The interview is one of the most commonly used sources of data elicitation and is mostly used in qualitative research. In qualitative research the most important undertaking is to gain access to the participants‟ experiences, feelings and social settings in order to elicit information about their views and lives (Kvale, 2007; Merriam, 2009; Turner, 2010). An interview is a discussion that is held between two people; one individual posing questions prepared to elicit information and the other responding to questions on the topic under study (Merriam, 2009; Brinkmann & Kvale, 2014). Amplifying the idea are Cohen et al. (2011) who regard an interview as an inter-change of opinions by two or more people on a phenomena under study with the aim to produce knowledge that can be used to answer research questions. All it means is a form of a discourse or a face-to-face interaction which is geared on a topic of interest. Next in this section, is the detailed amplification of the semi- structured interviews and how data was recorded, followed by documentary reviews as data sources considering their merits and demerits in this research study.
4.7.1 Semi-structured interviews
A semi-structured interview has a direct elicitation from the participants which allows flexibility within the discussion (Remler & Van Ryzin, 2011). In the same line of thought Merriam (2009) exposes semi-structured interviews as guided interviews that are not fully structured; they belong to both structured and unstructured interviews. Interview guides with a set of questions are prepared when one is using semi-structured interviews. The guides allowed me to generate some questions to develop interesting areas of enquiry during the interviews (Kvale, 2007; Merriam, 2009; Flick, 2014). I needed to gather data about ECD resource demand issues in remote rural areas, required to at least partly guide the interview.
Remler and Van Ryzin (2011) suggest that the researcher will be having a structured section of the interview while still allowing the majority of the interview to be guided by a loose set of questions on issues to be explored. The combination of structured and unstructured sections permitted me to gather the information I needed while still allowing me to respond to the situation at hand (Patton, Parker & Neutzling, 2012).
The majority of the interview was comprised of open-ended questions and I gave the participants leeway to digress. However, because of the time limit, if the participant veered off the issue, I had to introduce a new question to try and bring the interview back to one of the main topics. To ensure that I was able to gather as much information as required for the study, I tried to guide interviews so that the same topics or issues were raised with each participant to allow each to react and give his individual perspectives. I must point out that I reviewed the questions after each interview. If new information was gained or new ideas introduced by a participant, I had to modify the questions for the remaining participants.
Consistency is perfect in semi-structured interviews; I gave all the participants the same questions (Merriam, 2009; Remler & Van Ryzin, 2011). This means that semi-structured interviews allowed for all participants to be asked the same questions within a flexible framework, but however, there was no defined ordering of the questions (Christine, 2005). I encouraged participants to talk about their experiences in response to the open-ended questions; however the ordering of further questions was determined by their responses.
This semi-structured interview method was chosen in this study as the most appropriate method to achieve my research objectives. Check and Schutt (2012) note that interview data is elicited directly from the „horse‟s mouth‟ (first-hand data), so it is „real‟ and is neither biased or incorrect; depicting exactly what the participant really wants to say. The participants were predominantly the school heads, deputy heads and the TICs, who played significant roles in the resource mobilisation and promotion of effective teaching and learning in ECD classes. As they were interviewed they brought varied and comprehensive accounts of how they respond to resource demand in their schools.
Advantages of these interviews were that they enabled me to get first-hand data from the participants. This direct interaction was the main source of the advantage of the interview as a research method. This method to data elicitation helps the researcher to be sensitive to participants‟ language and attach meaning to their responses (Merriam, 2009; Flick, 2014;
Yin, 2014). Semi-structured interviews make a follow up on specific ideas and issues; as a result they provide much more detailed information about how participants feel their perceptions and opinions on the topic under study. I could probe deeper into a response given
by a participant. Participants‟ own words were recorded, and they were allowed to clarify ambiguities. I could instantly make follow ups on incomplete answers. It allowed me to develop a more peaceful atmosphere in which to elicit information, at the same time participants felt more relaxed engaging in dialogue with me about their situation.
However, there are a few limitations and drawbacks in the semi-structured interviews. Semi- structured interviews are prone to bias (Merriam, 2009; Bertram & Christiansen, 2014). The school heads might have wanted to show that they are responding positively to resource demand in the school, so their interview comments could have been biased. Responses from the TICs could have been biased due to their post in the ECD programme or for a number of other reasons like poor relationships with the school heads or teachers. These TICs could have given biased comments. Biased participants always tell lies in order to cover up their intentions. To eliminate such bias, I always informed the participants that, there were a number of other participants that were being interviewed at that school and elsewhere so that they should definitely be aware of the data they gave. I also asked probing questions whenever I felt a sense of bias or lies.
Different interviewers may understand and record interviews in different ways (Merriam, 2009; Check & Schutt, 2012). The interviewer might be biased and ask closed questions, thus the interviewer can affect the data if it is not consistent in terms of the questions that are asked and/or time given to the interviewee to elaborate on their comments. Semi-structured interviews can be time exhaustive. Conducting interviews, transcribing them, analysing the data, providing feedback and reporting is time consuming. Semi-structured interviews cannot be used for many people at once. Each interviewee has to get a time limit to be interviewed.
However, having these limitations discussed, does not render this method redundant, every effort was made to design a data elicitation for bias free scenarios. I was determined to develop mechanisms in conducting interviews to allow for minimal bias as well as economic use of time and costs. Researcher bias did not pose any problems to me as discussed earlier on; I took no sides. I had no preconceived hypothesis; I accepted the data as it was given, asking the questions consistently and giving the participants adequate time to react to them.
The length of time did not affect me because I scheduled ample time per school, therefore I had sufficient time to complete my interviews at each site. To cut the costs on travelling, I
was hosted by chiefs in both districts. Though I had some difficulties in climbing up the mountains from where I was hosted to Muzorori school in Zaka district, I managed to complete my interview process without compromise.