Chapter 4: Conduct of the Study
4.5 Data collection
In the original research proposal it was planned that the data would be collected using either non-standardised schedule interviews with key staff, or where such staff were unavailable for interview, to administer a questionnaire.
This was consistent with the notion, introduced in Chapter 3, that an interview could be considered as being an oral questionnaire. The actual process of
designing the questionnaire and interview schedule unfolded in a situation where it was impossible to anticipate in advance how, with whom and in what context within the selected universities the data would ultimately be gathered.
Thus, the decision to develop the instrument for data collection in such a way that the same instrument could either be applied as a non-standardised interview schedule or as a questionnaire was taken. In conducting the study the ability to apply the same instrument in two different ways allowed for flexibility in the data collection and for the researcher to respond quickly to different circumstances.
The purpose behind the design of the instrument for data collection was to tease out the critical issues for deeper inquiry from the broad overarching questions that framed the research. In other words to progress from the more abstract to concrete questions. The insight into issues relating to concepts, policy and practice, which had been gained from the initial literature search, played a vital role in this process, which is described in more detail below.
Questionnaire and interview schedule
In terms of the process of development the broad research questions were first unpacked into core themes by using the findings from the preliminary literature search. In the next phase the core themes were further analysed to generate focussed questions which sought more detailed or specific information. In this process there was a necessity for an element of selectivity to attempt to keep the study manageable, thus seven core themes were identified. The broad research questions were as follows:
How is modularisation conceptualised in England and Scotland?
What are the salient features of an ideal modular programme?
What are the implications for policy development?
What is the most effective process for the development of modular courses?
The seven core themes became:
The conceptualisation of modularisation The nature of the process
The role and composition of the Programme/Course Team The impact of local and national developments
The impact of modularisation on students
The opinion (of the respondent) of modularisation
The most important piece of advice for M L Sultan Technikon
The next stage in the design of the interview schedule was to intensify the focus in each core theme by posing more specific questions. It was critical at this point to be mindful of the intended approach to the study, and that through adopting a qualitative approach an abundance of personal data was being sought. Such a qualitative approach militated for the style of the schedule to be semi-structured and based on open-ended questions. In general, a highly structured, closed-question (dichotomous, multiple choice and rating scale) format seeks to 'prescribe the range of responses from which the respondent may choose' (Cohen et aI, 2000: 248). In contrast, a semi-structured, open question format enables respondents to write a free response, to explain, and to qualify their responses without being restricted by pre-set categories which presuppose the nature of the response. Thus, in terms of 'fitness for purpose' (Cohen et aI, 2000) the interview schedule was designed in a semi-structured open question style (non-standardised schedule). For each of the core themes one or more questions were developed. For example, the theme of 'the conceptualisation of modularisation' was explored with the following questions, which sought to reveal multiple interpretations of the concept:
How would you define modularisation?
Do you think that any of your colleagues in the department see it differently?
Has your understanding of modularisation shifted over time and if so, how has it changed?
Is what you have described the way modularisation is understood by the University as a whole?
It was anticipated that the interviews would last between thirty to forty minutes, depending on the depth of the response offered. Having developed the interview schedule the next stage was to perform a 'pilot test' to minimise problems such as ambiguous questions or lack of clarity. Five academic staff from M L Sultan Technikon checked the schedule by reading it as a questionnaire and, on the basis of their constructive comments, relevant changes were made and the format of the instrument for data collection was finalised. On the printed copies of the schedule prepared for use as a questionnaire the possible probes were omitted (Appendix 3).
In a retrospective critique of the pilot test several issues can be raised. Firstly, the pilot would have been more meaningful if it had been conducted as an interview. The pilot failed to indicate that there was a problem with Question 6 where respondents were asked 'from your experience do you still support modularisation'. It was only when the schedule was used in the initial interview during the visit that it became apparent that this was a leading question that assumed the respondent had supported modularisation from the outset. This difficulty was overcome in subsequent interviews by rephrasing the question to make it neutral.
A 'preamble' to the interviews, which explained the background to the study and the use of the findings, was also developed (Appendix 2). It was planned that the interviews would be recorded using both audio-tapes and written notation on copies of the interview schedule. This would enable detailed transcriptions to be made for the data analysis phase. Thus, relevant portable recording equipment and tapes were secured and the planning stage was completed.
Conduct of the interviews and the modifications to the method
As a 'novice' in qualitative research the conduct of the interviews seemed at first quite daunting. The first four interviews, at Manchester Metropolitan University, were conducted strictly according to the interview schedule. Apart from probing for deeper understanding there was very little deviation from the prepared questions. As a consequence of the willingness of the respondents to share their ideas and opinions and the wealth of their experience each interview lasted more than one hour. On completion of this first visit the conduct of the interviews was reviewed and as a result the plan was revised to become more flexible. At the next four universities respondents were given the choice of either being interviewed according to the original plan, with the schedule, or of completing the schedule privately as a questionnaire and engaging in a more unstructured conversation. These conversations loosely followed the core themes but the respondents had the opportunity to elaborate on their experiences more freely. In two cases, because of time constraints on the respondents, unstructured conversation style interviews
were held with two people simultaneously. Thus whilst the plan had been for all the interviews to be conducted using the same schedule in practice the data was collected in three ways as indicated in Figure 4.1 below (extracted from Appendix 1 ).
Figure 4.1: A profile of the method(s) used to collect data from each of the respondents
INSTITUTION DATA COLLECTION
1 2 3
Manchester Metropolitan ./
University ./
./
./
Napier University ./
./
./ ./
./
University of the West of ./
England ./
./
University of ./ ./
Wolverhampton ./ ./
./ ./
X }./
./ }
University of Sunderland ./ ./
}./
}
X ./
KEY: 1 Questionnaire 2 Structured Interview 3 Unstructured Conversation (where}
indicates two respondents) X Nil return of questionnaire
Of the eight cases where the questionnaire was administered four were completed and returned immediately, two were posted to South Africa at a later date and two were not returned. Thus the total number of questionnaires completed was six.