Reflexions on the limitations of interviews as research method

Inbound bias

An interview based on personal opinions, even if these are expert opinions, cannot represent a fully objective picture of the reality (see also sub-chapter 2.2). At least two kinds of biases, that of interviewee and the interviewer, influence the answers and thus the results. The interviewee’s answers are affected by his background, experience, involvement, as well as by outer or inner pressure related to social desirability, such as the image that he [responder] wants to give of his institution or position. Depending on such biases, the answers could vary from very optimistic to very pessimistic. The answer is also influenced by the quantity and quality of information that the interviewee possesses. On the other side — the interviewer’s perception of what is said again depends on a number of factors. Depending on his experience the interviewer

might have modified what is observed by presuming or assuming something that was not stated directly by the participant.

However, the task of any researcher is to strive to the objectivity by trying to overcome these bias through critical reflection and self-examination. Possibilities to minimize the influence of inbound bias include further communication of the results with the experts, clarifications of ambiguous issues, re-checking of presupposition through additional questioning and discussions; as well as, using the method of tri- angulation, which allows a more or less objective cross-checking of the outcomes obtained through interviews.

Language

Language plays a significant role in conducting qualitative research interviews. The interviews were carried out in most cases in English, which is a foreign language for both the interviewees and the interviewer. Thus, a notional loss in content was possible. There exists a danger that the same words or definitions could be understood differently, which could cause confusion and misunderstanding. The same problem could have affected also the interviews, which were carried out in Armenian, because all the interviews were translated later into English.

To minimize the impact of language inaccuracy, the questions which could have been misunderstood were repeated and clarified. Additional questions were asked to ensure that the concepts and contexts are perceived and understood in the same way by the interviewer and the respondent. I also consulted a native speaker in the process of transcribing the German interviews. In case of Armenian interviews my study background of English language and literature and several years of experience in translations from Armenian to English and conversely, were decisive in ensuring accurate and correct translations of transcriptions.

2.5

The Case-Oriented Comparative Research

Scheme

Although comparable issues, concerns and phenomena can be identified relatively easily, the problem of how to study them properly across political, cultural and ideological boundaries is a topic of argument among comparativists.

schemes the following stages of comparison, and adopted it to the present study by embedding case-studies in it (Fig 2.2):

• Identifying the general goal. • Defining specific objectives.

• Data collection (selection and obtaining).

• Description and interpretation of phenomena under study for each individual case.

• Juxtaposition of descriptions and interpretation.

• Cross-case analysis which consists of a) identification of differences and simila- rities; and b) interpretation of differences and similarities.

As one can see, this is not a linear process, where each stage is undertaken after the other, but a mutually interacting and influencing network. In the following every step will be presented in brief.

Thus, the goal of the present cross-country comparison was set to explore how two different educational structures operating within different social, political and cultural environments address the same tasks and, perhaps, run into similar (or different) problems, to reveal why certain differences or similarities happen and to analyze the changing contexts and conditions for German and Armenian universities. It is an attempt towards a better understanding of some aspects of educational processes in light of the ongoing reforms in two mentioned countries.

Specific objectives were defined in the form of research questions. The aim was to find answers to the questions: what is the attitude of two academic communities with regard to the current reforms—is it critical, or positive, or the both? What are the main aspects of these attitudes? How do the academic communities react to the drastic educational transformations, which overturn the familiar concepts of the education organization, content and provision? Are the universities in two countries open or resistant to the reforms? What are the promoting and hindering factors in the process of institutional change? What are the perceptions and understanding of lifelong learning and is it regarded as an important component of university organi- zation? This core comprised the questions for the interview guide which is presented in Appendix C.

Data collection took place at all stages of the comparison as well as the research in general. Data was selected and obtained using multiple sources of evidence (also described in the previous sub-chapters). First of all that is data on the Bologna process and the issue of lifelong learning in the process. The data on the process was obtained through a number of basic and secondary documentation from ministerial meetings, reports of different national and international organizations, involved in the process, as well as scholarly studies and articles. Secondly, it is the data on educational systems of both countries, which is collected and presented through the historical perspective towards the present developments, and finally, that is data obtained through the expert interviews in both countries.

Description and interpretation of phenomena. Juxtaposition. The description of the phenomenon starts with the Chapter 3, which gives a thorough insight into the Bologna process, describing the main elements of the process, its development since the beginning until 2009 with a special emphasis on its lifelong learning line. Then, the Chapters 4 and 5 present the description of the educational systems in Germany and Armenia, outlining the issue, problems and debates surrounding the implementation of the Bologna process in German and Armenian universities in gene- ral. Chapters 6 and 7 picture the two case studies and the interpretation of the outcomes on the level of two universities under the study. Titmus mentions that:

“Physical juxtaposition of descriptions on the paper may be help- ful but the essential place for it is in the researcher’s brain” (Titmus, 1987:263).

However, while the present study represents a comparative analysis of national case studies, the descriptions of the educational systems in two countries and case- specific interpretation are presented to facilitate the following stage of identification and interpretation of similarities and differences.

Cross-case analysis. Identification of differences and similarities and their inter- pretation. Chapter 8 deals with differences and similarities in the approaches to the problem in two countries. Here the reasons for and the consequences of the differ- ences and similarities are revealed. Chapter 9 concludes with an attempt towards analytical generalizations and theoretical considerations on the ongoing university reforms and the implications of the concept of lifelong learning in the context of the communities studied.

Goal

Objectives

Data collection

Description and interpretation of data

Juxtaposition

Identification of differences and similarities

Interpretation of differences and similarities

Conclusions

The Bologna Process

3.1

Introduction

As already mentioned in the previous chapters, the present study focuses on the lifelong learning issue at the university level in the context of the Bologna process. Before analyzing the case studies and the situation within the two countries, it is necessary to give a picture of the reform process at the European level. This chapter gives an overview of the Bologna process since its start and pictures its development up to the ministerial meeting in 2009. Through outlining the key issues in Bologna process with a special focus on the lifelong learning aspect, this chapter seeks to ensure a better understanding of the ongoing reforms on European level. It is an attempt to comprehensively describe the progression and analyze the consequences of the process for the signatory countries. It is especially exciting to retrace how the process started 10 years ago and where it landed one year before its official culmination—the deadline of 2010. However, it is not the aim of this chapter to give a complete analysis of all aspects of the process, which could be a topic of another or several other dissertations.

This chapter gives some background information on Bologna-related conferences and topics of discussion in the process, focusing on the aspect of particular interest for the present study, namely the lifelong learning issue in the context of the uni- versity reform. The chapter is organized in line with the series of intergovernmental conferences of the European education ministers, in which they drew up the declara- tions and communiqu´es, that compose the core of the Bologna Process. The sequence of events in the process is described and discussed as follows: Magna Charta Uni- versitatum (1988), as the foundation stone of European dialog on higher education;

the declarations of Sorbonne (1998) and Bologna (1999); as well as communiqu´es of Prague (2001), Berlin (2003), Bergen (2005), London (2007) and Leuven/Louvain-la- Neuve (2009).