The interview process in Malaysia

The first step in the interview process in Malaysia was to gain formal access to the site by gaining approval from the host agency, SPAD. The initial correspondence was made via email, and the host agency was happy to participate as well as to extend any additional support that was required for the research. The next step was to identify the potential respondents based on their experience and knowledge about the research problem, with the main aim being to engage individuals who could shine light on a variety of issues (Rubin and Rubin, 2005).

In the SPAD case study, most of the key civil servants and transport experts were known to the researcher due to her previous employment with the civil

service. Therefore, to minimise researcher bias and to increase the validity of the information obtained, the potential participants identified were not only civil servants, but also ex-civil servants, private sector workers, academics, members of transport associations and NGOs. It was easier to get appointments with civil servants, however, as most of them responded positively after initial contact was made via email. There was no need for a

‘gate keeper’ here, or approval from heads of departments. Respondents outside the civil service were introduced to the researcher through a snowballing process.

The field work in Malaysia was conducted in the second and third week of June 2011, and between mid-August and mid-November 2011. The researcher aimed to recruit heads of departments as participants in the first place, as they are directly involved in the decision-making process. In cases where the head of department was unable to allocate time within the time period of the field work, and another respondent was proposed as a substitute, a quick background check was done to identify the suitability of the proposed respondent. A total of twenty-eight interviews were conducted, comprising five unrecorded interviews in which the participants felt uncomfortable with audio recording, but in which notes were taken. Out of the twenty-three recorded interviews, three were conducted in the Malay language, as per the request of the respondents. Two out of the five unrecorded interview were conducted much later, in August 2012, when the researcher went back home for personal reasons, and this data was also included in the analysis. Table 4.2 shows the category of respondents and the months of the interviews.

Table 4.2: Interview schedule for SPAD case study

No Participants Codes Interview period

1. Head of Department – government official/board member of SPAD

G14 June 2011

2. Head of section – MOT, government G5 June 2011

3. Ex-civil servant/political advisor/ex-INSPAK G3 June 2011

4. Senior civil servant G4 June 2011

5. Head of planning – operator/ex-INSPAK O1 August 2011

6. Legal advisor – government official G13 August 2011

7. Head of section – government official/ ex-DOR G8 August 2011 8. Head of department – local authority G2 August 2011 9. Chief Executive Officer – operator 2 O3 September 2011 10. Head of section-government official/ex-CVLB G9 September 2011

11. Ex-civil servant G18 September 2011

12. Politician 2 P2 October 2011

13. Senior government official – MOT G6 October 2011

14. Chief Executive Officer- operator 1/ex-SPAD O2 October 2011

15. Head of planning and research section – government official

G17 October 2011

16. PEMANDU G20 October 2011

17. Head of department – government official G10 October 2011

18. Senior government official – MOT G7 October 2011

19. President, operator O5 November 2011

20. Senior government official –board member of

SPAD G1 September and November

2011

21. Head of section – government G12 November 2011

22. Deputy Director General – local authority G19 November 2011

23. Head of section – Government G16 November 2011

24. President, Transport Association O4 November 2011

25. Politician 1 P1 November 2011

26. Legal advisor – government G11 August 2012

27. Head of section – government/ex-ADB G15 August 2012 G – Government officials, P- Politicians, O - Operators

Telephone calls were used for recruiting respondents for interviews during the field work phase. The respondents that agreed to an interview were sent an introductory email with an information sheet attached that briefly explained the purpose, aims and content of the research. When potential participants requested to see the interview questions, they were emailed to them along with the information sheet and the consent form. Such requests were more usual among the elite respondents such as the heads of departments and politicians.

After the first two interviews, the researcher realised that a ‘one size fits all’

list of interview questions was not ideal, and targeted interview questions were drafted for different respondents based on the interview guide prepared earlier. This was because each respondent was unique in the sense that they had different knowledge and experiences, and were involved in different events or stages of the process under study. According to Rubin and Rubin (2005:37), “if the interview questions stay close to what the interviewees know and are willing to talk about, the resulting report will be fresh and credible”. However, some ‘core’ questions were retained in every set of interview questions in order to capture different views about important themes and areas, as well as to check for accuracy and consistency (Rubin and Rubin, 2005).

Initially, it was planned that all interviews would be performed on a one-to-one basis. However, some respondents requested that an additional person sat in, usually his/her assistant or deputy, and this was agreed to. Four out of the twenty-three recorded interviews had two respondents present. In some cases, the presence of an additional person was found to be fruitful, especially when it came to confirming the details of events. There was no major disruption in having an additional person, because all the interview questions were directed towards the main respondent, and as a deputy or assistant they only talked when asked to contribute by the main respondent.

Interviews with unknown respondents were started with discussions about the respondent’s work history, job responsibilities and educational background, and this was found to provide useful information as well as to be a good ice-breaker.

At the start of each interview, the researcher provided a brief explanation about the research and the consent form. All the respondents signed the consent form, but some were reluctant for the interviews to be recorded.

Although the researcher explained to them that all information discussed would be kept confidential and used solely for academic purposes, some of these respondents relayed negative past experiences, especially with the media, where their statements had been manipulated. In such cases, notes were taken as a record of the interview, and an interview memo was prepared on the same day to capture important details.

Where the respondents consented, interviews were recorded using a digital recorder. As most of the respondents in the SPAD case study were senior civil servants, the interviews were conducted in their rooms, which were comfortable, with minimum background noise. Although the interviews were

recorded, the researcher also took notes during the interviews, and wrote down the follow-up questions. According to (Blaxter et al., 2006), although note-taking can be distracting, it can suggest to interviewees that what they are saying is important, and can act as backup in the event that the recorder fails.

Recording made some respondents anxious, and the researcher noticed that they were uncomfortable revealing confidential information. In these situations, after the interview session had ended and the recorder had been switched off, some of the questions were repeated for verification purposes, and notes taken where the answers differed. These respondents were observed to be more relaxed when they were not being recorded. They provided more detailed explanations under these conditions, with some of these interviews running on longer than the formal recorded interview sessions. The respondents were informed that the information provided would be used for the purposes of the research, and they did not seem to mind. When dealing with sensitive issues, it was realised that the respondents were likely to open up when it was indicated that some parts of the information were known to the researcher already (Adler and Adler 2003). This was found to help in easing respondents’ reluctance to discuss certain issues, and care was taken to avoid pushing the respondents too much and to provide them with assurances that the information provided would remain confidential.

The researcher interviewed different people in order to produce multiple perspectives and, interestingly, people on one side of the argument suggested what to ask the other side. This increases the credibility of answers provided by the interviewees, because they know that the researcher will be obtaining information from all sides (Rubin and Rubin, 2005). Data-gathering was ended when different points of views had been captured, and when no new information was being obtained from new respondents (Patton, 1990).

Interviews were conducted via email for respondents that the researcher could not meet in person. One of the respondents was located in Canada, and the other was a very senior civil servant who was on a business trip overseas for the period of the field work. When the emails were sent out, it was clearly mentioned that the communication via email was confidential and that all information and responses would only be used for the purpose of this study. The advantage of email interviews are that they provide extended access to participants, do not require any travelling expenses, and

give respondents time to reflect on the questions (Raymond, 2006). The disadvantages include delays, long waiting times and the absence of social cues (ibid). Another problem encountered in this research was that one email that was sent was not read by the intended recipient, who was a very senior civil servant. Instead, it was read and responded to by his special officer, who handles all the formal emails. Although the email explicitly mentioned that all correspondence between the researcher and the participant would be confidential, the special officer sent out the interview questions to the relevant agencies for feedback. When the response was returned via e-mail three weeks later, the email included the information that the senior civil servant did not have the time to look at the responses provided by the agencies. The information received in the email was interesting, as although the heads of departments had clearly indicated their dissatisfaction and disputes with each other when interviewed face-to-face, the responses received via email suggested that they worked collaboratively with each other without issue.

Email interviews were also used after returning to the United Kingdom from field work as telephone interviews would have been too costly with international respondents. These were mainly used to seek clarification from particular respondents on issues discussed during the interviews or to ask for information about specific government procedures from the agencies.