CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.4. Instruments
49
50 Pellerin (2012, p. 156), “the voices of Africana people must be the target of any study exploring Africana phenomenon”.
B) Related to the previous point, a semi-structured interview allows the interviewer to purposefully position herself as the uninformed, interested student of the participant (interviewee) (Babbie & Mouton, 2001; Schreiber, 2000). As questions are guided and used in context of what participants say, rather than imposed according to a pre-formulated structure, it becomes possible to position participants as experts and empower them (Pellerin, 2012;
Schreiber, 2000; Smith & Osborn, 2008). In this way, the instrument provides the researcher with the “opportunity to learn from the insights of the experts – research participants themselves” (Reid et al., 2005, p. 20).
C) In terms of the structured aspect of the interview, pre-planned questions or themes allow the interviewer to keep track of what has or has not been covered (Smith & Osborn, 2003; Burman, 1994). According to Witzel (2000), this is beneficial because coverage of the same or similar themes with different participants allows comparisons to be made thereby assisting the process of analysis. The structured questions are also able to assist both the interviewer and interviewee when either party feels „stuck‟ or unsure during the interview (Smith & Osborn, 2003; Burman, 1994; Witzel, 2000).
D) The combination of structure and flexibility is useful in questioning. While pre-formulated themes and questions assist in maintaining focus on the research phenomenon and important details of interest, (Burman, 1994; Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007), spontaneous probing questions are also permitted to engage in detailed exploration, and pre-formulated questions or themes can be reviewed, restructured, and/or redesigned in light of new information gained from each participant (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, as cited in Babbie & Mouton, 2001; Smith &
Osborn, 2008).
E) Lastly, although the interview process is fairly prescribed, it is a form of data collection that closely emulates normal human interaction, it can be conducted in the interviewee‟s own environment, and it permits freedom of self-expression (Burman, 1994; Kelly, 2006; Marshall &
Rossman, 1999).
These aforementioned features of the individual, semi-structured interview substantiate its suitability for qualitative data collection (Babbie & Mouton, 2001; Kelly, 2006). This instrument corresponds with the aims of the research as well as with the overall methodological approach and qualitative design (Kelly, 2006; Schreiber, 2000; Smith & Osborn, 2008). Accordingly, it was seen
51 to be the best option in collecting open, honest, and authentic knowledge from participants about their subjective experiences and perceptions of Ubuntu, while being flexible enough to cope with variations in participants‟ personal preferences in self-expression (Kelly, 2006; Schreiber, 2000;
Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007).
3.5.2. Interviewer and interviewees
Although the interview is a medium or tool of data collection, both the interviewer and interviewees are necessary and therefore instrumental to the data collection process. According to Smith and Osborn (2008), the interviewer is instrumental in ensuring that the interview yields good, in-depth information on the phenomenon under study. It was therefore the responsibility of the interviewer to carry out the interview in such a way that the positive aforementioned qualities of the semi- structured interview were realised, while also paying attention to, and observing, the context of the interview, interviewees‟ behaviours and other factors potentially influencing data collection.
However, the main aim was to create a space for, and encourage participants themselves to be the primary instruments of data collection, thereby allowing them to take an active and empowered role in the research process (Asante, 2007; Schreiber, 2000). Accordingly, it was necessary that participants largely directed the interview process (Smith & Osborn, 2008).
3.5.3. Weaknesses
Although an individual, semi-structured interview was a necessary and appropriate instrument for data collection according to the purpose of this research, for the sake of transparency, it is necessary to point out the inherent weaknesses of such an instrument. These are summarised below:
In qualitative research, naturalistic information is seen to be superior to controlled or artificially formalised information (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). Although the interview process mirrors a normal conversation between two people, it is not a natural situation but rather purposefully set-up according to the research intentions (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). This means that the information gained from participants will have been influenced by the interview situation and the interviewer herself. This presents a problem regarding accuracy of the information gained and therefore requires the interviewer to be acutely aware of this dynamic. In addition to the impact of the interview context on the data collected, Taylor and Bogdan (1984) contend that social interactional verbal data are vulnerable to distortions (both intentional and unintentional). Furthermore, participants may not always be able to express themselves accurately or may be unwilling to do so (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). However, according to Reid, Flowers and Larkin (2005), “IPA researchers are aware that interviews are not „neutral‟ means of data collection” (p. 22), but rather a collaborative process. So while information obtained from the interview process is taken as the idiosyncratic truth of each
52 participant, it is also recognised that this truth is complicated by various factors and therefore has to be interpreted judiciously and contextually (Smith & Osborn, 2008; Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). It is the researcher‟s responsibility to make the reader explicitly aware of the various factors that may have influenced participant self-expression, so that the information gained from the interview process is properly situated.
Lastly, a semi-structured interview permits spontaneous adaptations and/or probing questions based on each participant‟s personal account (Smith & Osborn, 2008). While this is an advantage, according to Babbie & Mouton (2001), unplanned questions formulated during the interview may also be unintentionally biased or leading. In trying to gain further information from a participant, the interviewer may inadvertently point out her views and therefore influence the response. The interviewer should take care to avoid this; however, if there are incidents of leading, these should be noted during transcription and interpretation.
In summary, it is evident that while the individual, semi-structured interview is the most suitable research instrument for data collection in this study on the experience of Ubuntu, it is necessary to be aware of the limitations of this instrument in the endeavour to obtain accurate and authentic information.