Semi-structured interviews and its protocols

Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions were carried out in this research in both Stage 3 (Components 2 &3[Phase1]) and Stage 4 (Components 2 &

3[Phase 2]). These types of questions are invaluable for investigative research as they provide in-depth views and opinions from the participants (Neuman, 2011). According to Patton (2002), unlike close-ended questions which limited participants’ responses only to standardized answers, open-ended interviews enables the participants to provide pertinent responses to queries. Additionally, Creswell (2008) states that this type of data cannot be obtained through quantitative research methods where the focus is to establish results that are predicted by testing of hypothesis.

(a) Stage 3 (Components 2 & 3[Phase1])

The interviews for the Data Collection Stage for Components 2 and 3 (Stage 3[Phase1]) were performed concurrently and involved the same group of heritage managers as respondents. A copy of the interview questionnaire used to guide the interviews is included in Appendix C. The process for the semi-structured interviews can be divided into several stages as follows:

 Pre-interview: In the pre-interview stage, pilot testing was carried out on questions to be used in the interview to check for clarity and refinement before they were sent out. The data from the pilot test is not included as part of the data collection for the study.

Subsequently, potential heritage managers were identified and contacted by e-mails to explain the purpose of the study and obtain consent for interviews. A copy of the questions and an informed consent form were also included in the initial e-mails to enable the heritage managers to fully comprehend the

objectives of the study. These e-mails were subsequently followed up by telephone calls to confirm and set the interview appointment.

Nevertheless, one heritage manager was interviewed without an initial contact made through e-mail. The heritage manager had already been identified as a potential respondent when a chance meeting at the office of a mutual acquaintance allowed a spontaneous interview to be conducted. However, all interview protocols and research ethics were observed.

 Interview: A total of eleven (11) interviews were conducted from March 2011 to October 2011. All interviews were conducted face-to-face, one-on-one and in person. The length of time spent with each heritage manager in the interviews varied, ranging from the shortest at forty (40) minutes to the longest lasting 3 hours. The interviews were arranged at the heritage managers’ convenience and, with the exception of two interviews, were conducted at the heritage managers’

own offices. The 2 remaining interviews were held at the office of a mutual acquaintance (the spontaneous interview) and at a restaurant of the heritage manager’s choice.

To provide an accurate record of the discussion, the heritage managers’

consent were obtained for the use of a digital audio recorder. This also enabled the author to be more attentive to the discussion and interact effectively with the heritage managers during the interviews.

 Post-interview: These recordings were transcribed verbatim and the transcripts checked by way of reading while listening to the audio file to ensure trustworthiness. The salient points of the discussions were then extracted from the transcripts and sent back to the heritage managers for confirmation in order

to ensure accuracy of the information. In the process, telephone, additional interviews and e-mail follow-ups were also employed for clarifications at specific points.

(b) Stage 4 (Components 2 & 3[Phase2])

The semi-structured interviews in the Refinement Stage for Components 2 and 3 (Stage 4[Phase2]) were performed concurrently and involved the same group of experts.

These interviews happened jointly with the questionnaire survey that will be discussed in the following Section 3.3.2.2. The interview went over the same questions that were asked in the questionnaire survey. A copy of the questionnaire survey that was used is shown in Appendix D. The purpose of the interview is for verification and refinement of the draft principles developed in Stage 3.

Although there were 2 separate experts groups involved as respondents for the questionnaire survey, due to logistical reasons the interviews took place only with the Malaysian experts group. These interviews were carried out in groups of 2 or 3 persons between the months of May and August 2012.

Two of the international experts were interviewed as they happened to be in Malaysia in May 2012. One of the international experts was in Malaysia to facilitate a workshop on heritage planning in Penang, while the other was conducting a series of lectures at a local university in Johor. Both these experts consented to face-to-face interviews. The remaining international experts were not interviewed and only submitted a response for the questionnaire survey through email.

The process for the semi-structured interviews in the Refinement Stage followed the same processes and protocols that were outlined in Section 4.3.2.1 (a) of the research techniques for qualitative data collection.

(c) Selection of respondents

There are 3 groups of respondents involved in this study, summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Respondents groups involved the study

Stage Components Respondents Nos.

Stage 3 Components 2 & 3

(Phase 1) Malaysian heritage

managers 11 persons

Stage 4 Components 2 & 3

(Phase 2) Malaysian experts 11 Malaysian persons

International experts 12 International persons

The sampling procedures to select the respondents are described in the following sections.

i Respondents for Stage 3 (Components 2&3 [Phase 1])

The research requires an in-depth knowledge of the phenomenon in Malaysia and can only be obtained from respondents who had gained this knowledge and ability to reflect on their experience. As discussed in Chapter 1, heritage is a relatively new area in Malaysia and presently only a limited number of individuals in the country have the necessary expertise and training to contribute to the study.

To develop principles for interpretation that is specific to the Malaysian context, it is necessary to obtain information from respondents, in this instance Malaysian heritage managers, who understand the context. This condition therefore necessitates qualitative sampling methods where the focus is on the quality of the data that is collected. The respondents were purposefully selected to inform on the phenomenon being studied rather than emphasizing the size of the sample itself (Creswell, 2008; Patton, 2002).

The selection of the heritage managers for interview for both Components 2 and 3 was based on purposeful sampling using maximal variation sampling strategy.

Purposeful sampling allows selection of respondents with the ability to provide the most comprehensive knowledge of concerns that were being studied (Neuman, 2011; Patton, 1987; Rubin & Babbie, 2011). According to Patton (2002, pp. 234-235) maximal variation sampling strategy in purposeful sampling ‘…aims at capturing and describing the central themes that cut across a great deal of variation’. Data and analysis from this form of sampling would yield high-quality detailed descriptions and provide for the emergence of important common patterns that arise from heterogeneity (Patton, 2002).

Creswell (2008) stated that complexity is in-built into the research when respondents are selected through this sampling method.

Additionally, according to Creswell (2008, p. 214) the maximal variation sampling process requires the researcher to ‘…identify the characteristics and then select participants that display different dimensions of that characteristic’. Hence, the researcher first considered the type of knowledge that is necessary for the study and purposefully selected respondents with relevant experience from diverse organizational groups in order to obtain information from various perspectives.

In the author’s opinion, the scope of knowledge necessary to provide rich in-depth information can only be obtained from heritage managers who are in a position of authority within their respective organizations and are required within this capacity to have direct involvement in the decision-making process with regards to the protection of heritage. This is because the research requires specific knowledge that cannot be acquired if the respondents have never been involved with the issues and therefore unable to provide pertinent views.

In the initial selection process several criteria were identified as of key importance for the identification of these heritage managers. These criteria are as follows:

i. Are in senior or authoritative positions in their respective organizations and able to be decision-makers in the protection of cultural heritage ii. Selection from all categories involved in the conservation of immovable

cultural heritage

iii. Work involvement has provided extensive hands-on experience in the identification and protection of immovable cultural heritage

Based on the above criteria, eleven (11) respondents consisting of 8 heritage managers and 3 local experts were selected from a list of potential respondents. These respondents are considered as heritage managers as they are involved in the protection of heritage either through their responsibilities in the government service, or their appointment to important federal or local authority committees (e.g. the National Heritage Listing Committee and State Technical Review Panels which advises on the approvals of submissions made for heritage sensitive areas such as the World Heritage Site of Melaka and the George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca). The 3 local experts who are not in the aforementioned category are considered to meet the requirement as heritage managers as they provided advice and consultancy services to local authorities related to heritage projects. Members from both the Architectural and Planning Professions are equally represented within the eleven (11) heritage managers in the group. The sole remaining participant who is not an architect or a planner is from a Cultural Arts background. The composition of the heritage managers’ group members is shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Composition of the Heritage Managers’ group

STAGE 3 PHASE 1 Heritage Managers

11 members

8 federal officers, local authorities & heritage related advisory board members

&

3 heritage consultants to local authorities

Federal Officers Advisory Committee

The heritage managers’ profiles and reference codes are provided in Appendix A.

ii Respondents for Stage 4 (Components 2&3 [Phase 2])

The Stage 4 Phase 2 consists of 2 respondent groups. The details of the sampling procedure are explained in the following section.

 Malaysian experts sampling procedure

The Malaysian experts for Stage 4 Phase 2 were identified based on 2 main criteria as follows:

i. Respected within the Malaysian heritage community due to their knowledge, experience and involvement in heritage and often invited to contribute at local or national level platforms such as seminars, forums, and technical committees

ii. Represent at least one of the following groups: NGO, Academia, Practitioner, or Government Heritage Body

The mixed selection of participants from various groups allowed for validation of the principles across fields.

A total of 14 local heritage experts were contacted and invited to participate in this second phase. However, only eleven (11) experts agreed to participate whilst three (3) declined. None of the participants contacted for this phase were involved in the earlier phase.

 International experts sampling procedure

The selection of the international participants were based on the following criteria,

i. Respected within the international heritage community due to their knowledge, experience and involvement in heritage and often invited to contribute at international level platforms such as seminars, forums, and technical committees

ii. Working in heritage and have international exposure iii. Vast knowledge and experience in heritage

iv. Affiliation with an international heritage organization

The opinion of the international community is necessary due to Malaysia’s position as a signatory to the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage which promotes the safeguarding of cultural heritage through the process of identification and listing (UNESCO, 1972). Thus, although a proposal for principles of interpreting cultural significance for Malaysia is context specific, in principle it must be aligned with international opinions. However, the views of international participants where it relates to traditional Malay houses and Chinese shophouses will be carefully reviewed as they may not be absolutely relevant since they may have limited understanding of Malaysia’s cultural context.

A common factor between the 2 participant groups was that both groups consisted of participants who were respected within the local heritage community and international heritage community respectively and due to their involvement in heritage works are often invited to contribute at various seminars, forums and technical committees, amongst others. A comparison of the selection criteria for the 2 experts’ groups is shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Selection criteria for experts’ groups for Stage 4 Phase 2

Malaysian Experts Selection Criteria International Experts Selection Criteria Are respected within the local heritage

community due to their involvement in heritage work or specialisation in an area related to this study and are often invited to contribute at local seminars, forums, etc.

Are respected within the international heritage community due to their involvement in heritage works and are often invited to contribute at international seminars, forums, etc.

Have vast knowledge in heritage works through

hands-on experience Have vast knowledge in heritage works through hands-on experience and are appointed on to various national and international committees Representing one of the following groups: NGO,

Academia, Practitioner or are affiliated with an established international heritage organisation

Affiliated with an established international heritage organisation such as ICOMOS, Getty institute, etc.