Chapter 3: Research methods and design
3.3 Research design
3.3.2 Data collection methods
3.3.2.1 Interviews
The aim of the interviews in this study was “to capture the participant‟s language including any references or appeals to other discourses” (Starks & Trinidad, 2007, p.1375). Observing speech gives insight into how participants use language to achieve their objectives and to position themselves relative to others. In this study, the most substantive data was gathered via semi- structured interviews which were audio recorded (so as to enable the capturing of participants‟
language-in-use). Audio recording allowed the interviews to be converted to transcripts; these then became written texts that could be subject to analysis using LCT and CDA. Semi-structured interviews are common in qualitative research, as the interviewer may need to ask clarifying questions because it cannot be assumed that the researcher and participant use words in the same way (Starks & Trinidad, 2007).
Garton and Copland (2010) explore the effect of prior relationships on educational research interviews. They define „acquaintance interviews‟ as interviews whose participants “have prior relationships which have evolved through contexts other than research” (Garton & Copland, 2010, p536). For example, they may be friends and/or colleagues. While this prior relationship may help in developing rapport and facilitating access to resources, it also poses difficulties in that the participants may struggle to reconcile diverse identities. Relationships such as those
56 These names are pseudonyms. See Appendix C for short biographical sketches of the lecturers.
between friends and colleagues are often based on symmetrical talk and participation structures that are quite different from the asymmetrical nature of research interviews. Thus the participants have to “negotiate their new identities as interviewer and interviewee”, something that appears to be more difficult for the interviewer (Garton & Copland, 2010, p.547).
In this study, as already established, I had prior relationships with the lecturers who participated in the study, who were my colleagues at work. I did indeed experience difficulty with my identity as interviewer during the lecturer interviews, especially when interviewing a colleague with whom I had become quite friendly. Our talk sometimes moved from „interview‟ to „chat‟, something of which I was quite conscious. Transitioning back from „chat‟ to „interview‟ thus sometimes happened quite abruptly and awkwardly. By contrast, with the exception of two students whom I had taught the previous year, I had no prior relationship with any of the student participants. This may account for why I did not experience similar tensions in terms of trying to reconcile my interviewer identity with other identities during the student interviews. Additionally, as a lecturer interviewing students, the power relation involved in „researching down‟ may have come into play with the students, whereas with the lecturers I was „researching across‟.
From the participants‟ perspective, in interviews “what is said is inextricably tied to where it is said, how it is said and, importantly, to whom it is said” (Garton & Copland, 2010, p.533). There are typically power asymmetries in any interview situation because the researcher generally controls the topic, conduct and trajectory of the interview (Kvale, in Cohen et al, 2000). However it may be argued that in a situation where a lecturer is involved in interviewing students, such issues warrant greater consideration. In subsequent sections, measures that were taken in this regard in the study are outlined.
3.3.2.1.1. Instruments Interview schedules 57
The questions included in the two interview schedules (one for the student interviews and one for the lecturer interviews) were based on my reading of the literature, including other doctoral studies that have been conducted into academic literacy (primarily McKenna, 2004a, and Thomson, 2008). The interview schedules used by these researchers proved very useful indeed.
My own experiences as a lecturer in the South African higher education context and specifically in the Marketing discipline, as outlined in Chapter 1, also guided the development and selection of the final questions.
57 See Appendices D and E for the interview schedules for students and lecturers respectively.
An interview schedule in a semi-structured interview is “sufficiently open-ended to enable the contents to be re-ordered, digressions and expansions made, new avenues to be included, and further probing to be undertaken” (Cohen et al, 2000, p146). In line with the semi-structured nature of the interviews in this study, I used the interview schedules more as a guide or memory prompt, rather than viewing them as a list of questions that had to be covered strictly in order and in the same order in every interview. I tried to put the participants at ease and have the interview unfold as a conversation. During the course of the conversation, many of the questions were addressed without my having explicitly to ask them. I referred to the schedules, mainly towards the end of the interviews, only to check that all topics of interest had been covered and that I had not forgotten anything. This helped to maintain rapport and the flow of the interview. In addition, asking open questions and approaching the interview as a conversation where my role was primarily „listener‟ instead of „talker‟ represented a shift away from “the conventional teacher- dominated talking space” (Lillis, 2001, p.9) and thus was a step towards addressing the power asymmetries typically inherent in interviews (Cohen et al, 2000).
Stimulus piece 58
Because „academic literacy‟ is not an easy concept to define or understand, I decided to use a stimulus piece to lead into some of the relevant issues (McKenna, 2004a). The stimulus piece was a short (one-page) document containing a question and two responses. Participants would be asked to comment on which of the responses they felt was better and why.
The question was based on an actual test question that had been set for the level two Introduction to Marketing module in a previous year. I adapted the question that had been set by the lecturer slightly for brevity. The original question had asked students to include all four categories of consumer products in their response, whereas the adapted question asked for just one category.
Response A was a summary that I made of the relevant section of the prescribed textbook for the level two module. I did this because, while looking through the scripts in order to select those upon which to base the stimulus piece responses, it was apparent to me from the similarity of the responses that many students had simply based their answers on material drawn directly from the textbook. Response B was a composite response that I created by blending three actual student responses to the question. While Response B is not as „polished‟ as Response A in terms of grammatical accuracy, the meaning is still clear. In addition, Response B does begin to explore appropriate marketing strategies (such as distribution and pricing) for the specified product category (which Response A does not do), and which the first line of the question seems to
58 See Appendix F.
indicate should be included. I added the last six words of Response B to make the link to strategy stronger.
3.3.2.1.2. Pilot interview
In order to help me identify aspects related to the instruments and my interview technique that might require refining, I conducted a pilot interview before proceeding with the rest of the interviews. Given the focus of the study on discipline-based academic literacies, I felt that it was important to do the pilot interview with somebody from within the Marketing discipline. I thus selected somebody who had been involved in teaching an undergraduate Marketing module for a number of years. However, this person was not involved in teaching any of the level three Marketing modules in 2010, and thus would not form part of the final lecturer sample.
The pilot interview was a very useful exercise for two main reasons. First, it was important in helping me to develop my interviewing and transcribing skills. This was crucial because prior to this study I had had very limited experience in conducting interviews and no experience at all in recording and transcribing interviews. The pilot interview thus provided me with a „safe‟
opportunity to test my interview technique and to become familiar with the recording equipment and the transcription process. Listening to the audio recording of the interview, reading the transcript and discussing the experience with my supervisor after the pilot interview helped me to identify aspects of my interview technique and style that needed revising. For instance, I realised that I needed to probe for concrete examples and specific instances much more, in order to enable better insight into students‟ experiences of educational practices in Marketing at UKZN.
Transcribing the pilot interview also reinforced my decision to do the transcriptions myself rather than hiring a transcriber, as I found that I enjoyed the process of working with and becoming familiar with the data, despite the time and effort involved. Second, the pilot interview provided me with some feedback about the potential usefulness of the instruments (the interview schedule and stimulus piece) in helping to address the research questions. Based on the pilot interview experience, I made minor modifications to the order and structure of a few of the questions.
3.3.2.1.3. Student interviews
The interviews with students took place during the first semester of 2010. I preferred to do the interviews in my office because a quiet location was necessary to obtain clear audio recordings. I also thought that the privacy of my office might encourage students to respond more openly. In addition, my office would be easy for students to access. I acknowledge that the choice of my office as the interview site may not have been desirable from the point of view of power asymmetries; however, given that I was a lecturer interviewing students, this might have been an issue whatever the location was. Nevertheless, while I did suggest that my office be used as the
interview venue, I also offered students the option of the interview taking place elsewhere should that be more convenient for them. All of the students, however, indicated that they would be happy to meet in my office.
Before each interview commenced, students were given a copy of the informed consent letter to read and were encouraged to raise any questions or concerns they may have had regarding the interview or the study more broadly.59 Because the recording of the interview was crucial for this study, I ensured that I raised this issue with each student, to confirm that they would be comfortable with being taped. I let them know how the recordings would be used and by whom and that they would not be identified by name in the transcripts. I also reassured students that they would not be prejudiced in any way by their responses, that there were no „right‟ or „wrong‟
answers and that their specific perceptions and experiences of the teaching and learning in the discipline of Marketing were of great value and were important to the study.
Once students had signed the informed consent document, I began recording. Each interview began with some general background information on the student, before proceeding to a discussion of the stimulus piece and then to a discussion of teaching and learning in Marketing more generally.
3.3.2.1.4. Lecturer interviews
The interviews with lecturers took place during the mid-year break and in the second semester of 2010. One of the interviews took place in my office and the other two in the offices of the participants. The process followed was largely the same as for the student interviews. However, I was also able to raise issues that the students had brought up during their interviews.
The interviews with students and lecturers resulted in a total of just under ten hours of recorded data, with an average interview length of 46 minutes.