Interviews

In interpretive research, interviews are considered a "window on social reality" undertaken through guided conversation to construct meaning (Schultze and Avital, 2011, p. 4). In-depth interviews help the researcher to extract a "richer and more realistic picture of the phenomenon of interest" (Schultze and Avital, 2011, p. 4). Rowley (2012) noted that interview questions are designed in a way to enable the collection of data which allows the research to answer the research questions. In doing so, "both research and interview questions can be informed by practice or experience, or by theory or previous research"

(Rowley, 2012, p. 263). Therefore, the interview questions design is centred on the research framework, as explained below.

83 Interview Question Design

To achieve internal consistency of the interview questions, the research followed the guidance provided by Neri de Souza et al. (2016) which suggests linking questions to dimensions, categories, and subcategories of analysis and keeping it consistent with research objectives and questions.

The research interviews were centred on Moore’s PV model. Moore and Khagram (2004) presented three important questions when considering the legitimacy and the authorisation of PV. These questions aim to identify the PV the organisation wishes to deliver, the source of legitimacy and support for the innovation (e-government), and the organisational capabilities which support the delivery of the PV (Moore and Khagram, 2004). The research interviews utilised these points as the starting point to design the interviews.

1. What are the important PVs the organisation sought to produce?

2. What source of legitimacy and support would be required to authorise the organisation to take action and provide the resources necessary to sustain the effort to create PVs?

3. What operational capabilities would the organisation need to deliver the desired PV?

Focusing on e-government PV did not eliminate the importance of the structuration concept and more specifically, the duality of technology when designing research interviews. While the model was used for analytical purposes, it was also used to design

84

the interviews because it helped the researcher to establish the link to e-government as a technology. Orliksowski (2000) associated enactment types with three sets of conditions (interpretive, technological and institutional) and consequences (processual, technological, and structural). Both conditions and consequences were used to construct the protocol for the interviews and focus groups. The definitions of these dimensions are shown in Table 4.8. These dimensions helped the researcher to pinpoint important categories when designing the interview protocol.

Table 4.8: Enactment Dimensions (adapted from Orlikowski 2000, p. 422) Interview Dimensions Description

1 Interpretive conditions “Conventional understandings and shared meanings that members of a community construct to make sense of their world (including the technology they use).”

2 Technological conditions “The technological properties (both tool and data) available to the users in their work practices.”

3 Institutional conditions “The social structures (normative, authoritative) that

constitute part of the larger social system within which users work.”

4 Processual consequences “Changes (if any) in the execution and outcome of users’

work practices.”

5 Technological consequences “Changes (if any) in the technological properties available to the users.”

6 Structural consequences “Changes (if any) in structures that users enact as part of the larger social system in which they are participating.”

The protocol questions were also influenced by previous publications which used similar theories and models. Context and history are an important part of PV (Jørgensen and Bozeman, 2007). Time is also an important concept in structuration theory, which needed to be taken into consideration when investigating social structures. As the research duration did not permit a longitudinal approach, it was important to capture the historical

85

events and develop historical reconstructions of events, perceptions, and actions over time as noted by Barrett and Walsham (1999). Orlikowski (1996) used a historical approach to investigate organisational transformation over time. For this reason, the question design needed to include questions which require informants to recall past actions and perceptions over time. Bannister (2002) also presents sample questions which could be adapted to historically investigate IS value by focusing on events evolution and their impact on ICT lifecycle, as shown below:

1. How does the evolution of information systems (IS) affect the evolution of power within organisations?

2. How has the organisational structure been changed over time by IS evolution?

In addition, it is also important to situate the researcher and "minimise social dissonance"

and ask the informant to give some background about their experience and role (Myers and Newman, 2007, p. 15). Finally, the design of the questions was also influenced by the researcher’s experience in IS development and design, specifically when dealing with clients and assessing their requirements. For example, questions about the technical design of the EAS system were instigated using the researcher’s practical expertise in the field of IS development as a software developer/analyst.

Guided by the above principles, 30 open-ended interview questions were drafted. To reach different stakeholders, Myers and Newman (2007) recommend utilising the flexibility of semi-structured interviews. The researcher tried to standardise all the interview questions for comparison purposes, but there were slight changes to suit each stakeholder group (top management, operation team, IT team, admission staff, students).

86

For example, IT informant’s questions included specific questions about the technological changes to the system. The full interview protocol can be found in Appendix 10.2.

Validating Interview /Focus Group Questions

The first draft of the interview protocol was reviewed by both supervisors for relevance to the research framework and identifying leading questions. The protocol was revised over several iterations before it was approved. Then, the interview protocol was translated by the researcher to Arabic, and distributed to several colleagues and experts for feedback, as shown in Table 4.9. These reviewers were selected because of their expertise in Information System (IS) research in the context of Oman and their linguistic skills. In addition, two students reviewers were chosen to assess the clarity of the interview questions. Their feedback helped in refining ambiguous questions in both Arabic and English.

Table 4.9: Panel of Expert Characteristics

No. Position Characteristics

1 Assistant Professor at Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat PhD, Native Arabic Fluent English 2 Deputy Head of Information Technology Services at

Ministry of Defence, Muscat

PhD, Native Arabic Fluent English

3 Assistant Professor at Applied College of Technology and Sciences, Suhar

PhD, Native Arabic Fluent English

4 Student at Sultan Qaboos University (Male) Native Arabic 5 Student at Sultan Qaboos University (Female) Native Arabic

87 Interview Guidelines

Having established the link between the interview protocol design and research framework and existing publications, the next step was to ensure that interviews were conducted according to established guidelines. The researcher followed the recommendations of Myers and Newman (2007) when conducting qualitative interviews in IS research. The first two recommendations concern breaking the ice and doing a brief introduction to make the informant comfortable. The third recommendation is to maintain ethical considerations throughout the whole interview, and the fourth suggests understanding the informant’s words as an interpretation of their world. The fifth recommendation concerns representing various voices. It is important to design accessible interviews representing different views matching the various stakeholders involved in e-government. Myers and Newman (2007) also suggest mirroring informant comments when constructing subsequent questions. Although the same interview question design influences focus group questions, they fall under group interviews (Myers and Newman, 2007), and are discussed in more detail in section 4.5.3 below.