Interview method

The interview method was used as the main data collection method. Schostall (2006:10) defines interviews as having the purpose of enabling knowledge to be gained about people‘s experiences, concerns, interests, beliefs, values, knowledge and ways of seeing, thinking and acting as such, they are considered to be an essential component of case study research. Some scholars such as Cousin (2009), French (1993), Henning (2004:30-31), Khotari (2009:63-71) and Patton (1990:173-174) have extensively discussed four types of interviews namely, the formal conversational interviews, the structured interview, the semi-structured interview and the unstructured interview. According to Patton (1990:206), the fit type is the ―formal conversational‖ interview which is suitable for gaining information from the immediate context by asking questions in the natural course of things. The second type is the structured interview approach (interview guide approach), where the topics and issues to be discussed are predetermined in advance and the interviewer decides the sequence and wording of the questions prior to the interview process (French, 1993:90; Khotari; 2009:97). The third type of interview is the semi-structured interview (Cousin 2009), where the interviewer ―is free to alter the wording and ordering of the questions‖ (Khotari 2009:98) and participants are given considerable freedom to express themselves. Lastly, the fourth type of interview is the ―closed quantitative interview‖ where the respondents are asked predetermined questions and choose their answers from predetermined fixed responses (Patton, 1990).

For this particular research, the researcher settled for the interview guide approach. A semi-structured interview guide was designed which was structured in a format that

129

reflected research aims and empirical elements of the literature review and the theoretical framework.

Research aims, empirical elements of the literature review and theoretical framework informed and guided the interview guide. The interview guide was structured in a format that gave scope for ‗guided conversations‘ (Yin, 2003:89). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with lecturers, Directors of Teaching and Learning Centres, Deans and Vice Chancellors. Semi structured interviews are compatible with critical theory in that they offer participants the chance to speak out on the issues that concern them on academic professional development and to construct an agenda on matters of critical importance rather than to have researchers imposing their own views on them (Mahlase, 1997:28). The interview provided insight into how participants‘ perception about academic professional development or teaching and learning was constructed. Developing an understanding of participant‘s constructions was in keeping with the aim of the research which sought to explore academics‘ understanding of conceptual frameworks that influenced their attitudes towards academic professional development. Gibbs (2002) debates the importance of recognising the influence of different beliefs, perspectives and knowledge on how people respond and act towards a transformative innovation such as continuing professional development.

Interviews were conducted in February and part of March in 2013, after securing consent of academic participants. At agreement stage e-mails and cell numbers were exchanged to facilitate communication and appointments for interviews. Interviews were conducted by appointment a week before the interview. A day before the appointment day and time, confirmation of appointment was made by the researcher. Interviews were conducted in participants‘ offices. This was considered ideal for interviewees to express themselves more freely in privacy and familiar environment. Interviews took an hour and they were audio recorded. The researcher also took brief notes during interview. Precautions were taken not to disrupt the narrative and discourse nature of the interview. In Case Study Institution Y, it took a month to secure an interview date with the Vice Chancellor because of his busy schedule.

In interviews, it was important for the researcher to record as much detail as possible (Deem, 2002:840; Khotari, 2009:97). The key focus of the semi structured interviews

130

was to explore institutional context of both case study institutions. The semi-structured interviews were expected to develop understanding of institutional cultures and policies that enable or constrain academic professional development.

Researchers are warned about respondents who might provide a personal perspective on a case study. However, Morsick and Watkins (1990: 42) argue that higher education institutions have ‗life and existence because of the individual people which make them up so, ‗institutional norms‘, culture and discourse need to recognise their influence as ―agents who might change others in the way they think, act and learn‖.

Therefore, in order to capture detailed sets of notes during interviews, an audio recording cassette was used. According to Cousin (2009) and Tuckman (1994:360- 372), this ensures the accuracy and trustworthiness of the data that was collected.

3.6.1.1 Justification for the use of an interview as a data collecting method

A key justification of using the interview method is that it is one of the most effective means of getting in-depth information on any given phenomenon (Henning, 2004). Through the use of semi-structured interviews, respondents were able to express themselves freely since the aim of the study was to find out conditions which affect successful implementation of academic professional development in higher education institutions. In the process, the researcher was able to obtain very full, ―rich, thick data‖ (French, 1994:92) and unique responses from the respondents and this was likely to increase the validity of the findings (Corbetta, 2003). Use of semi-structured interviews is compatible with critical theory which gives participants space and a voice, to express issues that concern them and to construct an agenda on matters of critical importance. Some of the respondents were likely to articulate the constraints through the experiences they encountered in faculty professional development programmes. The interview method gives the interviewer opportunities to get detailed understanding of the respondents‘ experiences through asking questions to interviewees that clarify their responses on the spot. According to French (1993:101), the interview method enables participants to put forward their own

131

views without being constrained by the perspectives and agenda of the researcher.

Borg and Gall (1996:66) say that the semi-structured interview has the advantage of being reasonably objective while still permitting a more thorough understanding of the respondents‘ opinions and the reasons behind them than would be the case when using mailed questionnaires. Patton (1990) argues that the interview also enables one to ‗see‘ in a person‘s mind in order to access the perspective of the interviewee on the topic of the interview. Cohen and Manion (1994) claim that the interview can also show that a person likes or dislikes something at the same time revealing how one thinks. However, this is not always easy, since people are sometimes good at hiding their true feelings in an interview. In order to counter this possibility and obtain detailed information from participants, an atmosphere of trust was created by creating an enabling interview environment. Rose (2004:22) argues that once rapport is established, general topics maybe approached in order to enable the participants to reveal their experiences and opinions while allowing individuals to direct the conversation along the pathways. Compared to questionnaires, non-response rate generally remains low because samples can be controlled more effectively as there arises no difficulty of the missing returns (Kothari, 2009:98). However, it has been argued by some scholars that although the interview method has some merits, it also has its own limitations. Some of these are going to be discussed below.

3.6.1.2 Limitations of the interview method

Interviews do have certain limitations. The possibility of ―the bias of interviewer as well as that of the respondent‖ remains a weakness (Kothari, 2009:99). Rose (2001:2) points out that ―if the researcher and the researched have too much in common there may be a temptation for the interviewer not to lease out attitudes and behaviours and reasons for them‖. The implication then is that being too familiar with respondents may tempt the researcher to fill in the gaps of information on her own without interviewing the respondents to clarify responses. On the other hand, the presence of the interviewer on the spot

132

may ―over-stimulate the respondent, sometimes to the extent that imaginary information‖ (Khotari, 2009:100) just to make the interview interesting.

In order to minimise these limitations, measures taken included ensuring that participants did not feel intimidated. Participants are more likely to co-operate if they feel that the research is worthwhile and they are respected for their contribution. In this study, the bias of the researcher was kept to a minimum through experience gained from the pilot study. The pilot study assisted the researcher to have awareness on the need not to influence participants‘ views through reflexition (Denzin and Lincoln 1998). Also the pilot study assisted the researcher to have interviewing skills that facilitated interviewer and interviewee relationship that did not influence data. Given these measures, the bias of the researcher had limited influence on data collected.

Having discussed the merits and demerits of the interview method of data collection, the discussion turns to the focus group interviews which were also used to collect data. The focus group interview method is discussed below.