CHAPTER ONE: ORIENTATION AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
4.9 Methods of data collection
4.9.2 Data collection methods process
4.9.2.1 Interviews
An interview is a systematic way of talking and listening to people (http://www.who.int) and it is also another means of collecting data from individuals through conversations. The researcher or the interviewer often uses open-ended questions. Data is collected from the interviewee. The interviewee or respondent generates the primary data for the study. Interviewing is a way of collecting data as well as a means of gaining knowledge from individuals. Maree (2007) explains that interviews allow the researcher to see the world through the eyes of the participants.
Interviews help participants to be more involved by expressing their opinions. Furthermore, the interviewees are able to discuss their perception and interpretation in regards to their academic intervention experiences. That is, their subjective views.
Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000: 267) state that “… an interview is not simply concerned with collecting data about life: it is part of life itself and its human rootedness is inescapable.”
The qualitative research interview seeks to describe the meanings of central themes through the lived experience of the participant. The key task in interviewing is to recognize the sense of what the interviewees say. Neuman (2006) believes that interviews allow the researcher to talk
72
72
naturally with participants. This gave the participants in this study an opportunity to freely express their feelings, concerns and aspirations.
In-depth interview
The twelve selected participants were interviewed over a period of 3 months. I communicated telephonically with the participants to arrange appointments. It was a challenge to get convenient time because the students were attending lectures. All participants were however, willing to take part. I was not worried about my position (wearing two hats) because of the experience from the pilot study. Participants were relaxed and understood that they were interviewed purposes, I gave them a letter that explained the nature of my study, contact details of my supervisor, confidentiality and that if they did not want to participate they were free to decline. All were happy to participate and the interview was voice recorded. After the interview the participants were advised to see the campus- based student counsellor because the interview was based on their experiences of unsatisfactory performance. Past experiences give rise to lots of psychological issues hence counselling is necessary for healing purposes.
In this study, interview was the basic mode of inquiry and data-collection method in relation to academic intervention experiences of ‘at risk’ students. Interviews were face-to-face interactions, which were used to solicit information through interaction between myself and the respondent. I used a tape recorder because, according to Opie (2004) recording of the interviews makes it possible to get details and a more accurate record than note taking and it facilitates the interview process by allowing both the interviewer and interviewee to communicate more freely.
For this study, I used a semi-structured interview schedule. This semi-structured technique allowed me to uncover almost every detail pertaining to at-risk students’ experiences and it helped me to listen to their personal stories. Interviews enable participants to discuss their interpretations of the world in which they live, and to express how they regard situations from their own point of view. In this sense, “the interview is not simply concerned with collecting data about life; it is part of life itself and its human embeddedness is inescapable” (Cohen et al., 2000:265).
73
I probed further if the answers given by the respondent were not very clear. According to Cohen et al (2007), interviews increase the chance of obtaining valid information from the participants.
Maree (2007) also agrees that semi-structured interviews allow for probing and clarification of answers. Interviews are comprehensive and adaptable and can be designed to address a very wide range of outcomes. Interviews range from highly- structured activities with predetermined questions and response categories to open-ended, in-depth conversations with minimal steering from the interviewer. While structured interviews will yield quantitative data, open-ended interviews require a more qualitative, descriptive approach. What qualitative analyses lack in statistical rigor, they can make up for by telling details that can provide insight and lead to improvement.
Strength of interview instrument
The interview allows room for the researcher to probe further if the answer given by the respondent is not clear.The researcher can explain or rephrase the questions if respondents are unclear about the questions. I chose to use in-depth interviews because they worked well with the qualitative paradigm and are usually used for studying multifaceted and sensitive areas as the interviewer has the opportunity to prepare a respondent well before asking questions (Wellington, 2004). According to Cohen et al., (2007), interviews increase the chance of obtaining valid information from the participants. If well conducted, interviews provide in-depth data and they solicit more information without confining respondents to particular themes. They can equally assist the researcher to minimize bias because the researcher has to have aims and questions in mind and this helps in shaping the questions posed and the direction in which the discussion runs (Kumar, 2005).
Weaknesses of interview instrument
Interviews can be challenging to administer. Since useful results depend on the interviewer’s expertise, training is required. I have experience in conducting interviews as I have worked as a research assistant before. To avoid delays and disappointments, participants must be contacted;
74
74
they must agree to participate and appear for the interview, and, finally, the interview itself may take considerable time. Students were contacted and interviews were conducted during their non- contact periods when students were free to come for an interview. One of the major disadvantages of an interview is that the interviewers can be biased and interpret responses in the way that suit them (Kumar 2005). I avoided loaded questions when probing and was consistently objective towards the responses. I resisted providing particular frames of reference for the respondent’s answers. I sustained neutrality by encouraging expression, but not helping constructing responses. I also ensured that the results of the research were recorded accurately to avoid bias.