Semi-Structured Interviews

4.4.2.1. Overview

The semi-structured interviews with academic staff delve deeper into the processes and practices of their professional learning. The purpose of the interviews is three-fold:

1. to find out how, when, where and why academics engage in professional learning; 2. to know how, when, where and why academic professional learning is enabled or

encumbered; and

3. to understand how, when and why academics prioritise one form of knowledge (e.g. subject discipline) over another (e.g. institutional policy).

60

The interview is a widely used and flexible instrument for data collection enabling multi- sensory channels to be used (e.g. verbal, non-verbal, and listening). The order in which interviews are conducted can be controlled whilst providing opportunities for serendipitous spontaneity. Researchers are able to probe more deeply where responses are incomplete or issues that are deep, entangled and complex (Norton, 2009; Turner, 2010; Rowley, 2012). It is a method that will cause the least disruption to the participants' working day whilst still providing rich, in-depth data (King, 2004; Cohen et al., 2017).

The semi-structured interview is one of three basic types; the others being structured and

unstructured. The structured approach consists of predetermined questions with fixed

wording, usually in a specific order, whereby the researcher is able to clarify responses. The unstructured approach is more conversational and based around a limited number of themes or topics. The semi-structured approach, conversely, can be flexible and consists of predetermined questions, but the order can be modified based on what researchers consider to be appropriate at the time. At the researcher's discretion, some questions can be omitted or additional ones included (Norton, 2009; Rowley, 2012; Bryman, 2016).

However, an interview is not the same as an ordinary, everyday conversation (Dyer, 1995; Given, 2008). It is constructed around a specific purpose and tends to be question-driven. The questions are usually asked by the interviewer and not the interviewee with the "asymmetry of power" resting upon the interviewer (Qu & Dumay, 2011). There is a misconception that conducting interviews is a simple endeavour. This is based upon the questionable assumption that interviewees are "competent" and "moral truth teller[s]" who act in the "service of science", providing information needed to "reveal the 'interiors'" of the interviewee or organisational practices (Alvesson, 2011).

My approach to addressing these challenges was to ensure that I planned my interviews carefully and allowed sufficient time for preparation (Qu & Dumay, 2011). My interview schedule (see Appendix VII) was influenced by my two research questions, the literature relating to the professional learning of academics in HE, and the questions raised from the results of the online questionnaire for academic staff. The interview schedule contained a number of scheduled probes for each question. I factored in some time for asking some unscheduled probes should I want to draw out more information from a particular response made by the participant that was either interesting or required further clarification.

61

4.4.2.2. Transcription

Transcription is the 'cornerstone' in any qualitative analysis involving interview data (albeit audio or video) (Lapadat, 2000; Oliver et al., 2005; Widodo, 2014). It can be quite an onerous task, but to omit it in favour of coding or field notes can result in loss of clarity and completeness (Lapadat & Lindsay, 1999; Bryman, 2016; Cohen et al., 2017). It is also a failing on the researcher's part not to try and "preserve [...] data in a more permanent, retrievable, examinable, and flexible manner" (Lapadat & Lindsay, 1999, p. 80). Hence, I recognise that transcription is an integral component in the qualitative analysis of the semi-structured interviews and 'photovoice' slideshow.

I wanted the transcription to be 'natural' (i.e. every utterance is transcribed) because I was keen for those interviews to be situated in the 'real world' (or at least a semblance of it) and for my social presence as interviewer to be documented. I employed a professional transcriber to produce the 'first' draft of the transcription. They could produce the transcription more expediently than me. However, I worked upon successive reiterations of the transcripts, by moving back-and-forth between the recordings and the transcripts themselves, until I had generated the definitive copy. In doing so, this enabled me to assume responsibility for the interpretation of the conversation between the interviewee and myself.

A transcriber is not a 'neutral agent' who is able to put aside their own prejudices and biases. They could make "interpretive decisions" (Lapadat, 2000; Bryman, 2016) and hear the interview "through [their] own cultural-linguistic filters" (Oliver et al., 2005, p. 1282). This may result in 'tidying up' sentence structures, excluding or mishearing material (Poland, 1995; Lapadat, 2000; Bryman, 2016). To ensure rigour into the transcription process, I introduced a couple of strategies:

1) a transcription notation crib sheet was created (see Appendix X); and

2) working collaboratively with both the transcriber and the interviewee to ensure that the transcription was a fair and accurate account of the original interview by sharing drafts of the interview transcriptions (Lapadat, 2000; Bryman, 2016; Cohen et al., 2017).

62

4.4.2.3. Implementation

Influenced by the research questions, the literature and the results from the online questionnaire, an interview schedule was developed (see Appendix VII). The interviews took place between March and May 2016 in a secure and private office.

4.4.2.4. Developing the Anonymised Participant Profiles

In analysing the participant interviews, I began with using NVivo, but I found the process was too reductive and it did not lend itself well to sociomaterial sensibilities, particularly in following the actors involved. Instead, the data was presented through a form of emplotment, which would enable me to trace the actors involved. This approach had been adopted in a project by Malcolm and Zukas (2014). The first stage of the analysis involved writing up an anonymised participant profile (see Appendix XII) of the data generated for each participant. This profile, or case narrative, includes data drawn from the questionnaire, interview and photovoice activities (see Appendix XIII for worked examples).

Each profile contained demographic, employment, HE experience information, along with the tools and technologies used, the spaces and places occupied, the various people and discourses that the participants engaged with, and some additional commentary that developed a narrative of the complex sociomaterial practice of professional learning. The profile also contains information regarding the participant's disciplinary affiliation, which covered such fields as allied health, business, humanities, nursing, applied science, social science and teacher education. In creating these profiles, the analysis would allow me to identify those 'actors' that have a significant influence over the professional learning of the participants. In identifying the 'actors', I can begin to trace their connections and interactions and how these have come to enable and/or encumber particular professional learning activities and practices.