Reading Jean’s The Tools at Hand (2011) , Irvine, Drew, and Sainsbury’s ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews (2013) and Taherdoost’s How to Conduct an Effective Interview (2022), I reflected on Alvesson’s Views on Interviews: A Skeptical Review (2011).
Interview, Focus Group, Survey, or Questionnaire?
“Surveys and focus groups are the interview’s close cousins. In comparison to focus groups, interviews can be easier to manage, as the interviewer can focus on one person and will not have to contend with group dynamics. This also potentially allows for easier rapport-building, so the participant may be more willing to discuss personal material, and there is more time to pursue interesting areas (without other participants interrupting). Building rapport is discussed in detail in the next chapter.” (Curtis and Curtis, pp.32) “
“In-depth interviews allow for ‘rich’ or ‘thick’ data to be gathered with detailed descriptions.” (Curtis and Curtis, pp.32) “
“As discussed elsewhere, in comparison to questionnaires, it is possible to gather rich information – to follow-up on interesting points, to include material that the participant brings up that you may not have anticipated, to go into greater detail. Questions, themes or topics can be added or adapted as you progress through a series of interviews – or in the course of a single interview.” (Curtis and Curtis, pp. 33)
“Interviews are a case-centric approach. This means that the primary concern is recruiting a suitable number of appropriate cases – participants. The variables – questions – can be modified to suit each case.” (Curtis and Curtis, pp.35)
Purpose
Jean (2011) recommends having a very clear purpose in asking questions. In staff interviews, this feels very clear. I would like to understand the observations, thoughts and reflections of my colleagues on this topic, (who work closely with the same students, but have different experiences to my own) and to receive feedback on my initial and developing ideas from these experts. However, I must ensure that in writing the questions, I have this in mind, and the type of data I need in mind.
Form
According to Irvine et al’s research (2011), a face-to-face interview (or by extension, focus group) is preferable, in order to gain richer, deeper insights in which interviewee and interviewer have a smoother interaction which is less formal – this fits in with my plans to interview in a more romantic, localist style. However, this study compares face-to-face interviews to telephone interviews – wheras my ‘back-up’ option for interviews and focus groups would be a video interview.
“It is worth making a distinction here between the participants in in-depth interviews (and other case-centric approaches), the respondents in surveys and the subjects in experiments. These distinctions can be linked to the prevailing epistemology of the approach, particularly in regards to views of collaboration between the researcher and the researched.” (pp.35 Curtis and Curtis, 2011)
Knowledge of preceding work
Jean (2011) also suggests the the designer of a survey, interview, focus group, or questionnaire, must also have good knowledge of the work that proceeded it. At the time of writing, I feel as though I need to read around the subject of further. However, in action research, I can do this concurrently – at this stage I am not looking to find perfect solutions, but to begin research and gain meaning feedback as part of a cyclical process.
Ideas about what light it will shed
I hope that the interview and focus group will shed light on existing barriers and for students, and provide me with meaningful feedback, that I can put into action. It is at this point that I wonder whether my interviewees and/or focus group should be co-creators, or at least framed in some other way than subjects. It would be unethical to interview them to pull ideas and solutions from them, only to not credit them. This is perhaps a project which if I had more time, could be undertaken as a collaborative project? This may be something to bring to my next tutorial. Alternatively, I could design some initial ideas, and ask for feedback.
Pretesting
This may be more appropriate to build into the research itself e.g. using staff interviews as a place to pretest focus group and questionnaire ideas as well as the intervention ideas themselves. Or, the questionnaire for the workshop could be pre-tested with pg cert colleagues a little later on. Because of the short timescale of this research project, a pretesting stage may not be possible.
Composition
It is easy to accidentally illicit or direct the interviewee with one’s own bias – this is particularly true of semi-structured interviews. I should take time to consider the order, composition and use of language in interviewing staff, in order to avoid this.
Influenced by my conversation with Saffie (see later in blog) and partly because my question is so context specific, and the people I am interviewing are insiders (Alvesson, 2011) who I work closely with, it would make sense to interview in a partly romantic, partly localist style (Alvesson, 2011). This allows me to acknowledge and utilise my familiarity with the interviewees to gain more context specific, meaningful information. I must take this into account in the synthesis and interpretation of the results.
Answerability
I should consider how easy or difficult it would be to answer some questions, and possibly lead into certain, more difficult questions (Jean, 2011). How possible it would be to answer these questions (this is perhaps where a less conventional approach, more art-based approach may be more appropriate?) – for example, in gauging how stressful a pre-deadline period was, or how much waste someone produced during costume production, neither of which can be numerically or easily answered.
Jargon and language
Again, thinking back to Alvesson’s writing on interviews (2011), and taking a slight step back, I need to consider whether the language I am using will mean the same thing to me as it does to the interviewee. It would be wise to clarify, simplify, and define wherever possible. I think this is particularly true in the use of the word ‘sustainable’ – this could perhaps be defined in the preamble, or perhaps it could be asked as part of the interview, to allow the interviewee to define it themselves? For the student focus group this will certainly be necessary, as part of understanding how to support them should encompass understanding what they think sustainable practice is. Following this line of thought, and considering the very visually and technically literate technicians I work with (Cleary, 2024) I should consider integrating visual and practical elements where possible. This also sits within considerations of communication differences within neuro-diversity.
Within this, Irvine et al’s (2013) small scale study into semi-structured interviews suggests that face-to-face interviews may be more inclusive and produce higher quality data than telephone interviews (and by extension, but to a lesser extent, video interviews), because it allows for nuanced understanding of the language being used between interviewer and interviewee.
Avoiding participant boredom or fatigue
This follows well from the previous considerations. Using visuals and physical objects would create variety – but I would like these to be tools for generating conversation rather than just practical binary tasks. This is something I could incorporate into both the focus groups, and the interviews.
As mentioned before, I will also start with more closed, shorter, easy to understand questions, and develop them into open questions as the interviewee begins to formulate ideas that may become more complex. I will also make sure, as suggested, that I make sure all interviews are short, with time built in for digressions, to avoid fatigue and boredom (Jean, 2011).
Ethical Considerations
My main ethical concern here is to do with the intellectual property, and respect for the interviewee’s. It might be worth looking into my use of language, and the framing of questions. Where solutions are offered, credit must be properly given and acknowledged throughout the research process.
References
Curtis, B. and Curtis, C. (2011) In-Depth Interviewing – the Interactive Base. In: Social Research: A Practical Introduction. 55 City Road, London: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 27-54 Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526435415 [Accessed 06 December 2024]
Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2013). ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 87-106
The Tools at Hand In: Survey Questions By: Jean M. Converse & Stanley Presser Pub. Date: 2011 Access Date: September 16, 2021 Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc. City: Thousand Oaks Print ISBN: 9780803927438 Online ISBN: 9781412986045 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412986045 Print pages: 48-75 © 1986 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Unspecified (2024) ‘Research participant information and consent’ [City University of London] Available at: https://www.city.ac.uk/research/support/integrity-and-ethics/guidance-and-resources/participants#:~:text=The%20consent%20form%20should%20include%20the%20following%20statements%3A&text=I%20understand%20that%20my%20participation,take%20part%20in%20this%20study. (Accessed 24 October 2024)
Alvesson, M. 2011. Views on Interviews: A Skeptical Review. In: Interpreting Interviews. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. pp. 9-42 Available at: <https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268353> [Accessed 6 Oct 2024].
Taherdoost, Hamed, How to Conduct an Effective Interview; A Guide to Interview Design in Research Study (August 1, 2022). International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 11(1):39-51, 2022 https://elvedit.com/journals/IJARM/wp-content/uploads/How-to-Conduct-an-Effective-Interview-A-Guide-to-Interview-Design, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4178687 Accessed 4 November 2024