Semi structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were employed to obtain the most important information from the learners, workplace facilitators, college facilitators and Programme Manager. Amongst others, the interviews provided answers on the integration of the theory and practice that the documents consulted could not supply. In total, I conducted twenty-three interviews, eleven with learners (this includes seven first time interviews and four follow-up interviews), seven with workplace facilitators, two with a college facilitator (this includes one first time interview and one follow-up interview) one with the Programme Manager, one with the HoD: Learnerships & Skills – Business Studies and Utilities and one with the Senior Human Resources & Finance Manager.

I engaged in face-to-face interviews because I wanted to acquire specific information (Dexter, 1970, in Merriam, 1998). I wanted to discover what is ‘in and on someone else’s mind’ (Patton, 1990, in Merriam, 1998).

Patton clarifies the purpose of interviewing as follows:

We interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly observe… We cannot observe feelings, thoughts, and intentions. We cannot observe behaviors that took place at some previous point in time. We cannot observe situations that preclude the presence of an observer. We cannot observe how people have organized the world and the meanings they attach to what goes on in the world. We have to ask people questions about those things. The purpose of interviewing, then, is to allow us to enter into the other person’s perspective (Patton, 1990:196, in Merriam, 1998:72).

I prepared an interview schedule, but ‘pursued what is relevant to the interviewee’

(Freebody, 2003). Although I did not follow the interview schedule rigidly, but explored what is important to the interviewees, I ensured that the questions corresponded with similar points in the literature. The interview was recorded, with permission from the interviewee, and transcribed in full afterwards.

The interview schedule for the learners was organised into categories and used to enquire what their expectations of the Learnership were, how they experienced the structured college-based learning and workplace experience as well as the integration thereof, whether they could suggest any improvements to the structured college-based learning or workplace experience and whether or not their expectations were realised and what their future plans are (Appendix 1). I could therefore use this data to examine whether the learners experienced the structured college-based learning and work-based learning as an integrated whole and whether they could indeed apply the theory learnt at college in the workplace.

The questions relating to the structured college-based learning, included whether it served as a basis or whether it was more than sufficient for the skills needed at work, what they thought about the length of day, the materials used, the content, the method of instruction and the language of instruction, the usefulness of the work done in the SE and whether the college facilitators assisted them sufficiently.

The questions relating to the work-based learning, included what their daily duties were at work, what kind of support they received and who helped them, how exactly did their workplace facilitator assist them, what they learned at work, whether there was a specific time set aside for training or whether it was mostly on-the-job training, and what their contribution to the workplace was.

In relation to the question whether their expectations have been met or not, the learners had to comment on whether they achieved the qualification, whether they have been employed full-time or not, what kind of work they were doing at the

time of the interview and whether they thought that the Learnership had prepared them sufficiently.

The questions put to the Programme Manager focused on her expectations regarding bringing together the college, the learners and the workplace facilitators, her expectations with regards to managing the Learnership, her experiences in dealing with the learners and workplace facilitators, the activities involved in bringing together the three parties effectively and a few comments on her opinion of learnerships in general (Appendix 1).

The interview schedule used for the workplace facilitators was designed to elicit information on their background with regards to working for the company, their expectations of the learners, how they assisted the learners with the practical workplace activities as well as the theoretical workplace activities in the learner guide, how they prepared the learners for assessments, whether or not their expectations of the learners were met, whether they employed the learners in a permanent capacity upon completion of the Learnership, whether they think the learning material is appropriate for their specific industry, their opinion on the integration of the theoretical and practical components of the Learnership and their general thoughts on a learnership as a means of training for the workplace (Appendix 1).

The interview schedule used for the simulated enterprise facilitator enquired what her expectations of the learners were, what exactly the learners did in the SE, whether her expectations were met or not, what the role of the SE in this Learnership is, what possible improvements could be made to the SE programme, whether the time spent by the learners in the SE was sufficient or not to complete the programme and what her general opinion about a learnership is with regards to training people to be efficient and effective in the workplace (Appendix 1).

Before embarking on the interviews I spoke to four workplace facilitators at four different companies telephonically to determine why they actually enrolled

learners on this Learnership as well as what the expectations of these learners were. I also interviewed two senior officials at the college, namely the HoD:

Learnerships and Skills - Business Studies and Utilities as well as the Senior Human Resources and Financial Manager. The former was a face-to-face interview and the latter was conducted telephonically. The purpose of these initial interviews with the college officials was to gain background information regarding learnerships at the college.

The main sample for the face-to–face semi-structured interviews consisted of seven out of the eighteen learners who completed the Learnership at Hillside College in March 2005, three workplace facilitators from two companies, two college facilitators (including myself) and the Programme Manager of the Learnership at the college.

Table 4 below provides a list of all interviews conducted. The table highlights the name of the interviewee, the name of the organisation at which the interviewee is employed, the interviewee’s position at the organisation, the date of the interview, the time of the interview and the method used to record the data. (Note:

pseudonyms were used for the interviewees and the organisations.)

At the time I arranged the interview I sketched an outline of the different sections of the interview schedule to the interviewees so that they had a broad overview of the type of questions I would ask them. Of the eighteen learners who completed the Learnership, the seven I eventually interviewed were most eager to participate in the research. It was also fairly easy to arrange an appointment and appropriate meeting place with them since they were not scattered across the Western Cape, but situated within close proximity to where I stay. Four learners (Debbie, Nelson, Princess and Andrew) were interviewed at their workplaces, that is, The Liquor Store, The Tool Man and The Art Shop respectively. The other three learners (Neliswa, Mary and Benjamin) were all interviewed in a restaurant, because Neliswa and Benjamin were unemployed and Mary was interviewed on a

public holiday. They were not comfortable with the idea that we conduct the interview in their homes. Most of the interviews occurred during December 2005.

59

Table 4: LIST OF ALL INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED

No. Pseudonym of

interviewee

Organisation pseudonym

Position at company Date of interview

Time of interview

Method of recording data

1. Elsabe Hillside College HoD: Learnerships &

Skills – Business Studies and Utilities

5 Aug 2004 11:00 – 12:00 Face-to-face interview - short notes

2. Byron Hillside College Senior HR & Finance

Manager

19 Nov 2004 11:00 – 11:10 Telephonic – short notes

3. Lynne The Meat Co. HR Manager 15 Apr 2005 11:00 – 11:05 Telephonic – short notes

4. Gilbert The Art Shop CEO 15 Apr 2005 12:00 – 12:08 Telephonic – short notes

5. George The Liquor Store Branch Manager 15 Apr 2005 12:10 – 12:15 Telephonic – short notes

6. Charlotte The Tool Man Co-owner 15 Apr 2005 15:30 – 15:40 Telephonic – short notes

7. Neliswa The Meat Co. Learner 06 Dec 2005 15:30 – 16:00 Face-to-face – tape recorder

8. Benjamin The Mini-market Learner 07 Dec 2005 12:45 – 13:20 Face-to-face – tape recorder 9. Debbie The Liquor Store Learner 08 Dec 2005 17:11 – 17:35 Face-to-face – tape recorder

10. Andrew The Art Shop Learner 14 Dec 2005 10:20 – 11:00 Face-to-face – tape recorder

11. Mary The Meat Co. Learner 16 Dec 2005 15:55 – 15:45 Face-to-face – tape recorder

12. William The Tool Man Co-owner 17 Dec 2005 12:30 – 12:45 Face-to-face – tape recorder

13. Nelson The Tool Man Learner 19 Dec 2005 07:43 – 08:08 Face-to-face – tape recorder 14. Princess The Tool Man Learner 19 Dec 2005 08:13 – 08:35 Face-to-face – tape recorder 15. Pauline Hillside College Programme Manager 19 Dec 2005 11:08 – 11:25 Face-to-face – tape recorder 16. Angel The Tool Man Head: Shipping (SA) 28 Dec 2005 11:35 – 11:50 Face-to-face – tape recorder 17. Ilse Hillside College SE Facilitator 10 July 2006 Not Applicable Interview schedule - written 18. Lynne The Meat Co. HR Manager 21 June 2006 Not Applicable Interview schedule - written

19. Debbie The Liquor Store Learner 20 June 2006 09:20 – 09:35 Follow-up face-to-face

interview – short notes

20. Andrew The Art Shop Learner 21 June 2006 09:10 – 09: 15 Follow- up telephonic interview – short notes

21. Neliswa The Meat Co. Learner 27 June 2006 10:20 – 11:00 Follow-up face-to-face

interview – short notes

22. Benjamin The Mini-market Learner 10 July 2006 11:15 – 11:40 Follow-up face-to-face

interview – short notes

23. Ilse Hillside College SE Facilitator 29 Nov 2006 12:05 – 12:10 Follow-up telephonic interview - short notes

It was also easy to arrange interviews with all the other interviewees for the same reason. The Programme Manager at the college was on holiday and welcomed my interview at her home. One workplace facilitator (Angel) was also on holiday and I interviewed her at her home. When I went to The Tool Man to interview their two learners (Nelson and Princess) on Saturday 17 December 2005 at work, I discovered that they were not there for our scheduled meeting at 12:00. In fact they had not turned up for work at all that day. I then took a chance and asked whether I could interview the workplace facilitator, Charlotte. She was still wrapping up the day’s work and she suggested I interview her husband, William, who is the co-owner of The Tool Man. (The details of the interview with William will be discussed in Chapter Four.)

It was not so easy to get hold of the workplace facilitator from The Meat Co. since she was much too busy during the festive season. In February 2006 I sent her a copy of the interview schedule and I asked her to complete it and then fax her written response back to me. She gladly obliged since this was not such a busy period for the company.

One of the learners, who completed the Learnership, simply did not want to be interviewed. Three learners really wanted to participate in an interview but our meetings never materialised since they work shifts. The telephone numbers of four learners had changed and none of the other learners or the Programme Manager at the college had their latest contact details. I had an unpleasant incident with one of the learners, right at the end of the Learnership, so I did not think that he would agree to an interview. Another learner cannot speak English very well and I did not ask her to participate in an interview. By the time I got the telephone number of another learner she had just started a new learnership and was not available for an interview. (An interesting point is that this learnership was in the electronics field. This is perhaps an indication that some people are so desperate for money that they are not concerned about whether they do a learnership in an area that really interests them.)

I would also have liked to interview all the workplace facilitators at the five different companies. I only managed to interview two mentors at one company and asked one at another company to complete a questionnaire because she did not have time, in her hectic schedule at work, for an interview. I resorted to the questionnaire since I tried to arrange an interview with her for about one year - to no avail.

For the purpose of this research it was not necessary to interview all the learners, workplace facilitators or college facilitators, but rather to interview a manageable number of people having different associations with the programme. The crucial factor here was ‘the potential of each person to contribute to the development of insight and understanding of the phenomenon’ (Merriam, 1998:83). The learners I selected to interview were willing to participate in the research and were available. Another reason I selected them was that I got along with them very well in class and I knew that they would feel comfortable speaking to me and not be apprehensive about giving their own opinion. Again, in this way I was assured of obtaining ‘rich information’ or ‘thick descriptions’.

Although Seale (1998) believes that interviewing can be a time-consuming exercise, I actually enjoyed interviewing the participants since I was able to gather interesting information relating to the learners’ experiences of the structured college-based learning, work-based learning, the integration of the two, suggestions for any improvements to the formal learning and/or informal learning, whether or not their expectations were met and what their future plans are. I found transcribing the interviews afterwards particularly time-consuming.

However, it still remains the best method to obtain rich information from the participants.