In-depth semi-structured interview

Campbell et al. (2013) define an in-depth semi-structured interview as a guided interview with a limited number of pre-determined closed-ended questions, and many open-ended questions with the aim of stimulating discussion on a given topic. In-depth semi-structured interview is also defined as a procedure characterized by a structured and unstructured content (Dick, 2014). It is also believed that in-depth semi-structured interview data constitutes the empirical backbone of much qualitative research in social sciences. Researchers conduct interviews because they are interested in other people’s

128

stories, opinions, feelings and views on the phenomenon under study (Seidman, 2012). Interviews tend to acknowledge that subjects dealt with in a study have the ability to talk and think, thus, providing in-depth information pertaining to participants’ experiences and viewpoints of a particular topic (Turner, 2010).The in-depth semi-structured interviews were held with seven school heads and seven G & C teachers in the respective secondary schools.

Semi-structured interviews comprise a mix of structured and unstructured questions. In this data collection method, questions are planned prior to the interview but the interviewer gives the interviewee the chance to elaborate and explain particular issues through the use of open-ended questions (Alsaawi, 2014).The structure of a semi- structured interview is usually organized following an interview guide containing topics, themes, or areas of discussion during the course of the interview (Pathak &Intratat, 2012). In-depth semi-structured interviews are characterized by key features such asflexibility, interactivity, and comprehensibility (generative) (Ahmed & Ahmed, 2014). Flexibility means there are no strict rules regarding the structure of questions or sequence of the questions. Instead, the researcher covers the topics in an open order by following interview schedule. Here the interviewee is given space to explain his or her views freely through probing used by the interviewer to keep the interview on the relevant track (Alsaawi, 2014). The interviewee also enjoys this flexibility and freedom in deciding what needs to be described or argued, and how much explanation to offer (Pathak &Intratat, 2012).This key feature of in-depth interview assisted in clarifying and expanding on the data from the teacher questionnaires with regard to how teachers enacted their role in the promotion of CFS environments.

Second key feature, interactivity, assumesthat the interview is an interactive or effective two-way communication process where initial conversation is triggered by the interviewer and the following questions occur in relation tothe interviewee’s responses. This feature tends to suggest that an in-depth interview must be conducted face to face in order to achieve intense experience for both the interviewer and interviewee (Dick, 2014). Conducting face-to-face in-depth interviews with school heads and Guidance

129

&Counselling teachers helped in exploring meaning and language with regard to teachers’ role in the promotion of CFS environments.

The third feature of comprehensibility/generative is where the researcher probes or uses other techniques to get full understanding of the participant’s view or meaning, feelings and perspectives (Edwards & Holland, 2013). The intention is to achieve depth of answer in terms of penetration, exploration and explanation. In-depth interviews are generative in the sense that new knowledge or thoughts are likely, at some stage, to be created.This key feature of in-depth interview permitted the current researcher to fully explore all the factors that underpinned teachers’ answers, reasons, feelings, opinions and beliefs on how they played their role in the promotion of CFS environments.

3.6.2.1 Strengths of in-depth semi-structured interviews

This method of data collection has some significant advantages. First, in-depth interview provides more detailed information than what is available through other data collection methods, such as questionnaires. In-depth interview can uncover valuable insights and enable the researcher to find out the ‘real story or experience’ from the people in the know.Second, the approach also provides a more relaxed atmosphere in which to collect information, where participants may feel more comfortable having a conversation with the researcher and are likely to open up on a one-on-one basis. The third advantage is that data collected through in-depth interview is of high quality and enables a skilled interviewer to respond to questions and probe for greater detail. This also allows questions to be added or altered in real-time, if needed. Another advantage of this type of interview is that it resolves the problem of the researcher pre-determining what will or will not be discussed in an interview since it is the direction of the interview not the interviewer that determines what needs to discussed next. Last but not least, in- depth interview can reveal emotional dimensions of social experience that are not often evident in behaviour (Pugh, 2013).

3.6.2.2 Limitations of in-depth semi-structured interviews

The validity and reliability of data collected through an in-depth interview highly depends on the skills of the researcher in asking clear and precise questions. There are chances of misinterpretation of questions by the interviewees and hence, provision of irrelevant

130

data. In order to address this weakness, the pre-planned interview schedule was pilot- tested and feedback and suggestions effected to improve the instrument. The use of an occasional spontaneous question makes the answers difficult to quantify and analyse. Also, spontaneous questions, asked of some and not of other interviewees, can be seen as unfair, or possibly misleading. The researcher briefly worked with experienced researchers to gain skills on how and when to interject during interview to avoid possible bias. In-depth semi-structured interviews can be both labour and time- intensive, since there is much room for probing and giving necessary clarifications. To deal with this shortcoming, the researcher tried to adhere to time allocated for each interview and worked within the time frame scheduled for completion of collecting data through this approach.

3.6.2.3 Justification for the use of in-depth semi-structured interviews

There are a number of reasons why thecurrent study opted to use semi-structured interviews as a data collection tool. The first reason was that the interviews provided a history of behaviour in relation to teachers’ role in the promotion of CFS environments. Conducting these one-on-one interviews was likely to highlight individual versus group concerns. The assumption was that issues related to the CFS concept that did not arise in a group situation would be addressed in individual interviews. School heads and G & C focal persons who were interviewed were likely to reveal divergent experiences and “outlier” attitudes about the CFS initiative and the role the teachers were supposed to play to promote it. Information from these key participants gave a fast overview of each school and its needs and concerns in relation to the implementation of CFS principles and the required teacher professional development to effectively promote the initiative. Data collected from in-depth semi-structured interviews assisted in clarifying and complementing the findings from semi- structured questionnaires, as well as allowing comparison of findings which provided a detailed understanding of teachers’ role in the promotion of CFS environments.