Semi Structured and In-depth Interviews

Qualitative interviews are a primary empirical tool of qualitative researchers (Chenail 2011; Housley & Smith 2011; Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008). They are designed to gain insight into participants’ lived experiences, their world views and unpack these through scientific exploration (Pouliot 2007). Use of qualitative interviews enables the researcher to gather deep, rich, contextual data, from an insider’s viewpoint of the subject under study (Rubin & Rubin 2005).

Qualitative interviews can come under criticism for a propensity for bias. Issues of bias can manifest in many differing ways, which are often dependent upon the skill of the researcher. Instances of bias might occur where a researcher poses some form of threat (knowingly or unknowingly) to the participant, or swaying the views of the participant by the researcher imposing their own views. The researcher not being properly prepared, or being a member of the insider group of the participants, are other examples where bias might occur.

The challenge is for the researcher to mitigate potential bias. A primary method in doing so, is to use ‘numerous and highly knowledgeable informants who view the focal phenomena from diverse perspectives’ (Eisenhardt & Graebner 2007, p. 28).

Most qualitative interview models fall somewhere along a continuum from loosely/unstructured interview formats at one end, to fully structured interviews at the other end (Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008). In order to have the flexibility to explore the research participants’ experiences and views, while limiting the interviews to the broad boundaries of the research topics, semi-structured and in-depth interview techniques were adopted for this research.

Semi-structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews, that are sometimes referred to as focussed interviews, were conducted with all participants, including the initial interview with the case subject participants. The researcher generally uses an interview guide comprised of a broad range of topics, which are central to the research questions. By engaging the participant with open

ended questions (Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008) the researcher is able to draw participants to provide deeper and qualified responses. This technique affords greater flexibility on the part of the researcher to explore particular issues of interest raised by the participant, as well as to be able to clarify meanings particularly with respect language usage (such as idioms, jargon, syntax, and cultural scripting) than with structured interview format.

A copy of the interview guides used in this research, are attached at Appendix 3 a) p. 239 for the farang participants, and at Appendix 3 b) p. 241 for the Thai participants. The interview guides were developed in reference to the Conceptual Framework (refer Figure 2.3 p. 45) developed from the literature review. Table 4.5 illustrates this relationship.

Table 4.5 – Correlation of Interview Guide Questions and Conceptual Framework

The relationship between the interview guide questions is not a straight-line relationship as suggested by the above table, as many of the subject areas of the questions may cross over more than one segment of the Conceptual Framework. For example, questions relating to the manager-subordinate relationship open the path for discussion on cross-cultural communication, or the practical application of PM. The same interview guide was used for each of the semi-structured interviews. However, the interview guides were not administered as a questionnaire. They purely served as a guide for the conversation between the researcher and the participant, to ensure each topic area was covered satisfactorily. Each interview took a different meandering pathway across the topics, depending upon the participants’ cognitive

Conceptual

processes and the natural flow of the conversation therefrom. The interviews ranged from 50 minutes to 100 minutes, primarily depending upon the participants’ experience with the subject matter.

The farang and Thai interview guides are similar. This design was deliberate, because the purpose of the interviews was to explore the same phenomena, but from the differing perspectives of farang and Thai. The more detailed questioning of Thai terms and their associated values was possible with the Thai participants, because of their more intimate knowledge. In fact, one (of the four) interviews with the Thai case subject was devoted to Thai terms and the relevant values. Nonetheless, a similar line of questioning on Thai terms was directed to the farang participants, which also proved enlightening.

The interviews were transcribed progressively throughout the data collection. The purpose of this was to give the participants quick feedback of the interview, for their verification and satisfaction with the outcomes. This process also helped to identify broad emerging themes and areas of interest to explore in greater depth with subsequent interviews, particularly in regards to the in-depth interviews with the case subject participants.

In-depth Interviews

Follow-up in-depth interviews were conducted with each of the case subject participants.

In-depth interviews imply several face-to-face interviews between the researcher and the participant over a greater length of time, than with the standard single semi-structured interview. It allows the researcher to build a deeper rapport with the participant, enabling a more relaxed and trusted association (Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008). These features of in-depth interviews enable the researcher to gain a deeper and richer understanding of the participants’ views and experiences. In-depth interviews therefore offer a better understanding of the subject’s words and interpretations, than otherwise might be available through normal semi-structured interview process (Rubin & Rubin 2005).

Follow-up interview guides were specifically tailored for each individual case subject participant. These reflected the issues that arose from the earlier interviews generally, and more specifically to drill deeper into the issues contained within the individual case subject’s own earlier interviews. An example of a follow-up case subject interview guide is attached at Appendix 4, p. 243.

There were twelve interviews in total covering the four case subject participants. In each instance the researcher considered he had reached theoretical saturation with each case subject participant, as mentioned earlier.

The data gathered through the corroboration of general participants, case subject participants and secondary data sources, provide a rich bank of data on which to conduct the analysis for this research.