Semi-structured interviews

Stokes and Bergin, 2006, describe „interview‟ as a data collection technique that utilises discussion between two or more people to gather data that are relevant to the research question/s and objectives. When the discussion is conducted with two or more people at the same time, it is termed a „group interview or focus group‟ (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). The study is concerned with discussion between two people (the researcher and the interviewee) to collect detailed information with regard to specific issues which fall into the category described by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) as interviews. They suggest that the commonly used typology to classify interviews falls into three categories: structured interviews, semi-structured interviews and unstructured interviews. According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), structured interviews are sometimes referred to as interview- administered surveys which reflect the collection of quantifiable data. Unstructured interviews tend to be guided by the interviewee and suggest that no predetermined questions lead the interview. On the other hand, they indicated that semi-structured interviews tend to focus on predetermined themes that direct the questions and flow of conversation, but,

nevertheless, offer flexibility to the researcher in allowing changes in the order of the questions asked, or the ability to add or omit questions to explore the study themes.

Given that the study started with a deductive approach, semi-structured interviews were the study utilised technique that enabled the researcher to explore particular themes derived from an existing theory. Cooper and Schindler (2008) indicated that semi-structured interviews are predominantly used in exploratory studies that include explanatory elements; this supports the use of semi-structured interviews in this study (see section 4.5 ) that includes exploratory investigation as a piece of explanatory research.

The interviews aimed at assessing the quality of the implemented DL quality and identifying barriers that face the implementation of quality DL from the perspective of faculty members and administrators (see Chapter I: the study objectives). The interviews were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis procedures (see Chapter V: section 5.3.2).

Because of the qualitative nature of this data collection technique, detailed information regarding the procedures and steps taken before, during and after interviews to promote the trustworthiness of the findings, is appended (see Appendix 1). Information regarding the interviews‟ considerations are summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Interviews considerations

Administrators’ interviews Faculty members’ interviews

Aim

To evaluate the current implementation of quality DL from the administrators‟ perspectives in order to identify barriers to the implementation and possible solutions.

To evaluate the current implementation of quality DL from the faculty members‟ perspectives in order to identify barriers to the implementation and possible solutions.

Sampling Strategy

Possible participants were identified using a non- probability purposive sampling strategy, defined by Neuman (2005). Critical case sampling, a type of purposive sampling strategy identified by Patton (2002), was used to identify possible administrators for interview as informative respondents were required to meet the study objectives. According to Patton (2002), in this strategy, participants are selected on the basis of three factors: they have a better understanding of the process; they are well-informed with regard to the phenomena under investigation; they can provide an overall view into the phenomena.

Possible participants were identified using non probability quota sampling. This strategy of sampling, according to Barnett (1991), aims to represent the population based on the fact that the quota characteristics represent the significant characteristics of the

population. The quota

characteristics in this study were the college that the faculty member belongs to and gender, as many studies indicate that gender plays a significant role in DL experiences (Byrne and Koenig-Visagie, 2012; Kupczynski, et al., 2014; Wolfenden and Murphy, 2013). The quota sample was therefore represented by two main characteristics: college and gender.

How many participants?

Seven administrators.

16 faculty members (two males from each of the four different DL programmes and two females from each of the four different DL programmes).

Why?

Given that the researcher has spent four years working in the organisation and is well- informed about its structure and characteristics, he chose seven administrators (the dean of DDL, four vice deans and the two heads of educational affairs) who represent participants who have a better understanding of the DL processes at KAU. They are well-informed about the DL regulations and procedures and they can provide an overall view of the DL current situation.

Thompson (2002) suggested that using non probability Quota sampling offers a strategy of qualitative sampling that guarantees that every sub-group is represented and ensures an acceptable level of transferability. Thus, the non- probability Quota sampling strategy was chosen to ensure that the faculty member population was represented in the sample.

How many is enough?

Taking into consideration what has been suggested by Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), recruiting of participants continued after analysis until data reached saturation level (no new data or additional information emerged). Given that data analysis started during the data collection period and continued afterwards, in compliance with Guest, Bunce and Johnson, (2006), the study was able to determine the required number of participants working by the aforementioned suggestions, which resulted in the number indicated above (in the

“How many participants?” column).