a certain concept, which is a crucial element to conducting an unbiased interview. However, prompting can be used to gain advantages because when/if
researchers/interviewers have hidden agendas, they may prompt interviewees in ways that compel them to express what they may not want to (Kvale, 2006). Hence, prompting should be given the due consideration to avoid manipulation (and bias) of the interviewees and knowledge creation. As Leech (2002) writes, focusing on and anticipating the
‘planned/unplanned’ prompts can be strengths, as lack of prompting can lead to lack of depth and richness in responses. Therefore, I focused on how to prompt my student participants prior to the interviews. I included planned prompts about the (a) key concepts of critical thinking and (b) constructivist teaching. I opted for planned prompts because they are formal and carefully thought after to avoid manipulating the interviewee and facilitate knowledge creation, evaluating the extent that the key concepts should be elaborated.
There are many ways to conduct interviews. For instance, Bellah et al.’s (1985) discussion of their work on ‘individualism and commitment in American life’ shows how using Socratic dialogue enlivens the interview procedure. Bellah et al.’s triumph included uncovering assumptions and the interviews progressing in an ‘active’ manner. I also had made mental notes on the importance of encouraging participant descriptions, freedom of expression, and adhering to the flexible interview plan. Consequently, my mental plan made me realise the extent I need to interact, but also be subtle in adhering to the interview plan. These issues have influenced me to embrace the qualities that Yin (2014) sums up for a qualitative interviewer to have. They have made me aware of the need to become an interviewer that embraces the following precepts:
a. asking good questions that are meaningful and interpreting the answers fairly, b. listening fairly paying attention to what is being said,
c. adapting to the flow so that interviewer can respond to new situations developing, d. grasping the discussed issues firmly, and
95
e. avoiding bias by being sensitive and staying open-minded about contrasting evidence that can develop within the interviews.
However, even with careful planning, I still experienced some of the major disadvantages that the qualitative research experts mention (Yin, 2011). For instance, managing the time was challenging initially because I noticed that participants were interested in sharing their life experiences as examples. This made me realise how
sensitive/attuned one needs to be towards the participants’ discussions to intervene even in the subtlest manner. Intervening a conversation is not an easy task in a context where social politeness is a deciding factor within social participation. Therefore, I soon adopted the resolution of politely requesting for 1 example, instead of allowing participants plenty of time and space to continue with several examples. Consequently, this strategy helped me to
conclude my interviews within the scheduled time. Later, I realised that this factor escaped me during the pilot interview because the student interviewee in my pilot interview was not a talkative student.