Interview Schedule

The interview schedule was used as a follow-up instrument to gather more data to complement the quantitative data from the questionnaires. There was one interview schedule for both in-depth interviews and FGDs. The development of the interview schedule involved expert review by the supervisor and peer review by colleagues. Stewart et al. (2007) suggest two key principles in developing interview schedule, which were observed in this study. First, questions were ordered from the more general to the more specific, with the general unstructured questions being placed on top of the schedule and

the more specific ones placed at the end of the schedule. Secondly, the questions were ordered by their relative importance to the study, with those of great importance being placed early and those of lesser significance placed at the end. The overriding principle during development was to ensure that the guide provide effective direction for the group discussion.

The number of key questions in the interview guide remained at six, though their aspects were reviewed as the interviews progressed from one participant to another and from one focus group to another. Stewart et al. (2007) note that interview guides should consist of a few questions, with a wide berth for the moderator to probe responses, since the success of the interview is in the flexibility with which the researcher pursues new questions. The questions remained open ended in order to stimulate discussion and were in clear and simple language. The guide was finally tested during piloting to determine its reliability and validity as discussed in section 4.7.

4.5.2.1 In-depth Interviews

Cook (2008) emphasizes that conducting in-depth interviews is one of the most powerful methods of qualitative research and it involves the researcher encouraging the participants to talk in-depth about the topic under investigation without the researcher's use of predetermined, focused, short-answer questions. Thyer (2001, p. 312) adds that most in- depth interviews rely on the use of ‘instrumentation’ to some degree, to enhance the interviewer’s focus on important questions and prevent the interviewer from collecting non-essential information. In this study the interview schedule was used as a guide to ensure that the interview session covers all the desired topics. It also outlined issues for

probing in order to help the researcher go deeper into the interviewee's responses. A total of 13 in-depth interviews were carried out.

4.5.2.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

Morgan (1997) explains that FGDs are group interviews which enable the researcher to collect data from an extensive interaction on a topic by a large number of people in a limited period of time, depending on the researcher's ability to facilitate the sessions. The strength of the FGDs relies in the ability of the group to generate responses through interaction. Hence, FGDs have provided useful and reliable qualitative data in such areas as perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. In this case, an in-depth understating of complex actions and stimulus can be reached by examining the assessments that participants make of each other's answers and world views on given experiences (Morgan, 1997). Further, Stewart et al. (2007) have observed the value of FGDs when investigating sensitive topics or those that may be socially embarrassing. In the present study, personal idiosyncratic factors as general phobia or fear of victimization could have inhibited some students from freely expressing their perceptions; hence, FGDs provided them with a facilitating environment to freely express themselves in a manner that is not possible through in-depth interviews. Through skilled FGD facilitation by the researcher, it was possible to elicit open discussions of personal experiences among the groups, in a way that enhanced the scope and intensity of the discussions beyond personal interviews.

FGDs were particularly necessary in this study in order to enable the students critically examine the quality of teaching and learning they are experiencing by sharing and comparing their experiences through a discussion, thereby generating multiple perceptions, that have been used to enrich the quantitative data. A total of six FGDs involving six

Stewart et al. (2007) equally note that the success of FGDs relies on recruitment of participants and the design of the interview schedule. The interview schedule (as already discussed in 4.5.2.1) sets the agenda for the discussion, while the composition of the group determines the quality of the discussion. Setting the discussion agenda involves stating clearly the research question, being investigated. The authors also note that the question must be focused and should spell out the population of interest, issues of interest and desired outcomes.

While recruiting participants, convenient or purposive sampling was used. However, it was important for the group to be a representation of the larger population, hence, in this case, a heterogeneous discussion group, comprising of males and females, diploma and undergraduate students as well as finalists and pre-finalists, was recruited. This study also considered such factors as gender, type of course, year of study while recruiting the participants. There were two females in each FGD.

During recruitment, initial contact was made in person and the individuals were given a general description of the study, the general topic for the study and the fact that it would involve a discussion. The participants were also promised refreshments during the sessions. They were also told of the time and place of the group meetings and the duration the discussions would take. The participants who agreed to participate in the study were called to confirm the meeting 24 hours before the discussion. They were each given refreshments and an incentive of Kshs 500 (R.50) at the end of the discussion.

Stewart et al. (2007) further suggest that the group discussion location is an important factor to consider when recruiting a group, since it will influence the ease with which the participants accept to be recruited: the closer the location to the participant’s homes or work, the more likely they are to participate. But the locations also need to be familiar, accessible and attractive in order to make the participants comfortable during discussions (Payne & Payne, 2004). In this study, the discussions were held in some of the best restaurants near the universities.

The groups were composed of six individuals each, even though eight had been invited to participate in each group. It is advised that an effective FGD should have between six to ten members and not more than 12 (Payne & Payne, 2004; Gibbs, 1997; Morgan, 1998; Stewart et al., 2007). But it was also useful to recruit more individuals than the exact number required in order to accommodate the possibility of two participants not turning up (Stewart et al., 2007). In this study, the last two participants to turn up for each group discussion were asked to leave, though after being given the incentive. Scholars advise that an incentive is mandatory even when an individual is asked to leave.