Research technique long interview

According to Tan and Hunter (2002), the long interview, in-depth interview or narrative inquiry, is a qualitative research approach, which documents and analyses individual’s experiences and personal accounts of a specific discourse of phenomena or phenomenon. They conclude that the approach has been employed successfully to reveal patterns of social positioning emerging under the banner of information

systems.

The interview technique utilised in this study was based on McCracken’s (1999) ‘long interview technique.’ The technique enables research participants to reflect upon the domain of discourse in a relatively unbiased and free-flowing manner.

In selecting a suitable method of qualitative interview the researcher selected the long interview technique as proposed by McCracken (1999). The choice was identified as

a systemic instrument of inquiry with the flexibility and opportunity for interviewees to expand on their personal experiences and provide greater insight into GEMSD experiences. When compared with more traditional investigation instruments, such as surveys, and questionnaires, the long interview was assessed as the most likely to take advantage of a select group of participants and draw maximum study data.

4.7.1 Question design

Factors affecting the question design for this investigation include: the need to construct interview questions directly addressing the success factors identified in the GEMSD model as outlined in the literature review ‘success factors’ and the research questions. Concurrently allowing the interviewees scope to describe their experiences of GEMSD and their respective realities of the phenomenon.

The literature revealed six groupings of substantial significance and subsequently categorised as AOS, directly relating to the GEMSD model. Each of the significant groupings had further sub-questions of particular interest, which necessitated investigation in field interviews. A total of twenty-eight question concepts were derived. Question construction was framed around the twenty-eight conceptual areas forming the interview questions.

Utilising McCracken’s technique of long interview required two main styles of question during the interview. Firstly, ‘grand tour’ or ‘big picture’ questions were constructed around the twenty-eight concepts, these questions were the basis of the interview. They were general and non-directive in nature, and enable the interviewee to specify the substance of the response. It was planned to utilise ‘prompt’ questions, throughout the interview to enable the researcher to delve deeper into participant responses to the grand tour questions. The grand tour questions formed the basis for the standardised interview. This procedure was considered the most suitable for the study of GEMSD.

The questions were a combination of descriptive, normative, relationship, difference and open-ended questions addressing each of the areas of significance.

Normative questions tended to quantify with ‘how well’ or ‘what percentage’ type questioning. Relationship questions identified a correlation between two or more variables with ‘what is the relationship between A and B,’ or ‘does A affect B or C,’ type interrogation. Whereas different questions solicit identifiable variation between comparators with ‘is there a difference between’ or ‘are there similarities between’ questioning. The open-ended questions generally ask for opinion or personal reality of a situation or phenomena. These are typified with ‘in your opinion’ or ‘what do you consider’ questioning. These questions and informed consent forms were emailed to interviewees prior to interview to maximise the likelihood of considered and complete responses.

A thorough review of the interview transcripts led to the identification of emerging themes within the new phenomenon of GEMSD. The themes related directly to aspects of the model discovered in the review of literature and ex-post facto analysis. Further the ‘grand-tour’ or ‘big picture’ questions allowed for further elaboration and study discovery beyond the review of literature.

4.7.2 Identifying case study interviewees

In the process of satisfying the research design, it was necessary to select interviewees from Victoria for the local case study and from overseas comparator countries.

Further it was necessary to develop and quantify inclusion criteria to enable the purposive sampling process. Purposive sampling was employed to enable the researcher to use their knowledge of the population to locate the most useful informants.

The core criterion for appropriate participation in the study was related experience in the field. As GEMSD has been a recent trend in government management according to Traunmuller and Lenk (2002), with a narrow history and has few practitioners with experience beyond the past five to ten years the population choice was.

Consequently the criteria were:

1. Participants must have been involved in the GEMSD process for at least five years.

2. Participants must have been able to provide expert opinion on one or more areas of the instrument groupings.

In order to obtain participants that fulfil these criteria, a combination of internet investigation and recommendation by senior government officials were used. Once participants were determined reflective biographies were gathered regarding their area of expertise and current role.