Data collection via interview.

The interview as a data collection method is of major importance in qualitative research generally, holding a number of advantages over other methods such as questionnaires. Although interviews have traditionally been in a face to face format with oral data recorded or via the telephone, with developments in technology other opportunities have arisen such as the use of Internet telephony, a text format

interview involving use of the Internet in formats such as e-mail or realtime

electronic communication (chat)(Brown & Rodgers, 2002). However, a face to face interview was considered the most appropriate method of data collection for

respondents at level two and this was conducted with each respondent during two different time periods, the first during October/November 2006 and the second during October/November 2008.

As with any method, collecting data using interviews has advantages and disadvantages, which the researcher takes into consideration before utilising this method, but does provide access to the perceptions of others, Punch (1998) stating that the interview is “one of the most powerful ways we have of understanding others” (p. 144). Burns (1994) considers the interview as a data gathering or generating method suitable for studies utilising a small sample size so as to obtain extensive data. Conducting interviews allows the researcher to dictate the nature of the interaction, whether flexible and informal with questions asked in a

conversational manner or more formal and structured. Interviews can facilitate a comprehensive investigation of the topic through the planned use of a combination of open-ended and probe questions, with the interviewer able to provide explanation or clarification as necessary, thus facilitating extensive data generation (Brown & Rodgers, 2002; Burns, 1994).

Research methodology

100

It is acknowledged that interviews are interactional events providing “insight into individuals‟ constructed social worlds and into the ways in which they convey those constructions in the particular interactional setting of the interview” (Freebody, 2003, p. 136). Freebody (2003) regards the interview as a data generating method rather than data gathering as the interviewer and participant “together make sense in

generating meaningful accounts of the experiences they describe” (p. 137) shaped by the questions posed. Hatch (2002) also notes that what occurs in the interview context is a specialised type of speech event in which both interviewer and

participant recognise their roles in generating data, in taking turns to ask and respond to questions.

The interview in hermeneutic phenomenology has very specific functions, as outlined by van Manen (1997) as follows:

1) It may be used as a means for exploring and gathering experiential narrative material that may serve as a resource for developing a richer and deeper understanding of a human phenomenon.

2) It may be used as a vehicle to develop a conversational relation with a partner (interviewee) about the meaning of an experience. (p. 66)

A disadvantage in utilising interviews is that they can be time consuming, involving much organization and expense, noting that transcription of the audio data is also required once the interviews have been conducted so as to transform the data into a text format. Another disadvantage of using interviews noted is the possibility of interviewer effect which occurs when responses are adjusted by the respondent to suit what are perceived to be the expectations of the interviewer or to produce what are perceived as generally more socially acceptable answers.

Collecting data through interview for this study was regarded as time well invested as the data generated were extensive and thick. The researcher also had a thorough knowledge and understanding of the data from the time of collection which proved useful during data analysis, which Hatch (2002) regards as a requirement for analysis using themes: “searching for these requires an intimate knowledge of the raw data... This means once again immersing oneself in a careful reading of the original data set” (p. 173). In endeavouring to avoid or reduce interviewer effect in this study, the

Research methodology

101

interviews were conducted in a standardised manner in the same location following the same format with each respondent and the interview schedule followed, although the interviewer passed over items that had already been covered by the participant in previous responses to avoid repetition of the same material. As the researcher conducted all interviews, a standardised interviewing technique could also be maintained (Burns, 1994). Although some interviewer effect was possible from the interviewer also being researcher and teacher, this was minimised as the interview questions were focused on the respondents overall ELL experience rather than any evaluation of the course in which they were enrolled at the time. The participants had also completed all assessment requirements related to the course and as such there could be no perceived influence on overall assessment for the course through participation in the interview.

5.6.2.1 Interviews in this study

In order to comprehend the experiences of those who were at the time studying ESL it was clear that the generating qualitative data through conducting interviews would best suit this study and participants at level two. In deciding on the interview format for data generation the researcher sought to generate thick description, to capture and convey “the full picture of behaviour being studied – holistically, comprehensively and in context” (Punch, 2009, p. 360). Both functions of the interview in

hermeneutic phenomenology described above were sought for this study; the exploration through the interview of the meaning of the respondents‟ experience to

them personally and the development of understanding of these experiences for concerned others.

A face to face semi-structured interview format, with standardised open ended

questions, was selected for generating data with respondents at level two in this study for a number of reasons. The interview as a data collection method was considered most appropriate for the sample selected as it was recognised that the participants, NNSE who were studying English as a second language in an inner circle country, would find it easier to respond in spoken English rather than writing extensive responses to a questionnaire. Using the interview format, participants were able to explain or clarify their responses as necessary, and for the second language learner it is helpful to have the option of employing compensatory strategies such as

Research methodology

102

rewording. In this way also, the interviewer was able to explain or clarify any aspects of the questions that were not clear to participants, which would not have been possible had a written format, such as a questionnaire, been employed. Using a semi-structured interview also ensured that there was limited digression as the interviewer was able to keep the respondents focused on the question or topic at hand. Prior to conducting the interview, participants were informed that it was their prerogative not to answer questions when asked and that they could stop the

interview at any stage. Interestingly, all participants responded to all questions asked and all chose to complete their interviews.

An interview schedule employing open ended questions was developed to give an overall direction to the interview, with a series of probe questions for each of the main questions also developed for use as necessary in eliciting more comprehensive responses. The interview schedule (Appendix D) was followed by the interviewer with probe questions utilised as necessary to further explore the topic under

consideration and to ensure that data collected would be comparable in a systematic data analysis process, the researchernoting the advice given by Glicken (2003), “If you use different questions with each respondent, it will be impossible for you to make any sense out of the data” (p. 94). The interview schedule was pretested with a person of a similar English language level to those invited to participate in the

interview so as to locate any problematic vocabulary, to ensure that the questions produced the type of responses sought, and to ensure that they were sensitively worded in a manner appropriate across cultures. Adopting a semi-structured format did enable the respondents to be interviewed systematically and comprehensively “while allowing for different experiences to be articulated” (Pepper & Wildy, 2009, p. 19).

The interviews were conducted in a location that was familiar to the respondents and recorded via a microphone directly to the open source software Audacity version 1.3.4 (Audacity team, 2007-2008), an open source audio recording and editing

program that saves the audio data as WAV files. The WAV files were then converted to mp3 files and transcribed verbatim using the voice-recognition software program,

Dragon Naturally Speaking (Nuance, 2006) with manual adjustments as necessary. This proved to be more complex and time consuming than had been expected as the

Research methodology

103

responses were transcribed complete as spoken which the program found difficult to contend with without correcting or pre-empting the text. Moreover, paralinguistic features such as pauses or laughter were also recorded. The resulting documents were saved in a format that was straightforward to read and store before being converted to a plain text document for use with WEFT QDA (Fenton, 2006). Each interview transcription was assigned a code in the order transcribed to de-identify the resulting written texts, labelled I 1-I 18 used in this thesis. The process of

transcription was completed by the end of 2008.

There were a number of advantages in the researcher conducting all the interviews personally. It was recognised that for some people speaking into a microphone can be daunting knowing that responses will be recorded and this is particularly so as respondents were utilising their second language. The researcher was able to create an environment for the interview that was conducive to a relaxed conversational approach; the location for the interviews was familiar to the respondents and the interviewer and respondents already had a working relationship, so rapport had already been established. The location was chosen also as it enabled the researcher to record the interviews directly into the computer program Audacity (Audacity team, 2007-2008) for subsequent formatting and transcription to text. Having conducted the interviews the researcher was able to observe responses and gained a firsthand knowledge of the data which proved valuable during the data analysis process, as specific examples or instances could be recalled and located in the data. The researcher also had an overview of the data in total and was able to begin to recognise common themes that were emerging from the data from the early stages of the analysis process. In addressing the mass of data generated, the systematic

approach to data analysis employed ensured the quantity of data remained manageable.