Interviews:

This study is not mere documentary analysis of the regulation. Insights and explanations of the approaches to the

regulation and the effectiveness of implementation of the regulation is sought. Interviews will be used to reveal the insights and explanations of key persons including the e-signature policy maker, technology lawyers, information security experts and electronic commerce experts. Yin directs that there are a selection of interview types to consider including in-depth interviews, focussed interviews and formal survey interviews (Yin, 2009). For this study, the focussed interview is used i.e. elements of in-depth interviews including requests for the interviewees own opinions and experiences and insights, however, the interview questions and pursued outcomes are guided by the questions associated with a case study protocol developed by the researcher (Yin, 2009). The case study protocol for this study is contained in Annexure A. It is clear in the context of Yin’s description of a formal survey that this cannot be applied due to variance in the interviewee

Purposive sampling is used to identify the interviewees (respondents). Purposive sampling is a form of non-probability sampling distinguished from probability methods associated with “statistical randomness” of a population ( Terre Blanche and Durrheim, 1999, p. 279) and pertains instead to a more deliberate identification of interviewees based on selection criteria ((Leedy and Ormrod, 2005, p. 139). In a study on purposive sampling techniques, issues of bias and dependability of the research relying on purposive sampling to collect interviewee data are raised (Tongco, DC, 2007). This can be countered through careful selection of the interviewees and the need to establish and record key determinants for the selection such as expertise of the interviewees (Snedecor, 1939) or the relevant qualifications (Allen, 1971). Another caution expressed in the literature to promote stakeholder representivity or ensuring adequate representation of vested stakeholder interests (Fraenkel,Wallen, Hyun,1993) This would also assist in the reproducibility of the findings raised by some, as a limitation to purposive sampling (Hones, 1990). It is necessary that the researcher remains cognisant of issues of bias, reliability and competency of the interviewees (Tongco, 2007).

The researcher being a technology lawyer with several year of experience, selected interviewees, being persons in the judgement of the researcher to be aligned with the intended outcomes of the study (Groenewald, 2004, p. 8). The interviewee selection is according to the relevance of their experience and insights on the key inquiries comprising the conceptual frameworks as determined by the researcher and to promote the richness and generalisation of the research as well as being representative of the stakeholder groups for this study. The respondents included at least: one key

representative from the Accreditation Authority (Authority /SAAA), being the appointed e-signature certification authority for advanced signatures; and (ii) the Department of Communications (DOC), being the primary e-signature policy maker; information security experts; ICT legal experts; electronic commerce experts. Each of the interviewees had demonstrable knowledge and insights on the areas of inquiry reflected in their qualifications and experience. Collectively, the interviewees were in a position to offer reflections on the multiple areas of inquiry comprising the conceptual framework although it is anticipated that their insights will be deeper or lesser according to the nature of the inquiry and the corresponding area of interest of the interviewee. According to Merriam, this selection of criteria of interviewees can be determined by the researcher (Merriam, 2002, p. 12). The use of purposive sampling for a selection of varied categories of interviewees was further in pursuit of broadening the array of perspectives through (Curtis, Gesler, Smith and Washburn, 2000, p. 1003). This was for the benefit of the relevant insights for the remaining audience, over and above the policy maker, and to evidence the competing requirements of the stakeholders in e-signature regulation. In accordance with the concerns raised in the literature where purposive sampling is used, the researcher will remain cognisant of issues of bias, reliability and

competency of the interviewees through the interviews and use the semi-structured format to specifically probe areas where the above issues are reduced in the opinion of the researcher. Furthermore, the researcher in the analysis of the interview transcripts employs the methods discussed in 3.5.3 below to promote the reliability of the research findings and the overall quality of the research.

Further detail on the actual interview participants will be provided in Chapter Four. The interview protocol developed, as per Annexure A, provided focus on the key themes to ensure interlacing of the responses in the analysis as well as permitted emphasis on the areas of interest of the stakeholder to contribute to the richness of the study. The researcher did engage in a pilot interview, and following the pilot interview, the interview protocol was streamlined to remove ambiguity in certain questions as well as to amend the background and introduction to interviewees to provide for acquaintance with regulatory terminology and the outcomes of the study.

The following are an indication of questions that will be included in the interviews according to the themes of analysis of the implementation of the regulation:

Table 3.3: Interview themes and questions

Significance of ES Regulation How would you describe the levels of (i) trust, (ii) security (iii) privacy and (iv) user confidence in electronic commerce (transacting through electronic communications and transactions) in South Africa?

What would you describe as the significance of e-signatures on electronic commerce in South Africa?

What importance, if any, do you attach to the regulation of e-signatures? Effectiveness of the Regulation of

ES Products and Services

What importance, if any, do you attach to the distinction in the regulation between e- signatures and advanced e-signatures?

What importance if any, do you attach to the recognition of foreign accredited signatures as advanced e-signatures?

Effectiveness of the implementation of ES Regulation

What importance, if any, do you attach to the accreditation of e-signatures as advanced e- signatures?

What importance, if any, do you attach to the accreditation of The ASP’s signature (product) as an advanced e-signature?

What significance, if any, do you attach to the accreditation of The ASP as an authentication service provider?

What significance, if any, do you attach to the delay in accreditation of an authentication service provider?

What significance, if any, do you attach to a single accredited authentication service provider in the market?

Insights and Recommendations to promote the effectiveness of ES Regulation

What would you say is the key role of the e-signature policy maker (the Department of Communications)?

What are your comments on e-signature regulation to date?

What impact do you believe effective regulation of e-signatures has on the success of electronic commerce (transacting through electronic communications and transactions)?

Each of the interview questions relate either to a sub-issue in the conceptual framework, provide opportunity for the interviewee to reflect on their experiences on the efficacy of the implementation of the regulation or provide opportunity to contribute recommendations for the policy maker related to stakeholder requirements and interests.