Primary data collection tool (interview schedule)

The interview schedule consisted of a total of 51 items, of which four were closed-ended, 29 were open-ended and the remaining 18 were statements. In the latter case, the respondents were asked to use Likert response categories54 indicating to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each statement, with strongly agree coded as 1, and strongly disagree as 5. The interview schedule was designed to collect a wide range of data on themes related to, or associated with, attrition and women in the medical profession. These themes were identified from the relevant theoretical and empirical literature reviewed in Chapter 2, as well as from previous research (Breier & Wildschut, 2006; Breier, 2009).

A slightly different interview schedule was drafted for each sample of respondents, as some questions were not relevant to all women across all samples. For example, asking

53

Although it would seem highly unlikely that medical school graduates would lack the capacity to verbalise, some respondents, specifically those for whom English is a second language, did struggle to express themselves.

54

The Likert scale was developed by Rensis Likert in 1932. Items forming part of Likert scales usually take on a format in which respondents are asked to strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree, or perhaps strongly approve, approve, and so forth.

66

respondents in sample 2 what the implications would be of moving from public to private practice would not make sense, as the women in that sample had left medical practice altogether (refer to Section 3.2 for a description of the sample selection).

3.4.2.1 Nature of the interviews

The interview schedule does not adequately reflect the nature of the actual interviews conducted for this study. In this regard it is very important to highlight a few points:

Firstly, an examination of the interview schedule might have the reader presuppose a very structured question-and-answer procedure, while the actual interviews proceeded in a much more organic manner. Miles and Huberman (1984) (cited in Creswell, 1994) suggest that researchers conducting qualitative research should consider four parameters: 1) the setting, 2) the actors, 3) the events, and 4) the process. I find these parameters useful to describe the nature of the interviews conducted for this study.

In terms of the setting, most of the interviews were conducted in the respondents’ offices. Three were conducted after hours at the respondents’ homes, and one in a public coffee shop. Because the date, time and venue for the interview were chosen on the basis of what the respondents considered as most suitable, the interviews arguably occurred in a setting in which the respondents felt comfortable and in control.

In terms of the actors involved in the process, the respondents were all medical graduates and I did not perceive them as being intimidated by my presence. These were highly professional and goal-directed people. I was very aware of the limited time they had available for the interview, and how difficult it was for them to secure time for me to interview them. One respondent stated that, although she felt the research was important, the interview further reduced the already limited ‘free time’ she could spend with her children.

When we consider the fieldwork process, it is relevant that the interview took place in a setting suggested by the respondents, as well as at a time most suitable for them. It was

67

encouraging that only one interview had to be postponed, and although these women were clearly very busy, they were very interested in the research and felt that their narratives would make a strong contribution to what they considered to be an important and worthwhile research topic. After completing the interview, I sent each respondent an official e-mail to thank them for their participation in my research. Many were very interested in receiving feedback after the completion of the research project.

A process of ‘member checking’ (Babbie & Mouton, 2001: 275 – 276) was also agreed upon at the end of the interview. This is where I assured the respondents that I would provide them feedback on quotes that I wanted to use within a specific context in the dissertation. The respondents could then indicate whether this was an accurate reflection of what they had communicated in the interview (refer to Section 3.5.2 for an explanation of the motivation underlying this procedure).

Lastly, it is important to consider the process of the interviews. The actual process of interviewing was determined by the type of individual that was being interviewed. Some respondents were very straightforward and kept to the point, and these interviews lasted roughly an hour, while others were quite passionate about women’s issues in general and were very keen to comment at length on issues concerning women in the medical profession. During the pilot interviews, as well as during the interviews conducted for this study, it became clear that the interview process needed to occur in a much less structured fashion than had been anticipated.

In sum, I used the schedule as a way to keep track of all the issues on which I considered it important to probe the respondents, and to ensure that the questions asked would provide the data necessary to answer my research questions, while at the same time attempting to conduct the interview in a less structured, conversational manner. For example, in order to relax the respondent at the start of the interview, I asked her what initially motivated her to pursue a career in medicine. In most cases, this question resulted in a historical overview of the person’s entrance into the profession, including obstacles faced and opportunities that presented themselves. In this introductory section,

68

many respondents already started reflecting on the issues of importance to this particular research project, and their narratives resulted in very rich, in-depth qualitative data. Similarly, at the end of the interview I would ask the respondents to reflect on issues they experienced as problematic in the profession, especially if they felt that these factors were not (adequately) dealt with in the preceding sections of the interview. This also resulted in highly valuable and insightful comments made by the respondents, as it provided them with a space to reflect on issues about which they felt particularly strongly.

In some interviews it was easier to keep to the sequence of questions as per the interview schedule, but sometimes the conversation took other, unexpected turns and the researcher felt it important to explore the issues mentioned. We would then return to the original sequence of questions once the respondent felt an issue had been dealt with adequately. Thus, the researcher and the respondents were allowed to “develop unexpected themes” (Mason, 2002: 62). This also very aptly approximates Burgess’s (1984) (cited in Mason, 2002) description of semi-structured interviews as “conversations with a purpose”. I wanted the respondents to feel comfortable and that any perspective they wanted to share was important for the research. As a result, some interviews lasted well over an hour, and in one extreme case continued for two hours! The average length of the interviews, however, was approximately one-and-a-half hours.

3.4.2.2 Pilot study

The interview schedules were piloted with five respondents (who were excluded from the analysis for this study): two for the sample 1 interview schedule, two for the sample 2 interview schedule, and one for the sample 3 interview schedule. Some items were modified after this process. The interview schedule was divided into four main sections. The first was designed to gather personal data. The second section focused on gauging the respondents’ perceptions of the institutional factors that might affect attrition in the medical profession. The third section focused on gathering data on the societal factors that may influence the attrition of women medical doctors from the profession. The final section attempted to assess the respondents’ views and recommendations on how women

69

medical doctors could be retained in the South African medical profession (see Appendix 4 for the full interview schedule).

Both public sector and private sector doctors were included in the sample; however, it proved very difficult to differentiate between the two, as it became evident in the interviews that most doctors were active in both sectors.

It was also interesting that it proved difficult to differentiate clearly between lecturers in medicine and those active in practice, as many lecturers were still active in practice although the majority of their time was spent as lecturers. Lecturing responsibilities were seen as being part of their roles as doctors. This almost amorphous type of doctor was thus difficult to categorise, but it is possible that it could be a product of women doctors trying to find ways in which to create some flexibility in their practice of the profession.