Stage 2 and 3 interviews

A research interview can be regarded as a data collection technique that involves the use of a set of pre-planned questions to gather information orally. Saunders et al. (2012) describes the process as “a purposeful conversation between two or more people, requiring the interviewer to establish rapport, to ask concise and unambiguous questions, to which the interviewee is willing to respond, and to listen attentively”. According to Shneiderman and Plaisant (2005), interviews are a productive way of data generation as they provide the interviewer with the opportunity to specifically focus on the areas of concern that could lead to more constructive suggestions that could be further explored. Apart from the usefulness of interviews as a tool used to gather valid and reliable data that are relevant to research question(s) and objectives as pointed out by Saunders et al. (2012), Genise (2002) and Shneiderman and Plaisant (2005) point to other advantageous attributes of using interviews as a data collection tool;

i. Specific and constructive suggestions can be derived from direct contact with participants;

ii. They enhance the collection of detailed information;

iii. Rich and detailed data can be gathered with fewer participants involved.

Other advantages of the interview method peculiar to this study included:

84

 the interview provided the researcher the opportunity to assure the participants of confidentiality and protection, since sensitive and in-depth information was being obtained.

The disadvantages of this method included:

 it was time consuming to carry out interviews;

 in this study, scheduling of interviews proved to be difficult as most of the participants were extremely busy and were located overseas and shared different time zones with the researcher; and

 a few of the interviewees were slightly anxious during interviews as their responses were being recorded.

Interviews can be highly structured and formalised, utilising standardised questions, or they can be unstructured with informal conversations. However, there are intermediate positions between these two spectrums, depending on the level of structure and formality (Saunders et al., 2012). Interviews within this category are known as semi-structured interviews. Therefore, according to Bouchard (1976) and Saunders et al. (2012), interviews can be categorised into three types which are; structured interviews, semi-structured interviews and unstructured or in-depth interviews, which can be done with individuals or a focus group.

 Structured interviews: A structured interview requires the respondent to reply to a predetermined, identical or ‘standardised’ set of questions using a specified set of responses. This type of interview shares similar attributes with a questionnaire as it is generally used to obtain quantifiable data and can be referred to as a ‘quantitative research interview”. They also provide less flexibility to the interviewee to provide other views not included in the response set.

 Semi-structured interview: in the semi-structured interview, the discussion is centred on a list of themes and questions developed by the researcher but with the content of the response open for the respondent, and may vary from interview to interview. The flexible structure of this type of interview allows the researcher the ability to welcome, during the interview process, the introduction of new themes or issues raised by the interviewee, which are

considered useful to the research. Using semi-structured interviews could also give generate serendipitous findings.

 Unstructured or in-depth interviews: An unstructured interview neither specifies the question nor the desired response. They are considered informal and are primarily used as a tool for an in depth exploration into a general area which may be of interest to the researcher. The general idea behind the use of unstructured interviews is to give the interviewee the opportunity to feel at ease and to freely express their views in a non-directive manner.

It is worthy of note however, that the interview approach to adopt is determined by the responses desired and the study design.

Although a discussion on the various types of interview above adds to the researcher’s general understanding of the nature of research interviews, a clear consideration on the type of interview to be used must be made (Robson, 2011). The interview type adopted in this research was the semi-structured interview.

3.7.1.2.1 Semi-structured interview

The reasons for the adoption of a semi-structured interview for this study was first; to collect in depth data in a manner that allowed the respondents the freedom to relay vital information within the research context, in a comfortable and unrestrictive manner, and secondly and more specifically, to capture the views of the NOC representatives on the performance of their respective countries in the 2012 London Olympics in as much detail as possible.

The researcher started by asking some preliminary questions before the commencement of the interview. This was aimed at obtaining a demographic background of the participant within the NOC they represented. These questions included the following:

 What NOC do you represent?

 How long have you been a part of your NOC?  What is your position in your NOC?

 Were you involved in your NOC’s participation in the 2012 London Olympics?

86

The above set of questions was then followed by the main interview questions that were directly related to the subject under study. The researcher employed the framework propositions of Oakley and Green (2001) and De Bosscher et al. (2009) on sports performance improvement identified from the literature, to serve as a guide in developing the interview questions. The researcher also used the CSFs identified from PM literature, as a guideline for directing interview discussions with the participants. The interview gave the researcher the opportunity to secure important and valuable information from key individuals in the respective NOCs, gain an in-depth understanding of the problem and draw meaningful conclusions to the research. The key individuals to be interviewed were identified and considered appropriate to participate as a result on their high involvement with their NOC and the role they played in the build up to the 2012 London Olympics. Their skills and “expert” knowledge about issues relating to performance of their NOC in the Olympics was another consideration made by the researcher in selecting the interviewees. The following section shows the interviewee categories.

3.7.1.2.2 Interview participants

Generally, the interview participants in phase 3 of the study comprised of individuals that were in the senior administrative hierarchy of their respective NOCs. These include presidents, vice presidents, secretary-generals and assistant secretary- generals. However, to maintain anonymity of the interviewees, the exact positions of the representatives from the NOCs that participated are not mentioned in the research findings.

The entire interview process in this phase of the study was carried out in two parts. The reason for doing this was because the responses from the participants in the first set of interviews did not provide sufficient depth on the subject. As such, there was a need for another set of interviews to address this issue. The first set of interviews, which form Stage 2 of phase 3, had been conducted with a total of twenty countries. Nine of these participated in the follow up interviews (stage 3 of phase 3).

The participants are coded within the research to ensure anonymity. For example, the code name used to represent the participant from NOC ‘A’ (Togo) is ‘A01’ in the first set of the interviews and ‘A02’ in the second set of interview. Table 9 is used to show a clearer picture of this representation

Table 9: Interview participants and code names 1

NOC Country Referred in findings from

1st _{interview as}

Referred in findings from 2nd _{Interview as}

A Togo A01 A02

B Kenya B01 B02

C Nigeria C01 C02

D Swaziland D01 D02

E Zimbabwe E01 E02

F South-Africa F01 F02

G Egypt G01 G02

H Botswana H01 -

I Ethiopia I01 I02

J Tanzania J01 J02 K Somalia K01 - L Lesotho L01 - M Ghana M01 - N Mauritius N01 - O Cameroun O01 - P Sudan P01 - Q Algeria Q01 - R Gabon R01 - S Uganda S01 - T Cote D’Ivoire T01 - Sub-Total of interviews 20 9

Total 29 Interviews conducted

3.7.1.2.3 Time and location of the interviews

As it was impracticable for the researcher to travel to the various countries of the participants to conduct interviews, and with the challenge of getting the participants to agree to do this electronically due to the lack of the necessary technology in the regions where participants were located, the researcher had to look into other options. Consequently, the researcher, through information obtained from a contact in

88

Republic of Cote d’Ivoire in July 2013, organised for all the heads of African NOCs who were the study participants. On getting this information, the researcher attended the conference in Abidjan as this proved to be the best and only opportunity to conduct face-to-face interviews with the participants. This set of interviews (Stage 2 of Phase 3) was conducted with the research participants in Abidjan during the period of the ANOCA conference. On average, the interviews in this stage lasted between thirty and forty-five minutes.

The follow up interviews, which constituted Stage 3 of Phase 3, were conducted using Skype and telephone interviews as all the participants were back in their respective countries. As there was no other practical opportunity for the researcher to conduct these interviews face-to-face, the resolve to use telephone and Skype (where possible) was reached due to the distance between the researcher and the participants at the time of the interview. However, interviews in this phase were easier to set up, as the participants had become familiar with the researcher and the topic being investigated. Nine participants were involved in this phase, out of the twenty participants that took part in the first set of interviews. Generally, interview times were agreed based on the convenience and suitability for the interviewees. However, there was a need to reschedule interview appointments with a couple of the participants due to situations beyond their control. Each interview conducted in this phase typically lasted between one hour-thirty minutes to two hours. The period of the second phase of interviews was between September 2013 and February 2014.

3.7.1.2.4 Interview process

In compiling the interview questions, the researcher kept in mind that the questions were only to guide the course of the interview and that the order in which questions had been pre-arranged could be disrupted within the context of the study, based on the direction the interview was going. In order to gain more depth from the responses of the interviewee, the researcher asked other questions so as to ensure that the research questions and objectives were fully addressed.

While the first set of interviews were conducted during the period of the ANOCA conference, the second set of interviews were conducted with both researcher and participants being in the comfort of their homes or offices in order to minimise any disruption during interviews. The researcher started each interview by explaining the

purpose of the study, as well as the recording procedure, to the participants. The researcher further explained the confidentiality and anonymity statements to the participants, and explained to them their right to withdraw from the study at any time without giving prior notice. The researcher then allowed sufficient time for the interviewee to read through and sign the consent forms, if they were happy to carry on with the interview. The researcher ensured that everything was clear to the interviewee before the commencement of the interview. This was done to again minimise any possible disruptions once interviews had commenced. The researcher made use of an Olympus digital voice recorder with microphone to record the interviews. The voice recorder was positioned in a way where it did not inconvenience the participants or interfere with the signal when interview was conducted using telephone or Skype. Though most of the participants didn’t have any issues with recording of the interviews, two of the participants did not want to be recorded but were ok for the researcher to take notes during the interview. In dealing with the situations, the researcher made bullet points of the issues discussed during these interviews and rewrote them neatly in a sensible form once the interview was over.

During the conduct of an interview, Oates (2006) points out the need for the researcher to be neutral, receptive, punctual, polite and professional. With this in mind, the researcher allowed sufficient time before the start of an interview to set up any necessary technology that was to be used and to make sure all note pads and pens were in place to take down notes. The researcher also ensured that mobile phones or any other devices with sound were switched off or put on silent to avoid any distractions from them. Furthermore, the researcher dressed in a moderately smart fashion for the interviews and maintained politeness throughout the interview. The researcher also maintained neutrality in reacting to the views of the interviewee during the interview process and did not advance his views on those of the interviewee.

The researcher attempted to use the Express Scribe Transcription Software and Foot Pedal controller to carry out transcription. This effort proved abortive as the software did not seem to be user-friendly when used on a MacBook computer, which was what the researcher used. Therefore, interview recordings were transferred to the

90

researcher’s computer and transcribed directly from the computer using the simple play back option.