Interview Protocol

Interviews with participants were conducted mainly using a general interview guide approach but this approach integrated elements of a conversational approach to interviewing (Patton, 2002). This approach allowed the researcher to explore issues with participants, whilst providing the freedom for participants to develop particular areas or issues concerning them (ibid). The researcher before each interview developed or refined an interview guide based on the primary research questions and from her own interactions with the project. Similar interview guides were used with participants across groups. Interview guides incorporated a variety of question types including knowledge, experience and value. However, an effort was made to include as many open-ended questions, to allow the interviewee to direct the interview as much as possible (ibid). All interviewees completed a consent form, Appendix 3. Participants were contacted firstly by email, follow up calls and emails were sent to non-respondents. The researcher developed a rough interview guide based on the central research question; the guide incorporated a list of possible questions to be asked. The guide also asked the interviewee to comment on any aspect of Bologna, the AFI initiative and/or teaching learning structures to allow the interviewee scope to provide any additional information please see Appendix 4 for an example guide. All interviews were digitally recorded using a digital audio recorder; digital files were stored on the researcher’s computer. After each interview

an interview summary sheet adapted from Miles and Huberman (1994) was completed see Appendix 5. Following this initial analysis of each interview, the researcher included and tagged any additional question raised by that interview to be added to the interview schedule. The transcription of interviews was facilitated through the use of software, F4 audio-transcription software2, developed by doctoral

students at the Philipps University in Marburg, Germany and which is now freely available on the Internet. The transcription of an oral interview into a written text provides the researcher with a number of practical and theoretical issues, needing to be addressed as an integral part of the methodological process. Transcripts are described by Kvale (1996:163) as:

…not the rock bottom data of interview research, they are artificial constructions from an oral to a written mode of communication.

Mason (2002) goes on further to describe a transcription as “…always partial partly because it is an inadequate record of non-verbal aspects of the interaction”. Silverman (2006) counsels the researcher to contrast the level of detail needed in transcriptions with the research problem and the analytic approach, whilst also considering issues of time and resources, whilst Kvale (1996) suggests that the style of transcriptions may also vary dependant on their use. Sack (1992) argues that the issue of completeness of data from oral data is perhaps an illusion and probably is as elusive as the faultless transcription. Indeed Kvale (2007:98) counsels the researcher not to ask the question “What is the correct valid transcription?” but rather “What is a useful transcription for my research purposes?”. In view of these issues the researcher adopted an approach to transcription primarily centred on facilitating analysis; that approach is outlined as follows, with the treatment of conversational features described in Table 10.

2 _{F4 –}

http://www.audiotranskription.de/english/downloads-en.html is a free of charge standard software programme

Table 10 – Treatment of Conversational Features in Transcription

Feature Example Practice

Abbreviations isn’t, aren’t, weren’t Transcribed i.e. not spelled out

Verbal Tics er, um, em Transcribed

Pauses long pause, short pause All pauses indicated by three dots “…”

Repetitions What I mean to say, or I should say... and what I said

Transcribed verbatim no rendering of meaning

Source: Adapted from (Arskey and Knight, 1999:196) As the research did not include sociolinguistic or psychological analysis of the interviews, a richer descriptive transcription record of verbal conversation and the broader interview context was not completed e.g. recording of emotions or physical gestures etc. (Kvale, 1996 , 2007). Interviews were transcribed verbatim by the researcher and a team of transcribers, who signed confidentiality forms, Appendix 6. The researcher had no prior experience of transcription, and due to the nature of the confidentiality of the research had initially completed the transcriptions primarily by herself. However, as the volume of interviews increased, the researcher consulted with the university and was permitted to engage further transcribers to transcribe the remaining transcriptions. No re-organisation of the oral word into a more formal written style was attempted – although Kvale (1996:170-171) suggests that this “may be a desirable practice” dependant on the analysis. The researcher sought to avoid misinterpretation and the potential to skew subsequent analysis of the transcriptions through any such condensing. Peräkylä (2004) asserts that the skill of the transcriber develops with experience and the researcher found this to be the case. To improve the accuracy of transcriptions the following practice was adopted. After each interview was initially transcribed, the researcher listened to the interview again and simultaneously read through the transcription to remove inaccuracies, to include any previously inaudible comments and format segments. Transcripts were then spellchecked using a word processing tool. Each transcript was finally considered in relation to ethical issues – primarily relating to the maintenance of anonymity of the interviewees and their schools. Editing of each transcription was

completed to mask this information and a copy of the original and edited transcription was maintained. Although Peräkylä (2004) advises that another person check the transcript, issues relating to confidentiality prohibited the researcher from implementing this step to improve transcription reliability (Kvale, 2007).