Several types of interviews are available to the qualitative researcher, such as structured, semi-structured, unstructured and in-depth interviewing. The constructivist interview study methodology required complementary methods of data collection that were
96
conducive to sufficient interaction between the participants and myself to effectively explore their accounts and perceptions. The semi-structured interview was chosen as the most appropriate means of producing relevant and rich empirical data within the scope of the study.
Several images of semi-structured interviews, and the interviewer role in them, were considered for designing and conducting the interviews. The type of interviewer- participant engagement, and relevant interviewer skills were significant, given the constructivist approach, For example, Cousin’s (2009) conceptualisation of semi- structured interviews was of a ‘third space’, where the interviewer and interviewee jointly developed meanings, while Burgess (1990) and Shank (2002) viewed them as ‘conversations with a purpose’. Cousin’s (2009) insightful analogy of the interview as an ‘interactive performance’, which required preparatory scripting based on a scholarly understanding of theory, and stage management through a repertoire of prepared and impromptu questions, also resonated. For Holstein and Gubrium (1997), an ‘active interviewer’ was needed to extend understandings, think ‘with’ interviewees, and be concerned with both the ‘what’ (content) and the ‘how’ (ways in which content is assembled) of interviews. This relational nature of semi-structured interviews, where both the researcher and participants actively collaborate in meaning-making (Alldred & Gilles 2002; Holstein & Gubrium 1997; Schostak 2006), was its fundamental appeal as primary data collection method in this constructivist study.
Crotty (1998) advised conducting interviews using a flexible, non-directive form of questioning, however, achieving this aim, requires effective conversational skills, such as listening, observing, encouraging, prompting, reflecting back, and showing empathy. Listening skills, in particular, support successful interviewing. For example, Rubin and Rubin (2005), in their ‘responsive interviewing model’, emphasised ‘listening to hear the meaning in data’. Similarly, Hatch (2002) described listening for meaning, and Kvale (1996) advocated listening sensitively for nuances. These images and concepts provided increased awareness and insights in both interview guide preparation, and in how interviews were conducted.
97
All types of data sources inevitably have their own strengths and weaknesses (Minichiello, Aroni, & Hays 2008), however, as Yin (2014) recommended, their dependability is enhanced by maintaining a clear ‘chain of evidence’ that can be traced from initial research questions through to conclusions and vice versa. A systematically constructed interview guide is a fundamental step in this chain. Moreover, the interview guide can be envisioned as the nexus between theoretical and practical aspects of this study, as questions composed to unveil participant’s experiences, also represent the initial conceptual framework devised to address the central research question. Hatch’s (2002) three recommended steps for developing qualitative interview guides were followed: namely, begin with a broad, overarching research question; follow with sets of sub- questions, which remain general, but offer more direction; and, finally, construct a more detailed guide with additional questions consistent with the chosen interview style and overall intentions of the research design.
The interview guide started with general questions to set a conversational tone, and to make a record of participant details, and interview time and venue, along with demographic questions to capture a picture of the participants’ experiences in onshore and offshore work, discipline areas, and a brief overview of the components of their academic work commitments. A draft set of trigger questions developed from themes in the literature review were constructed, and, then, incrementally amended to incorporate feedback and suggestions from supervisors, community of practice peers, Victoria University research proposal approval and ethics committees, knowledgeable professional colleagues, and the two pilot interviews. Valuable ideas were provided on content, and on relevance, clarity, breadth and sequencing of key questions (Rubin & Rubin 2005), along with possible prompts, probes, and follow-up questions (Gardner 1999). The interview guide was made up of open-ended questions that were flexible enough to encourage detailed, expansive, narrative-style responses, which, as proposed by Rubin and Rubin (2005) and Saks and Allsop (2007), facilitated the understanding and interpretations of subjective meanings in participants’ experiences. The four research sub- questions and their key trigger questions, which were constructed for the interview guide in this study, are shown in Appendix A.
98
After completion of the interview guide, ethics clearance was obtained from the Victoria University Human Research Ethics Committee, and formal ethics requirements for other institutions were ascertained and completed. Potential participants were emailed a brief outline about the research and a copy of the interview guide. Acceptances were followed up by telephone call to make personal contact, and to arrange a convenient interview time and venue. A second email contained an information letter and consent form in accordance with Victoria University research ethics requirements.
Three main principles underpinned all interactions with participants. They were: provide full information regarding the research purpose, and intended use and security of data; enact activities in a transparent manner; and maintain confidentiality in all stages. Participants were advised they could terminate their interview at any time; were not obliged to answer questions perceived as uncomfortable; and could withdraw their raw data, although not de-identified, reconstructed data. These principles were demonstrated by reinforcement that the study focus was not about identifying any specific institution, program, course or person, but, rather, the intention was to elicit each participant’s perspective on factors that influenced the quality of their offshore academic work. Signed letters of consent were obtained prior to interviews in order to safeguard the interests of all parties involved in the research, in the event of any dispute or misunderstanding. Finally, as differential power relationships between interviewers and participants are of ethical concern, it was ensured that no workplace power relationship existed between myself and participants. I was neither employed in any of their institutions nor engaged in any context with them at the time of interviews. Due to my career as an academic experienced in offshore programs, I was, however, acquainted with some participants, or knew of them. Indeed, this proved an advantage when contacting potential participants, and in quickly creating rapport during interviews.
Interviews were conducted in English and held in Australia. To facilitate the sharing of thoughtful responses in a timely manner, participants were encouraged to think about the interview questions in advance. All participants consented to audio-recording of interviews. While this technique gives a verbatim record, if it inhibits the interviewee, it becomes a problematic source of bias (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2013). In this study,
99
participants neither reacted to audio recording or note taking with visible signs of distraction or inhibition, nor did they articulate any concerns. The interviews were recorded using a Livescribe Smart Pen, a device that enabled observational notes, written during interviews, to be uploaded, and viewed simultaneously when playing back recordings.
Interview timing and pace were taken into account, as Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2013) and Whitman (2004) noted that overly long interviews result in interviewee fatigue and reduced interviewer concentration levels, which result in below optimum interviews. The two pilot interviews, of 70 and 105 minutes duration, were useful indicators. Participants were alerted in advance that estimated interview length was 60 to 110 minutes. Actual times ranged from 49 to 123 minutes. For further preparation for interview contingencies, and to enhance specific skills found to impact on semi-structured interviewing effectiveness (Stewart & Cash Jr 1999; Weiss 1995), the pilot interviews were utilised to test recording techniques, estimate interview timing, and practice interviewing skills. In addition, two research developmental activities were valuable and safe spaces to learn from expert modelling of skills, and to receive community of practice member feedback on my interviewing skills.
Finally, all forms of interviews have limitations, indeed, Minichiello, Aroni and Hays (2008) identified that semi-structured interviewing may reduce the comparability of interviews within a study, and the generalisability between similar studies. Yet, a valid explication of participants’ perceptions of reality is a probable outcome, and this was a central aim of the study.