In-depth Interview as the Main Method of Data Collection

The primary method of data collection for phenomenological researches is in-depth interview (Creswell, 2013). In-depth interviews suited well the purpose of this phenomenological study because it allowed me to elicit the experiences, feelings and opinions of the participants about the phenomenon of return migration. Furthermore, the conduct of in-depth interviews also afforded me, the researcher to delve into sensitive topics that were touched and shared by the participants.

1. Interview Questionnaire

Interviews of the participants delved, among others, on the following topics: 1) individual circumstances and experiences as a migrant prior to return; 2) individual reasons and circumstances that led to the decision to return to the Philippines; 3) views, feelings, and attitudes towards return to the country; 4) actual circumstances and processes of return that the individual has undergone; 5) current situation, feelings, attitudes and views as a returnee to the Philippines; 6) ideas about the notion of successful return and perceived factors that leads to one’s and others’ successful reintegration to the country. A semi-structured interview guide was prepared. A semi-structured interview guide allowed the participants to share their return migration experiences in a much more natural way, and allowed me to ask further questions— clarificatory, probing, and follow-up questions. Apart from the interview questions, the questionnaire consisted of information that were solicited from

66

the participants like their preferred pseudonym to hide their identity (if they so wish), age, sex, religious affiliation, educational attainment and present occupation.

2. Setting up the Interviews

The prospective interviewees were contacted through mobile phone. They were sent SMS text messages. The texts sent were of the following format: "Good morning (Mr. Loreto Soriano)! This is Prof. Augustus Anonuevo of the University of the Philippines Los Banos. I am doing my PhD research on successful Filipino migrant returnees. I got your name from (OWWA's list of MOFYA awardees). I hope you will not mind, can I call you today to set an interview? Please tell me what time you want me to call you. Marami pong salamat (Thanks a lot!)!"

When the prospective interviewee replied to the text that I sent, I called her/him to explain, in general, what the research was all about and asked her/his consent to be interviewed. After a positive response, I asked for an appointment—date, time, and place that the participant wished to be interviewed. Only one set interview did not push through for the prospective participant kept on changing the date of interview. I deemed it was really a reluctance on his part to be interviewed as a successful returnee. Her wife said that he did not consider himself successful.

3. Conduct of Interviews

The interviews of the participants started in March 3, 2017and ended on June 20, 2017. All the interviews were conducted in places most convenient and most comfortable for the participants. Some participants opted to be interviewed in their homes while others wanted the interviews in their offices.

67

Other participants preferred to share their experiences in coffee shops and restaurants.

The interviews were conducted in Tagalog, the most dominant dialect used in the Philippines. Most of the Filipinos, including the participants of the study, could understand and converse in Tagalog, despite having grown up with their own dialects like many of my respondents in the Bicol region, the provinces of Iloilo, in Davao provinces. All Filipinos learn Filipino, the national language, which is dominantly Tagalog in schools. It could not be helped that the questions and responses at times were in mixed Tagalog and English, commonly referred to as Taglish, which noticeably has become a normal mode of conversation among Filipinos.

The interviews lasted at the average of an hour. The shortest interview lasted around 40 minutes while the longest lasted at about two hours. The interviews were recorded. I used three instruments—a tape recorder, IPad’s Quick Voice and IPhone’s Voice Memos. This was done to ensure that all interviews would really be recorded, i.e. just in case, an instrument failed to function because of various reasons (which was the case in some interviews conducted).

Although I had a list of questions, the interviews were generally conducted in a free-wheeling manner, i.e. respondents were asked to freely relate their experiences and views regarding the following general topics: life and work abroad, plans and circumstances of return, and life and work experiences as a migrant returnee and views of successful return. (Please see Interview Questionnaire in Annex 1 which served simply as a guide in the conduct of interviews.)

I started each interview by introducing myself, the purpose of the study, asking the participants for permission to record the conversations, and guaranteeing the confidentiality of the interview proceedings. I even asked each of them

68

whether they preferred a pseudonym in the written manuscript; they all said that they rather not and were willing to have their real names printed.

I ended each interview by asking the participant if she/he wished to add more to what she/he had shared. I also expressed my gratitude and asked whether I could call them if I need to be clarified on what they have shared. It turned out that I found no need to ask more from them for the taped interviews were clear and their answers understandable.

4. Transcription of Recorded Interviews

The taped interviews were transcribed. A Bachelor of Arts (BA) Sociology student, a working student, a Sociology professor of the University of the Philippines-Los Banos (UPLB), an NGO (non-government organization) staff member, and a BA Communications Arts graduate of UPLB were asked to do the transcriptions of the 30 interviews. I asked them to transcribe the interviews verbatim.

Transcribers were asked to delete the recorded interview files that I have sent them after their transcriptions to ensure the verbal confidentiality agreement between me and the participants. The transcribers were remunerated for their efforts.

From May 2, 2017 to October 2017 all interviews of the 30 participants were transcribed and printed, and were ready for phenomenological data analysis. The recorded interviews and their transcriptions were saved in a CD labelled Appendix 2. Recordings and Transcriptions of Interviews.

69