Modification of the Interview Protocol

Another challenge faced during the interviews relates to the use of AI protocols as a guide. The four phases of the guide hampered the natural flow of the conversations. Most of the trainees were stuck at the third and fourth phases, such as when asked,

“What could you do now to take charge of your own life?” “What will be the best task/ way/ approach that can harness and develop optimally you and other

P a g e 92 |

young people’s potentials?” “How are you going to realise that future?” and “What is needed to make the dreams come true?”

This was obvious with the ‘Destiny’ and ‘Delivery’ stages, where both sets of respondents (trainees and practitioners) were unable to comprehend fully the conceptual framing of the questions. We continued with the conversations without adhering to the protocol, letting the spirit of the positive themes to be explored further. The inability of the respondents to comprehend and respond to these questions lay in both the assumptions in AI questioning, and the cultural background of the respondents.

Since this study is qualitative, and as an active participant I am obliged to modify the approach of interactions to endow the research participants with convenient and relaxed conversations to establish rapport whilst at the same time produce meaningful data. Nielsen (1990) noted:

“…The interpretive epistemology is based on the interpretation of interactions and the social meaning that people assign to their interactions” (Nielsen,

1990:7, Cited in Hesse - Biber and Leavy, 2006: 14).

This perspective believes that social meanings were created during interactions (Hesse- Biber and Leavy 2006:15). The researcher has to be more accommodative especially when questions require a good deal of thought and when responses need to be explored and clarified (Easterby-Smith et.al, 2004: 86). With regard to the modification of methods during the initial research, Hesse-Biber & Leavy (2006) explained:

“Methodology is the bridge that brings theory and method, perspective and tool together… a bridge that the researcher travels throughout the research process. In other words, methodology fuses theory and method, serving as a strategic but a malleable guide throughout the research experience. In terms of malleability, the methodology can be altered during research to the extent the researcher’s epistemological beliefs allow for modifications”.

Hesse-Biber & Leavy (2006:20)

Besides the factors explained earlier, the decision for the modification was the result of continuous reflections on the research process and the “listen to the data”; follow it, so that in the end… able to create a research design where the data was best able to

P a g e 93 | “speak” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2006: 21). Qualitative research methods lend themselves to this kind of reflexive engagement because they yield exploratory, descriptive, and process-oriented data. Qualitative methods ask not only “what is it?” but, more importantly, “explain it to me – how, why, what’s the process, what’s the significance?” These questions are answered through holistic and reflexive engagements at all levels (Hesse-Biber & Leavy (2006: 28).

The other possible reasons observed is the risk of using one of the elements of Appreciative Inquiry i.e. the AI questioning partially in a new context where participants have limited knowledge on the subject (Shuayb, et.al. 2009). Furthermore, AI was initially developed as a change management tool which offered a positive, strength–based approach to organisation [al] development and change management (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005:1) with a main purpose to identify best practices, introduce and implement changes. On the other hand, this study is an academic research on the CSO and its users, and hence does not involve any interference in the implementation and management of CSO as an organisation.

Secondly, as a tool, AI interviews had to be carried out in a team or groups where participation and commitment of the participants, especially those in the positions of responsibility, were required in the interview process in order to promote a sense of ownership of the process and outcomes. Even though this study did gain support and involvement of the management team of CSO at the highest level it was still considered to be externally mooted by personal research. AI, as described by Cooperrider, is a process for large scale change management that can enable an organisation to engage and inspire its workforce, customers and other stakeholders in the future of a business to discover and extend the business strengths and strategic advantages, and to balance outstanding financial returns with heightened social contributions”(Cooperrider, 2005).

Engaging in AI approach would be much easier if the whole of the CSO participated together within a certain period of time, facilitated by those trained in AI whose task is to ensure that all participants understand what is expected of them. In contrast, this study interviewed the trainees and practitioners of CSO individually, borrowing an element of AI: the Appreciative questions, attempted by the individuals (research participants) who have very limited experience of the topic.

P a g e 94 | Third, AI focuses the research process around what works, rather than trying to fix what does not. It therefore presents an alternative to the problem-solving approach for evaluating and envisioning future initiatives based on best practices (Cooperrider and Srivasta, 1987). Conventionally, and also through the researcher’s work experiences, people tend to focus on analysing the problems they encounter and putting effort to solve those problems while the positive was accepted naturally. Thus, in relation to these positive principles in AI, the other challenge encountered was keeping the trainees focused on the positive experiences which some of them struggled to find.

Furthermore, the relative novelty of the CSO in Malaysia arguably means practitioners and trainees have had little time to acquire systematic working practices for meaningful reflections via a stricter adherence to appreciative inquiry protocols.

In view of the considerations mentioned above, the interview protocol adapted from the Appreciative Inquiry framework was modified to suit the contexts of this particular study. This “emergent construction” (Weinstein and Weinstein, 1991: 161) and the decision to deploy whatever strategies, methods, and empirical materials at hand (Becker, 1998: 2), was considered the most appropriate decision to illicit and explore the trainees’ experiences and perceptions. Moreover, such interactions are so worthwhile considering the constraints such as time, distance and finance faced by the researcher during the period of study. As stated by Nelson et al. (1992: 2):

“The choice of research practices depends upon the questions that are asked, and the questions depend on their context”.

(Denzin and Lincoln, 2008: 5).

It is necessary to emphasise that the participants’ (the current and the ex-CSO’s trainees) educational background ranged from illiteracy to having a skills certificate with many of them possessing a GCSE equivalent standard of education. Furthermore, Converse and Schuman (1974) observed, “There is no single interview style that fits every occasion or all respondents” (p.53). Fontana & Grey, (2008) deduced that, interviewers must be aware of respondent differences and must be able to make the proper adjustments called for by unanticipated developments (P: 125). This fits a statement made by Gorden (1992):

P a g e 95 |

“Interviewing skills are not simple motor skills like riding a bicycle; rather, they involve a high-order combination of observation, emphatic sensitivity, and intellectual judgement”.

(Gorden, 1992:7).

As Oakley (1981) pointed out, in interviewing there is “no intimacy without reciprocity” (p.49). According to Fontana & Frey, the emphasis is shifted to allow the development of a closer relationship between the interviewer and the respondent. Interviewers can show their human side and can answer questions and express feelings (Fontana and Frey, cited in Denzin & Lincoln, 2008: 137).

The decisions to employ different methods to collect data from the management of CSO was partly in consideration of the context of the participants being studied or situation in the field and as the essence of the qualitative approach is that it is naturalistic - studying real people in natural settings rather than in artificial isolation, (Marshall 1996) hence using the different methods within the qualitative realm are justified for studying these groups. Besides the natural context of the participants, the researcher felt it was appropriate and comfortable to use the different approaches available in the qualitative realm, as Easterby-Smith et.al. (2004) stated in their preface:

“…when you are conducting research into managing/managers/management, a number of factors beyond the technicalities of research design or the use of a particular method assumes considerable importance…the worldview of the researcher can both influence both the selection of methods and judgements about the quality and value of outcomes”.

(Easterby-Smith et. al (2004: ix). Finally, as argued by Denzin and Lincoln (1994:3), qualitative research, as a set of interpretive practices, privileges no single methodology over any other; the most important thing is that, all of the methods used “can provide important insights and knowledge” (Nelson et.al.,1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln, 1994:3) and the different needs and context of the participants made the choice of using qualitative methods more worthy due to its multi-method in focus, a holistic and engaged process,whichproduces both exploratory and highly descriptive knowledge (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2006) on the subject being studied.

P a g e 96 |