Semi-Structured Interviews

Interviews are the most used method in qualitative studies (Dörnyei 2007: p. 134). An interview can be open, semi-structured or structured. In an open interview very few questions are prepared and the researcher acts as a responsive listener, while the topics discussed are largely determined by the interviewee. For a semi-structured interview, the researcher prepares some questions and an interview guide identifying a set of target themes to be discussed, still the planned themes are pursued flexibly. A structured interview contains a more elaborate interview guide and there is little room for flexibility; it resembles a spoken questionnaire (Dörnyei 2007: p. 135-136). There are questions about how reliable and valid qualitative data resulting from interviews can be (Silverman 1993: p. 145-152). Interview data is valid as long as we believe the participants tell the truth or what they believe to be true. In qualitative

interview studies there can be a risk of interviewees being selective, giving

which they think the interviewer will approve of, or which they think to be socially acceptable. However, it would be counterproductive to structure the interviews more in order to increase reliability, because then the data would only provide what we assume instead of offering new information. To validate the data one should look into methods of generalizing to a larger population, i.e. German students in general and one should use simple counting procedures, for example how many times students talked about improved career options because they are learning German instead of concentrating on

the unusual cases(Silverman 1993: p. 160-166).

Even though interviews are commonly known and accepted as interactive events, creating informative data through interviews is a sensitive process that has to be planned well. “Qualitative interviewing requires great sensitivity to the ways in which the interview process shapes the data made” (Richards 2005: p. 38). The interview technique used in this study has largely been inspired by Holstein’s and Gubrium’s work The Active Interview (Holstein and Gubrium 1995); according to them we create

meaning through an active interview, we being the researcher=interviewer and the participant=interviewee.

This research interest has grown out of my personal experience and curiosity. In order to explore students’ motivation to study German and their opinions of ‘German’ and their thought processes, a semi-structured interview seemed most suitable. I have had the experience that British students are rather shy and I believe that an open interview format where the students are encouraged to ‘just talk’ would be more difficult to achieve. Additionally motivational theories should be explored through the interviews. (For the interview guide view Appendix A.)

Interviews are most suitable for the questions I am asking, because “it is in fact the strength of the interview conversation to capture the multitude of subjects’ views of a theme and to picture a manifold and controversial human world” (Kvale 1996: p. 7). This approach will allow me to see if ideas about motivation, the lack of it and reasons for (not) studying German as represented in literature are actually present in the students’ minds, and will also allow scope to explore conceptualisations not already documented in the literature. Once that is achieved one can also see which

motivational theory (ideal self or integrativeness and instrumentality or individual differences, i.e. person-in-context) best could apply to learners of German.

It is important to take the participants and participant selection seriously, because the interviewees are more than vessels filled with information that the researcher needs to tap into, they are the narrator of their story (Holstein and Gubrium 1995: p. 27-29). We tend to assign different kinds of competences to different types of people; for example we usually call a child (as a source of information) unreliable or incompetent. When selecting participants for an interview we need to be careful not to let those ideas guide our participant selection, it would for example be a mistake to prioritise only high-achieving students of German (Holstein and Gubrium 1995: p. 19-27). If we see the interviewees’ knowledge as diverse, multifaceted and emerging, “the respondent acts as a narrator of experiential knowledge” (Holstein and Gubrium 1995: p. 30). “The active respondent constructs his or her experiential history as the interview unfolds, in collaboration with the active interviewer” (Holstein and Gubrium 1995: p. 32).

As I was concerned to explore the development of motivation and as I view motivation as dynamic, but only conducted one interview with each participant, I had to encourage the respondent to recall different points in their language learning history. I also had to be open to adjusting my questions to each participant’s answers:

Treating the interview as active allows the interviewer to encourage the respondent to shift position in the interview so as to explore alternate perspectives and stocks of knowledge. Rather than searching for the best or

most authentic answer, the aim is to systematically activate applicable ways of knowing – the possible answers – that respondents can reveal, as diverse and contradictory as they might be (Holstein and Gubrium 1995: p. 37).

Even though some interview guidelines request the interviewer to be neutral, objective and passive, an active approach can be helpful if the aim is to make the interviewees feel comfortable and to encourage them to elaborate on their experiences. Sometimes shared knowledge can make it difficult for the interviewer to be entirely neutral. This kind of knowledge can also be helpful: “Background knowledge in any research circumstance involving all types of interviewers and respondents, provides direction and precedent, connecting the researcher’s interest to the respondent’s experience, bridging the concrete and the abstract” (Holstein and Gubrium 1995: p. 46). If the interviewer is familiar with the circumstances relevant to the research topic, this can help the interview conversation because the interviewer knows what the respondent is talking about and can ask relevant questions (Holstein and Gubrium 1995: p. 77). The interviewer should, however, be very careful not to put his or her own opinion into the participant’s mouth by asking over-suggestive questions. That is why it is better to remain neutral and to listen most of the time without commenting on the interviewee’s answers.

As I taught undergraduates in German for four years, I felt I had enough experience with the students to know how to approach them. I believed I could make them feel comfortable in an interview situation and could create a relaxed, intimate, and informal atmosphere while remaining respectable and professional. The semi-structured design of the interview was necessary due to my own knowledge of teaching German in England. I already had an idea about the students’ opinions and thought processes; however, I did not want to jump to conclusions. Instead I aimed to let the students elaborate about their past experiences. (See Section 4.3.3 below, for discussion of how the influence of my own ‘German tutor’ identity was managed during the data

collection process.)

To test my interview guide and technique I interviewed two international students on a German Masters degree at the Freie Universität Berlin. I was surprised at how openly and fully these students talked about their learning experience and motivation. From these pilot exercises I learnt that the questions were adequate to prompt participants to speak freely about their experiences. However, I felt hat conducting the interviews in my office gave them an official character and I felt meeting in a neutral page might help the students to view me as an equal and to speak even more openly. Afterwards, as a further pilot exercise, I interviewed two British students on their YA, one in person and one via skype. This way I could also compare the differences between face to face and video chat conversations. Probably due to that fact that these young people are

very accustomed to different types of communication there were no notable differences.

Following the experience gained in the pilot interviews, for the main study I made the participant feel comfortable with a little small talk and some explanations about my research first. Then I started recording and I asked a few background questions, like ‘How old are you?’, ‘What degree do you study?’ etc. in the beginning. This background information was necessary for interpretation of the motivation-related data, but by putting those questions at the beginning of each interview I also made the

interviewees feel relaxed, because I asked them simple questions that they could answer and that they felt comfortable answering. The other background information I was interested in were A-level grades. I believed that could make the participants feel uncomfortable, and therefore I put those questions last and presented them as an afterthought. The interview proper began with the prompt: ‘Please tell me about your motivation to study German.’ Most students had quite a good idea about what they wanted to tell me and they were very happy that I was interested in their reasons for studying German. Generally all interviewees were very open and friendly, and they gladly answered all questions I asked.

In order to enrich the data collected and to have some background information on the universities the participants attended, and the tutors who taught them, I also followed the participants’ university life to some extent while I was visiting the two universities to conduct the interviews. I talked to the heads of German at both universities as well as to other tutors teaching German. Where the universities organised activities

involving German, I participated to see who took part in those activities. While I was on campus I kept a research diary and took field notes that influenced my interviews. One tutor for example introduced me to her group and asked me to help out during her lesson. This influenced the students’ behaviour towards me later on. That is why I made sure to introduce myself as a student in English to all groups and not to take on any other responsibilities during my stay at the research sites. The field notes also helped me to portray the two research sites in 4.3.5.