Semi-structured interviews

In keeping with the constructivist epistemology of this study, it was believed that

interviewing allowed for negotiated, co-constructed data (Fontana and Frey, 2000). As such, interviews were perceived to be a key tool for rich and thick data collection. It is evident, however, that there are many types of interview and careful consideration was needed as to which interview type would best serve the purpose of this research.

Kvale (1996) identifies a continuum of interview types which differ in terms of their openness of purpose, formality, degree of structure and the degree to which they are descriptive, interpretative, exploratory, emotion based or cognitive based. Cohen et al (2001) suggest that there are four main types of interview, namely structured,

unstructured, non-directive and focussed interviews. Whilst the structured interview is organised in advance, with a schedule in place, thus giving the interviewer little freedom to modify questions, the unstructured interview has greater flexibility to its inherent openness. It is arguable that the more structured interviews are, the more likely they are to generate answers of a more standardised and quantitative nature. In contrast, unstructured interviews can allow the researcher to obtain unique and non-standard personalised views.

The use of semi-structured interviews allows for some digression, should issues arise during the interview process, but ultimately they provide a more coherent framework of questions that the interviewer can ask all participants in order to establish general views, commonality/trends towards certain phenomena, ideas or beliefs, to probe responses, challenge motives and feelings, therefore eliciting richer information than in a written response alone (Punch, 2009). Data collected therefore can be “taken as true, correct, complete and believable reports of their views and experiences” (Hakim, 1987,

78

p.27). Considering these factors, a semi-structured interview was chosen as the most appropriate type of interview. However, as with the use of questionnaires, there are advantages and disadvantages to the use of interviewing as a data collection method. For Kidder and Judd (1986) the major advantage is perceived as:

The ability of the interviewer to notice and correct the respondent's misunderstandings, to probe inadequate or vague responses, and to answer questions and allay concerns (all of which) are important in obtaining complete and meaningful data (1986, p.225).

Hakim (1987) asserts that the main weakness with interviews is that whilst examining a number of respondents in considerable depth may seem advantageous, the small numbers of participants cannot be representative of the total population from which they have been drawn.

This highly subjective technique may also lead to bias. Indeed, it is arguable that the very presence of the interviewer may influence the responses given by the participants. Bias of this nature may be reduced if only one researcher undertakes the interviewing ensuring that if any bias does occur, it is at least consistent. As a result, I held all of the interviews using, where possible, the same conditions and time constraints.

Additionally, bias may arise through the non-verbal behaviour the interviewer displays indicating either approval or disapproval, agreement or disagreement, with the

respondent (Ogier, 1989). This may lead to a situation where the interviewer's assumptions may be fulfilled.

In relation to the notion of the Hawthorne effect (Landsberger, 1958), in a semi-

structured interview scenario, non-verbal behaviour may encourage the respondent to develop a theme of particular relevance to the interviewer's expectations, whilst ignoring other aspects which may not fit the interviewer's assumptions. Similarly, respondents might wish to present themselves in a favourable light and so say what s/he thinks the interviewer expects to hear.

79

In the case of this study, where power relationships between colleagues may be at play, the respondents may wish to impress their colleague with their knowledge or politically correct ideas and so give what they perceive to constitute the 'right' answer rather than their own views (Jones, 2001).

The interview schedule was devised following consideration of these issues alongside the key findings of the literature review. A rationale for inclusion of the different

questions, within the interview schedule can be found in Appendix 4. This shows, clearly, how literature and findings from the questionnaires were used to inform the study. A pilot interview was completed with participants constituting each of the different sample groups. As with the questionnaires, this was necessary due to slight differences in questions asked. Changes were required to the interview based on the piloting of the questions. Such changes included:

1. Not asking the participants their age and other related demographic questions, at the outset. This question, in particular, was seen as an abrupt and rude start to the interview which made some pilot participants feel uncomfortable. These questions were removed and asked at the end of the interview when more of a rapport had been established.

2. Discussion about the participants own history of schooling was deemed to be unnecessary and thus removed.

An example of a final interview schedule can be found in Appendix 5.

All interviews were recorded. This allowed easier transcription and a reference point to which one could turn to reconsider evidence and clarify responses where necessary. During the pilot interview, and following the work of Richards (2009) a note-taking approach was first employed rather than a verbatim transcript being produced.

However, the limitations of this were soon apparent with the notes made not sufficiently reflecting the actual discussion. This caused concerns about subsequent interpretation

80

and meanings derived from the note summary. It was felt that this method limited the richness and implicit meaning of the interactions. Oliver (2003) also warns against this method of transcription whilst Charmaz (2009) continues that verbatim transcriptions allow more opportunity to capture the essence of a discussion and is thus it is less likely for the precise meanings to be missed.

Owing to limitations of time, an orthographic approach to transcription was employed therefore how words were said and visual elements of the interview were not included. It is acknowledged that the transcripts are only a representation of the actual interviews that took place, as Braun and Clarke argue:

Rather than seeing a transcript as raw data, it can be seen as ‘partially cooked’ data, already prepared and slightly altered from its original stage. So far from being a neutral, simple rendition of words, a transcript is a selective arrangement produced for the purposes of analysis (2013, p.162).

Following transcription, all transcripts were emailed to the respective participants for checking. This ensured that the transcripts were an accurate representation of what was said and that any errors, which may have changed the meaning of an answer, or any misrepresentations were corrected or removed accordingly. This also provided a further opportunity to reiterate that participants could withdraw themselves and their data from the study.