Interviews

Traditionally, interviews have been defined as a communicative procedure that allows an investigator to ‘extract’ information from an individual or informant (Seidman, 2013; King and Horrocks, 2010). But participants typically influence the extracted information, as they interpret their environment based on their prior experiences and encounters about the phenomena being investigated. Therefore, interviews normally generate subjective,

112

explanatory outcomes or responses that are shaped by the experiences of the interviewees (DiCicco‐Bloom and Crabtree, 2006: 319). As such, the main objective of qualitative interviewing is to offer alternative ways of understanding phenomena that cannot be observed directly; aspects like interviewees’ behaviours, feelings, opinions, thoughts, or attitudes. As the present study assumes that the perspective of the respondents is meaningful, unique and identifiable, it was practical to use qualitative interviewing to obtain their perspective on the SE and QA processes in the women’s section of KAU. Interviewers also affect the information offered, and are recognised as being active co- creators, with their respondents, of the knowledge produced during an interview (Holstein and Gubrium, 1995).

There are various classification systems for interview types fronted by qualitative researchers. The researcher chose semi-structured interviews due to their versatility and reliability (King and Horrocks, 2010). Seidman (2013) argues that in some cases, studies that adopt semi-structured interviews require the researcher to develop and make use of a predetermined question guide (interview guide) with questions and topics to be asked during the interview listed in a particular manner. However, the interview guide must be developed and utilised in a manner that does not manipulate the respondents (Seidman, 2013: 94). Furthermore, Patton (1990: 283) notes that the interviewer usually follows the interview guide though they are required to keep track of topical trajectories in the discussion that may be out of the interview guide questions, as long as they feel the digression is relevant or appropriate. Preparation of interviewers on how to follow relevant topics and inclusion of open-ended questions “provide the opportunity for identifying new ways of seeing and understanding the topic at hand” (Walsh and Wigens, 2003: 98). In addition, Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2016: 392) suggest that it is generally desirable for the researcher to record the interviews on tape and later transcribe them, as it may be difficult to write notes capturing the participants’ answers while actively engaging with the participants. This can obstruct interviewer and interviewee rapport development, unless the researcher has someone to take rapid notes during the interview. Lastly, Patton (1990: 281) and Cohen (2006) note also that semi-structured interviews provide the participants with the independence to express their views simply or in the terms they best understand. If done well, semi-structured interviews can provide reliable, distinctive qualitative data (Patton, 1990: 282).

113

Backett (1990) notes that the value of interviews lies in obtaining information that is otherwise difficult to access. The present study employed semi-structured interviews, which mainly focused on collecting detailed and comprehensive information on particular issues regarding SE procedures and their applications to quality assurance and academic accreditation in the women’s section of KAU. Semi-structured interviews were considered appropriate for the present study, as they are carried out through focused, interactive communication.

The researcher’s main concerns regarding the interviews were related to censorship in the KSA, especially after discussing access procedures with the head of the department of the Graduate Educational Studies programme where the researcher was employed, and which was the starting point for the access procedures that begun in 2012. In the event, the department was supportive of the possibility of carrying out a study within the university but also offered guidance that had to be taken into account during the implementation of the study, including guidance regarding the formulation of the interview questions. The head of the department stressed that the questions needed to be translated into Arabic, and not contain any religious or political aspects. As the official language in KSA is Arabic, the interview protocol had to be translated from English by the researcher and revised with the supervisor. The interviews took place in the Arabic language (mother tongue), as this approach enabled participants to give detailed, unobstructed verbal accounts. For the purposes of communication with a wider audience, numerous parts of the Arabic versions of the interviews were then translated into English.

For the present study, forty-two interviews with personnel from the women’s section of KAU were conducted, whereby the interview questions were first written in English then translated into Arabic to allow for easier understanding by the participants. The objective of the interviews was to ensure a comprehensive representation of perceptions on the issues regarding the SE process and QA in the university. The interviews also endeavoured to maximise the range of data collected and to shed more light on responses to the research questions. The researcher conducted interviews using a semi–structured, interview guide approach, which proved challenging in the beginning. As noted by Walsh and Wigens (2003 p.97-98), it requires good interviewing skills, needs careful preparation to avoid leading or prescriptive questions, and can be time consuming. The questions of the study instrument were adapted from previous studies alongside personal experience (interview guide is shown in Table 5). The previously developed interview guide

114

permitted the researcher to flexibly and responsively deal with unanticipated discoveries occurring during the interviews.

The researcher asked the participants for permission to record the interviews through the use of a small recording device, a proposition accepted by the majority of interviewees (i.e. 37 out of 42), which thus offered the possibility of revision and repeated analysis. The recordings provided the opportunity to transcribe the interviews, which was done though an adjustment of the speed and by writing while listening. The majority of interviews took between two to three hours to transcribe. Each interview took on average one hour. Specifically, one of the forty-two interviews held, lasted for only twenty minutes, and four interviews lasted for two hours. However, the time spent while holding some interviews in the offices of the deans of colleges was more than two hours. This was because of constant interruptions caused by telephone calls, or staff entering for urgent requests to be signed. The researcher made use of these pauses as an opportunity to review the already obtained data, so as to be able to take up the thread again as seamlessly as possible.

Apart from the introductory closed questions, which provided insightful background on the interviewees, the interview questions were open-ended. Those which were meant to provide answers to the two research questions included the following predetermined items: current quality assurance and academic accreditation practices; the SE process; challenges facing quality assurance and academic accreditation system; communications; collaborative linkages with other organisations; planning; supporting staff on research; training for continuous improvement. The interview questions were first written in English and discussed with the supervisor, so the researcher benefited from his advice, and then translated into Arabic to be approved by the MoHE. The researcher of the present study developed the set of questions in advance, even though the interview was expected to be conversational, which enables the interviewer to give clarifications or skip questions that may seem redundant (Walsh and Wigens, 2003: 97-98). However, it was observed that not all the questions could be formulated beforehand; Menter et al. (2011: 133) indicate that some of the questions can be created during the interview, as it allows the interviewer and respondents the flexibility to discuss issues extensively or to further inquire into details, and thus consistent, comparable qualitative data can be achieved.

115

Table 5: Interview Guide

____________________________________________________________________ 1. What are the mechanisms of quality control and accreditation that were in place at the women’s section at KAU before NCAAA in 2004?

2. What events led to the NCAAA being created as an independent body?

3. How has the NCAAA been implementing its policies? (I will break this up into smaller questions: for example, over the 10 years of NCAAA work, what have been the main areas of focus? Have there been different foci in different periods?).

4. What is the policy of KAU and NCAAA for QA in: a. Academic programmes?

b. Teaching?

c. Student learning and assessment? d. Research by faculty members? e. Administrative issues?

5. What are the mechanisms, models, methods and procedures of QA and SE in the women’s section of KAU?

6. Who is putting the policy in place to ensure quality at KAU and NCAAA?

7. In your opinion, what is the official position of the government to ensure the quality of HEIs? (This can be a probing question to raise other questions/issues).

8. What are the factors that affect the development and implementation of QA, SE and accreditation in the women’s section of KAU?

9. What do you think are the most important difficulties and challenges in terms of improving the institutional quality of education?

10. What do you think about SE, QA and accreditation and its applications in the women’s section of KAU?

11. How does the women’s section at KAU assure quality of their education in terms of assessment tools; teaching; research, etc.?

116

12. How do you think that students are affected by SE and QA practices?

13. What are the factors that affect the development and implementation of SE, QA and accreditation in the women’s section of KAU?

14. What do you think are the most important difficulties and challenges in terms of improving the institutional quality of education?

15. How do you think that the current SE and QA implementation could be improved? 16. What are the roles of university support staff in the training of staff about SE, QA and accreditation system in the women’s section of KAU?

17. How many training courses have you managed or partaken in SE, QA and accreditation? (Subsequent questioning may involve the desired frequency of said courses)

18. What do you think about the training provided and to what extent do these meet staff needs in the women’s section of KAU?

19. What are the issues in training provision and managing QA, SE and accreditation? 20. What are the factors that affect the development and implementation of SE and QA in the women’s section of KAU? (This can be a probing question that leads to inquiries relating to the quality culture)

21. What is your impression of improvements and developments in the women’s section of KAU?

___________________________________________________________________