4.4 The Interview Questions
4.4.1 The Need for a Pre-Questionnaire
One of the outcomes of the deliberations regarding the questions that underpinned the interviews for the study was the observation that many of the questions would invariably elicit a structured response that was essentially dichotomous in nature. These questions were aimed at eliciting a response from interviewees with regards to the value that was attached to the core set of agile methods that collectively formed the basis of agile methodology. These questions were classified by the reviewers as potentially routine and would best be administered using a survey-based approach. In order to streamline the interview process, a pre-questionnaire was devised to precede the interview.
The pre-questionnaire contained a series of Likert Scale type questions that served a dual purpose. The primary purpose of the pre-questionnaire was to obtain a structured response with regards to the value attached to each of the methods that frame the prominent agile methodologies such as XP and Scrum. The secondary purpose of the pre-questionnaire was to create a context for the interview session that was planned as a follow-up to the pre-questionnaire component of the engagement with the interviewees.
From a methodological perspective, the survey type pre-questionnaire is classified as quantitative in essence whilst the interview is qualitative. According
to Venkatesh et al. (2013), the use of diverse methods in IS research can only contribute towards a richer, deeper outcome to the research process. From a purist perspective, the current phase of the study makes use of a multimethod approach but has a predominant qualitative worldview. This approach is further elaborated in Venkatesh et al. (2013) as one that is pragmatic, embodying a belief that the
“…dictatorship of the research question” (p. 37) takes precedence over the imperative to conform exclusively to an existing methodological paradigm. Aligned to this theory of pragmatism, the primary objective of the pre-questionnaire was to obtain a quick and instinctive response to aspects of software development that have played a prominent role from a software development methodological perspective.
The secondary objective was to use the responses obtained in the pre- questionnaire as a catalyst for further discussion via the interviewing phase of the data collection exercise. The main aspects of software development methodology (discussed in the literature review) that comprised the pre-questionnaire were the following:
Waterfall methodology;
Iterative and incremental development;
The use of a Big Design Up Front (BDUF) strategy;
The importance of using analysis and design models such as DFDs, ERDs, structure charts, user stories, use case modelling, class and sequence diagrams;
The use of workflow visualisation tools such as Gant & Pert Charts as well as the Kanban Story Board;
The importance of XP techniques such as pair programming, test driven development, the availability of an on-site customer, continuous integration and code refactoring;
The importance of Scrum based techniques such as the product backlog, the concept of a sprint, daily scrum meetings, time boxing,
the maintenance of a sprint backlog, a sprint review meeting, sprint retrospective meetings and a burn-down chart.
The strategy used to elicit opinion on the software development methods, listed above, was to make use of a Likert scale design for the pre-questionnaire.
The surveying technique is a commonly used research strategy to obtain knowledge of attitude or opinion towards issues in the domain of software engineering (Pfleeger & Kitchenham, 2001). There are two main types of survey techniques. These are the commonly used unsupervised survey technique or the semi-supervised technique. In the semi-supervised version, the researcher engages with the respondents during their interaction with the survey instrument so that the researcher is able to provide an explanation of the rationale behind the questions asked and to provide a platform for the respondent to provide additional insight pertaining to the survey question.
In order to uphold the qualitative ethos of the data gathering exercise, the researcher opted for a semi-supervised approach for the pre-questionnaire that consisted of Likert Scale type questions. As Rowley (2014) points out, the distinction between questionnaires and interviews is a fuzzy one, because they are both question answering research instruments. Surveys are used when the researcher is trying to establish an overall pattern concerning a phenomenon about which there already exists sufficient knowledge. In the context of the current study, the questions included in the pre-questionnaire focused on routine aspects of software process models as well as agile software development techniques that have been in the domain of software engineering discourse for a substantial period.
The preceding discourse provided some insight into the contents of the questionnaire that will be used to guide the data collection process. However, a
‘disclaimer’ has to be added with regards to the reliance on the content of the questionnaire. According to Creswell (2012, p. 47), the research process for a qualitative study is “emergent and dynamic”. This indictment on the process provides the researcher with substantial flexibility to change questions according to the context of any specific instance of data collection. In accordance with this guiding suggestion, the current study adopted an ‘agile’ stance to the structure and
sequencing of the questions and adapted the questions according to the knowledge that was elicited from the interviewee. There were instances that necessitated the omission, addition and adaptation of the pre-planned questions so that the questionnaire provided a structure that enhanced the prospect of creating an enabling environment where the researcher is able to engage the interviewee in a conversational context. As Creswell suggests, the main idea is to learn about the problem by implementing strategies that enable seamless elicitation of information to enhance the richness of the engagement with the study’s respondents.