List of Tables
Chapter 5: Research Design and Methods
5.5.1 Interviews
According to Richie (2003:36), interviews are the most used method in qualitative research. They offer the researcher an opportunity to conduct a “detailed investigation of people’s personal perspectives and gain in- depth understanding of the personal context within which the research subject is located, and provide very detailed coverage of the research topic”. Yin (2009:106) contends that, “interviews are one of the most important sources of case study information”. The author regards interviews as guided conversations rather than structured queries. However, Yin (2009:106) points out that a case study requires the researcher to operate on two levels at the same time: satisfying the needs of one’s line of inquiry while simultaneously posing ‘friendly’ and ‘nonthreatening’ questions in one’s open-ended interviews.
5-140
In in-depth interviews the researcher asks key respondents about the facts of a matter as well as their opinions about events (Yin, 2009:107). Yin (2009:107) further notes that in this type of interview “you may even ask the interviewee to propose her or his own insight into certain occurrences and may use such propositions as the basis for further inquiry”. Legard, Keegan and Ward (2003:129) likewise observe that in- depth interviews are one of the main methods of data collection in qualitative research. In-depth interviews combine structure with flexibility to provide the researcher with an opportunity to have some sense of the themes they want to explore. An “in-depth interview allows the researcher to fully explore all the factors that underpin participants’ answers: reasons, feelings, opinions, and beliefs” (Legard et al, 2003:141). It is interactive and “generative in the sense that new knowledge or thoughts are likely to be created at some stage of the research study” (Legard et al, 2003:142). The in-depth interviews with the CBPs enabled the researcher to obtain evidence on the process and procedures of CRJ applied at their CAOs. Follow-up telephonic interviews were conducted with each paralegal, to establish similarities and differences in the process and procedures of CRJ in dealing with cases of domestic violence.
According to Yin (2009:107) in-depth interviews may take place over an extended period of time rather than in a single sitting. The second type of interview “is a focused interview, in which a person is interviewed for a short period of time, for example, an hour. While such interviews may remain open-ended and assume a conversional manner, one is more likely to follow a set of questions derived from the case study protocol”.
There are three methods of interviewing: structured, unstructured and semi-structured. Structured interviews use prepared questions (Hancock et al, 2007:16) that are posed “to each interviewee in an identical manner using a strictly predetermined order”. In contrast, unstructured interviews are like a free flowing conversation. “Semi-structured interviews involve a number of open-ended questions based on the topic areas the researcher wants to cover”. Hancock et al (2007:16) note that semi-structured interviews assist
“both the interviewer and the interviewee to discuss the topic in more detail. The interviewer also has the freedom to probe the interviewee to elaborate on an original response or to follow a line of inquiry introduced by the interviewee”.
Preparations for semi-structured interviews include drawing up a questionnaire as a guide. This is not done to restrict the researcher; rather, according to Hancock et al (2007:16), the interview needs to be conducted with sensitivity and be sufficiently flexible to allow follow up of points of interest with the interviewee. The process includes the researcher administering an informed consent form before the interview in order to ensure that participation is voluntary. The researcher also has to seek permission to use a voice recorder.
Hancock et al (2007:16) further state that during interviews, “participants provide the researcher with
5-141
information through verbal interchange. Non-verbal behaviours and the interview context are noted by the researcher and become part of the data”.
The researcher travelled to each CAO to conduct interviews with the paralegals and focus group participants.
The interviews and focus groups were conducted on the same day. The interviews with the paralegals took place in the morning, and the focus groups took place from 11h00 to 15h00. This study focuses on CBPs’
experiences of working with victims of domestic violence and their application of CRJ to such cases. Field research was conducted through face-to-face interviews with paralegals to obtain their views on their work and their opinions on the usefulness and appropriateness of restorative justice approaches in cases of domestic violence. Seven CBPs were interviewed: two from New Hanover, two from Bulwer, two from Ixopo and one from Madadeni. The paralegals are an important individual unit of analysis as they hold knowledge on how rural women access justice in cases of domestic violence.
The interviews gathered information on the following:
Community-based paralegals’ views on access to justice; why it is important; barriers in accessing justice, especially for victims of domestic violence; the ways that access to justice could be improved; and their role in promoting access to justice in the rural areas of KZN.
Community-based paralegals’ views on their work, the constraints they experience, and the value and benefits of their work in rural communities.
Community-based paralegals’ role in CRJ, whether they use the restorative justice approach in domestic violence cases, what process of restorative justice they are involved in, and their views on why rural women choose restorative justice over the criminal justice system.
This approach allowed for cross-case comparison of the experiences and perceptions of different paralegal participants. Yin (2009:108) observes that interviews are an essential source of case study evidence “because most cases are about human affairs or behavioural events”. Yin (2009:109) notes that “interview responses are also subject ‘to the common problem of bias’; to overcome this, the researcher should corroborate interview data with information from other sources”. The data collected during the interviews were corroborated by descriptive statistics from the CCJD’s case database. This enabled the researcher to compare the success of different methods of resolving similar problems and to consider how restorative justice approaches vary amongst the CBPs. The cross-case comparison is presented in chapter 10.
5-142
The field research was also conducted through focus groups to ascertain the views of victims of domestic violence, their experiences of restorative justice processes, and their attitudes towards the justice system.