Chapter 4: Research methodology
4.13 Research instruments
4.13.2 Semi-structured interviews
A semi-structured interview follows a less structured path and allows the researcher to conduct exploratory discussions with the interviewee. Through the flexible line of questioning, the researcher is able to build rapport with the interviewee thereby obtaining rich empirical data that captures the dynamics of the organisation.
Semi-structured interviews provide the researcher the opportunity to respond to answers given, reword questions, and even ask different questions, thereby uncovering issues that may not have been anticipated before. According to Skritsovali (2015:77), semi-structured interviews are more open in character thus allowing for the introduction of fresh ideas to the subject under review.
Fontana and Frey (2000) argue that having direct conversations with the participants is the most straightforward method to comprehend the phenomenon. Interviews are unique in that they afford the researcher and the interviewee the opportunity to contribute to the formation of reality and comprehension (Rubin & Rubin, 2005:3). In addition, interviews may be recorded, if the participant is comfortable. This allows the interviewer the opportunity to use the recording to verify points that may have been made during the interview.
The downside of interviews is the fact that the flexibility offered by this process may introduce some personal bias from the researcher. In addition, probing may effectively direct the interviewee towards the researcher’s desired response. Furthermore, as Nyathi (2016:143) notes, bias may also manifest itself in the manner in which the interviewer construes answers or selects phrases to summarise the interviewee’s expressed opinion. This means that data quality is dependent on the expertise of the researcher and the nature of his interaction with the interviewee (Kumar, 2010:150).
Critics also note that interviews take a relatively long time to prepare, conduct, analyse and interpret.
In addition, setting up appointments to meet the interviews is often a challenge. The bureaucracy involved in setting up meetings with government officials and management of organisations is a cumbersome task. Hurdles such as gatekeepers, schedules, scepticism/mistrust and secretiveness all pose a challenge when setting up appointments. This may all have a bearing on the type of questions posed as well as the time allotted for the discussion thereby affecting the quantity and quality of data collected.
Baškarada (2013:12) also highlights that because the interviewee may be prejudiced or have poor memory articulation, it may be essential to substantiate any collected data from interviews with data from other reputable sources. To this end, the opinions of different organisational members may be collected, and validated with data from documentation such as newsletters, press releases, statutory instruments, articles and reports.
166 4.14 Interview process
An interview process is a brief guideline which dictates the way the interview will be conducted. Qu and Dumay (2011:241) state that the interview process is “an opportunity to explore the meaning of the research topic for the respondent and a site to be examined for the construction of a situated account”. It instructs the researcher on how to prepare for and conduct the interview, and according to Yin (2014:163), the researcher has two responsibilities during the process: to pursue a predetermined line of inquiry as defined by the case study protocol and to ask the series of questions objectively.
To begin with, all potential interviewees were contacted telephonically to request an interview. This request was followed up by an email with a letter of introduction and a permission letter from North- West University. Upon verbally agreeing to the interviews, a short summary of the research project and a list of questions were sent to participants to help them understand, plan and prepare for the meetings. This is a common technique among qualitative researchers who believe that it informs participants and provides context for the study. “Having the questions beforehand allows one to mull over the questions, pull out pertinent references, and in general, prepare much more well-rounded answers” (Anon., 2009).
Open-ended questions that revolve around the topic under observation were compiled and used.
Open-ended questions offer the interviewee the opportunity to provide more information around the topic than closed-ended questions. The aim is to solicit responses that would enlighten, inform and enrich the research.
During the interview, the researcher was responsible for expressing clearly what information was required, why that information was important as well as how the interview was progressing. The researcher intermittently asked probing questions to elicit more information especially when the interviewee presented an incomplete idea or spoke too briefly on a particular topic. Rubin and Rubin (2005) acknowledge that asking probing questions can elicit more detail thereby enriching the answers. For example, when the researcher felt that an illustration would enhance the interviewee's response, comments like "Could you please supply me with an example?" or "Could you please elaborate on the last point?" were used.
Although the interviews were scheduled for 60 minutes, they all went slightly over the allotted time as the participants were fully engaged and had much to say on the subject. Odendahl and Shaw (2002:309) state that while working with elite participants, it is vital for the researcher to make the most of the allocated time. With that in mind, the researcher made sure that all the questions were adequately answered, and that the interactions were cordial and congenial. The actual duration of the interviews varied from one to the next, however, participants were informed that they were free to end the session at any point.
167
Due to Covid pandemic related protocols, it was difficult to conduct interviews face-to-face. As such only those interviews that were conducted before 2020 (pre-Covid pandemic), that is, those with Government of Zimbabwe officials, were conducted at the interviewees’ offices. The rest of the interviews were conducted using Zoom and Microsoft Teams, video conferencing platforms which have become very useful during the pandemic. Lobe et al. (2020:6) highlight that video conferencing offers an invaluable opportunity to circumvent social distancing challenges while preserving data gathering activities. This convenience was helpful to both the researcher and the interviewees as it protected them from possible infection. This method of interviewing is, however, considered less personal and prone to technological challenges such as network and connectivity issues.
According to Sedgwick and Spiers (2009:3), although video conferencing is a professional tool that shares parallels with “in-person face-to-face interactions”, it reduces the researcher’s ability to observe visual cues, emotional remoteness and personal detachment. This may not be very important for formal research such as this, it does however, play a role in the socio-emotional connection between the researcher and interviewee which could lead to ambiguity and misunderstanding (Jowett et al., 2011:5). To circumvent this, the researcher needed to be attentive, to seek clarity and allow the interviewee to speak out when uncertain about questions.
Another limitation of video conferencing as tool is network instability and technical challenges as highlighted above. One such situation arose while conducting an interview with a participant in Zimbabwe. The participant’s responses were inaudible at some points during the interview due to network instability. This interview took slightly longer than the rest as both the researcher and the participant had to occasionally repeat themselves. This resolved the problem and allowed the interview to continue.
All interviews were audio recorded in order to be transcribed at a later stage. Permission for the audio recording of the interviews had been sought and received prior to the meetings. Furthermore, the researcher reiterated this request and received verbal consent at the beginning of each of these interviews. These audios were captured using the researcher's cellphone, which was the most cost- effective method and also allowed for convenient access and storage. The researcher also took notes to ensure that important points were captured as well as to flag key points along the audio recordings. In addition, Patton (2015:693) suggests that taking notes helps pace the interview by offering nonverbal indications about what is essential, as well as offering subtle clues to the interviewee about what information is particularly "noteworthy."
The researcher encountered a few bureaucratic hurdles such as gatekeepers and institutional protocols. Gatekeepers are individuals with the authority or influence to allow or deny admission to an area, study location, or research subjects, whilst institutional protocols represent official procedures for allowing research to be undertaken. These hurdles are intricately connected because
168
negotiations with gatekeepers and adherence to protocols will determine the boundaries and procedures for how the researcher will go about interacting with the research participants.
Berg (2001:145) contends that if a gatekeeper views the research favourably, he or she may be ready to support the researcher should any problems emerge during the study period. On the other hand, if the gatekeeper is disinterested or disproves of the research, he or she may become an impediment to the process. With this study, the researcher struggled to find the correct contact details for the government departments as some of the information on their websites had not been updated. Once the correct details were obtained, the researcher initially had challenges with the receptionists who failed to connect the researcher with the correct departments. Through persistence and perseverance, however, the researcher finally managed to speak to the secretaries of the prospective interviewees and subsequently, the latter. In addition, the researcher had to submit identification prior to the interviews.
Overall, the above process was effective and insightful as the researcher was able to obtain valuable data from the prepared research questions. In addition, the researcher was able to maintain contact with the interviewees after the interviews. This was not only important because the researcher was able to follow up on some points but also because it allowed the researcher the opportunity to send transcripts and findings for review thereby enhancing credibility. Furthermore, this relationship was important because interviewees were willing to send additional documents such as reports and minutes.