4.4. Data Generation Methods
4.4.2. Interviews
76
The researcher should encourage the participants to fill in the questionnaire in an honest manner as this would benefit the society in future.
Among many of the disadvantages associated with the use of questionnaires as a research instrument were that they suffocate and restrict participants to dictated areas. Thus, Best and Kahn (1993) were quick to advise that questions should be pre-tested to avoid ambiguities which could lead to some questions being answered incorrectly. It might be also very difficult to authenticate the information given by participants in the sense that some participants would delegate their secretaries, children or spouses to respond on their behalf. Despite these shortcomings, the questionnaire remained a crucial instrument in this study in generating people’s experiences and perspectives on the role of public education on addressing corruption.
77
same order, (Corbetta, 2003). In structured interviews the interviewer would not be allowed to deviate in any way from the question provided. Collins et al (2000) argue that the purpose for not deviating from the questions was simply that the interviewees’ responses would be aggregated while the format made it easier to analyze, code and compare data.
Unstructured interviews were directly opposite of the structured ones. They usually take the form of a conversation where the interviewer had no predetermined questions, (Keyston, 2001). Each interview could be different from the other and the technique seems to be more useful when little or no knowledge is available on a topic giving opportunities for flexibility during the data collection process.
Researchers were therefore advised that this technique presented difficulties during coding and data analysis. Finally, semi-structured interviews were midway in between the extremes of structured and unstructured interviews. Corbetta, (2003) argues that semi-structured interviews allowed the researcher / interviewer to have a list of key themes, issues and questions to be asked. The idea is supported by David and Sutton, (2004) who point out that having key themes and sub-questions in advance equipped the researcher with a sense of order when he / she interacts with the interviewee at any one point in time. Semi-structured interviews also allowed the interviewer to change the order of questions as dictated by the direction in which the interview could be going and there may be no need for strictly adhering to the interview guide since additional questions can be included too. Thus, a researcher can exploit the best of semi-structured interviews by probing deeper into given situations, explain or rephrase the questions if participants are not clear about them, (Magwa and Magwa, 2015). In this study, the researcher found comfort in using semi-structured interviews because corruption was relatively a new concept in academic circles although very old in its practice and occurrence. Corruption was becoming widespread although very few would want to talk about it openly.
Therefore, I decided to instill confidence in the participants by reducing the interview to common talk in which they could laugh at, question and give their own opinions.
Interviews are regarded as probably the commonest way of gathering qualitative data which practically is a conversation between the researcher and participant, (Edwards and Holland, 2013). Mothata, (2000) goes further to say that effective
78
interviews are those that subject participants to free conditions where they discuss issues with ease. I conducted individual face-to-face interviews with thirty (30) participants broken down as follows; ten (10) participants from each of the three economic sectors, (civil servants, parastatals and civil society). I budgeted to spend thirty minutes with each interviewee and the interview process also involved video recording of the participants which was only done after securing their consent.
Advantages of interviews
Interviews were known to be very effective in probing the participants especially when seeking clarity on certain points during the interview. Cohen and Manion, (1994) content that interviews could be matched to individuals and the prevailing circumstances. This explains that the participants’ level of education or lack of motivation could easily be dealt with by making the questions simpler and even enjoyable. Interviews permitted the researcher to pick on pertinent non-verbal responses and the general reaction by the participants which could be an icing on the verbal data, (Magwa and Magwa, 2015). Such information was quite relevant especially when assessing the attitudes of participants as it would show how deeply they were affected by issues surrounding corruption. Corbetta (2003), believes that interviews were very important in establishing a rapport and personal relationship with the interviewees. This tends to mean that should a researcher wish to get the best contributions from the participants he /she should create an enabling environment on which they could also reason freely with the researcher in a non- threatening atmosphere. Interviews therefore, could also be accredited for their ability to foster high response rate and that the responses were quite immediate as opposed to other data generating methods like questionnaires. Finally, interviews had the advantage that no level of literacy was prescribed and as long as the participant could hear and was able to sustain the dialogue, I would be assured to get the information, I required.
Disadvantages of interviews
Although interviews have the advantages spelt out above, they also have a flip side which stand as disadvantages. It was a fact that interviews usually suffered from interviewer bias, (Gray, 2004). This implies that an interviewer could have a biased opinion towards an interviewee which could be based on demographic, race, gender,
79
age, social status, political affiliation, religious or others issues, (Collins and Hussey, (2013). Seniwoliba and Boahene, (2015) state that in their study there was a mistaken belief that black people were more corrupt than whites. The Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission Mini Survey 2010 report argues that the whites on their own seemed to be alleging that blacks were good at poor corporate governance and stealing. Therefore, it was imperative for me to guard against such bias during data collection and level the ground for equal participation by all participants.
According to Gray, (2004) interviews were a very expensive and time-consuming data collecting technique. This was largely true if the interview happened to be personal and especially if the interviewer needed to visit each and every participant in the sample. There was need for transport and food for the researcher and his team until the exercise was complete. In research it is known that even if the interviewer places an appointment with a participant it could be possible to find the participant either having gone out on his / her errands or would be in meetings that would go beyond working hours. Time would be lost and at the same time the interviewer might have to come back on another day for the same participant.
Another debilitating issue could be the flexibility in conducting interviews. There is likelihood of having inconsistencies from one interviewer to another, (Gray, 2004).
These inconsistencies have high chances of reducing the credibility of generated data as the questions continue to be varied. To some extent, inexperienced researchers might end up compromising the validity and reliability of the instruments.
This study made sure that the flexibility aspect never translated itself into devaluing the instruments. Some participants might feel very uneasy to the extent of adopting avoidance tactics, (Cohen and Manion, 1994). This usually happen when dealing with sensitive topics like corruption, human sexuality and health issues in which some people might want to tread with extra care. My study took a focus on issues surrounding corruption which constituted some of the most sensitive issues in the contemporary society today. I did not find it easy to build rapport and mutual trust with my interviewees as I observed that almost all of them treated me with some level of suspicion. However, I strongly believed that the assurances that I gave to them worked to the advantage of my study. Finally, one of the disadvantages of interviews lies in the fact that the volume of data gathered might be too large such
80
that it pauses some problems in transcribing and reducing the data to levels that are manageable.