Características generales del comercio minorista en Cuba

In-depth interviews are believed to be the hallmark of qualitative research (Richards, 2003; Rossman and Rallis, 1998). Tierney and Dilley (2001:453) and McDonough and McDonough (1997:172) highlight the significance of interviews as a very common tool used in educational research. Advocating its relevance and importance in social sciences research, Briggs (1986) indicates that 90% of all social science investigations use

interviews in one way or another. Researchers always use interviews as safeguards against the drawbacks of using only questionnaires. It is believed that interviews are helpful in balancing, enriching, and illuminating the findings obtained by questionnaires. As Matsuda (2000:16) puts it, “in questionnaire studies, each respondent’s experiences

122

are lost as they are reduced to numbers,” a shortcoming that can be overcome by interviews through the potential of eliciting in-depth, detailed supplementary data to aspects that cannot be covered with questionnaires (Verma and Mallick, 1999:122). Sakui and Gaies (1999:486) explain that well-conducted interviews help in allowing the participants to “reveal beliefs which are not addressed in the questionnaire and to describe the reasons, sources, behavioural outcomes, and other dimensions of their beliefs.” Furthermore, interviews allow for meaning negotiation, as researchers or interviewers are able to ask their respondents for clarification if certain responses are vague. Hence, researchers can investigate further information during the interviewing process. According to Brenner et al. (1985:3), “any misunderstandings on the part of the interviewer or the interviewee can be checked immediately.”

Moreover, Powney and Watts (1987:18) believe that interviews give in-depth perspectives about the learners’ beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. Besides, Dudley- Evans and St. John (1998) view interviews as extremely useful tools in NA, with the feature of providing valuable information that cannot otherwise be obtained. With these two arguments in mind, data obtained through interviews have proved to be fundamental for the purposes of this study.

4.5.1.1 Interview Piloting: Issues of Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Research Qualitative research and methods can form the basis of pilot studies. For example, there are several instances when researchers initiate their investigation with in-depth

preliminary interviews in order to inform designing their other tools, usually questionnaires (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998; Teijlingen and Hundley, 2001). The current project can represent a typical case of such a process. That is, the interview formed the first phase of the study so that I could have an insight into how to develop

123

questionnaires. Also, before conducting the interviews, I wanted to test if the questions that were formulated could elicit the responses and generate the data needed to answer the research questions. Therefore, I interviewed two medical students, and two academic physicians. The interviewees responded interactively and did not indicate any ambiguity in terms of the interviews questions.

Golafshani (2003:601) states, “if we see the idea of testing as a way of information elicitation then the most important test of any qualitative study is its quality.” Seale (1999:266) argues that the quality of the studies can be established through reliability and validity in qualitative research, which are represented by trustworthiness of a research report. In other words, the measures of validity and reliability as routes of searching the truth in quantitative or scientific research are substituted by the notion of trustworthiness in the qualitative paradigm (Mishler, 2000). However, Stenbacka (2001:552) views the reliability issue as being irrelevant in qualitative research, since it is primarily concerned with measurements. She also goes further by claiming that reliability should be excluded when to judge the quality of a qualitative study, otherwise “the study is no good.” In this context, Creswell and Miller (2000) assert that

researchers still need to check the validity of their qualitative studies, which is, in their viewpoint, influenced by the paradigm adopted by the researcher and his/her

interpretation of the term validity. Therefore, researchers come up with what they consider as more appropriate terms such as quality, rigor, and trustworthiness

(Golafshani, 2003). Davies and Dodd (2002: 280) point out that the term rigor arises when the discussion about “objectivity, neutrality, reliability, replication, and validity” is referred to. They also elaborate that, as qualitative researchers, “we now move on to develop our preconception of rigor by exploring subjectivity, reflexivity, and the social interaction of interviewing” (p.281). In short, Golafshani (2003: 602) explicitly

124

emphasises the importance of testing instruments, either quantitative, qualitative, or both, by stating that “testing and increasing the reliability, validity, trustworthiness, quality and rigor will be important to the research in any paradigm.”

Acknowledging the subjectivity usually involved in the qualitative research, the current study will attempt to overcome this issue by employing two techniques, triangulation of sources and methods, and providing thick description about the context of the study. This research design employs triangulation of sources as it aims to collect data from two participating groups, namely medical professionals and students. It also employs

triangulation of method by adopting quantitative follow-up surveys. A thick description about the context was provided in Chapter 3, besides detailed data to be analysed about the participants; their schools and specialities, proficiency levels, learning experiences, their motivations, attitudes and needs in relation to the areas discussed in this research.

Teijlingen and Hundley (2001) point out that the process of data collection and analysis in qualitative research is often progressive, as the first interview may yield the

researcher with illuminating insights that can improve another subsequent interview. In the current study, besides Teijlingen and Hundley’s (2001) point, interviews serve the basis of developing a further quantitative study.

4.5.1.2 Interviews in the Current Study

Since investigating the medical professional situation, as a target situation, is a

fundamental concern in this research, interviewing some representatives of this context is, consequently, of a major significance. I was aware of the difficulties of chasing physicians for interviews, and this, in fact, constituted a considerable challenge for this

125

project. However, I was fortunate enough to be able to access seventeen interviewees who were involved in medical environments.

Eight out of these interviewees were academic doctors, besides working in hospitals. The presence and participation of these interviewees in an academic setting allowed me to somehow conduct the interviews smoothly. In other words, interviewing these participants in the academic setting, of which I am a member, was more feasible than conducting interviews in hospitals. These academics were all male general practitioners, aged from 28 to 32. Six of them were graduates of the targeted university, except a female nursing instructor and another male practitioner who did their studies in other two universities.

Nine other participants were interviewed at a small dental centre, with the assistance of some acquaintances who attempted to facilitate gaining permission to access that centre. These participants included five female nurses, a male radiologist, a female dentist, and two male dentists.

The interviews were semi-structured, mainly attempting to find answers to questions about what role English plays in medical professional contexts; when, why, and with whom stakeholders use English, hence needs of the language in such contexts can be identified. Besides, I attempted to investigate the interviewees’ attitudes towards English in general, and toward various varieties of English, both native and non-native, in

126

Besides the professionals’ interviews, I conducted semi-structured interviews with the second targeted group participating in this research, i.e. medical and health-allied students, also to get in-depth, detailed data about needs and attitudes at the medical academic settings.

In a similar manner to interviewing the first participating group, the students’ opinions and beliefs about aspects pertaining to EIL, such as the current status of English and its varieties, i.e. native and non-native Englishes and teachers, and language ownership, were addressed. I was pursuing female medical students at any free time they could have afforded. I managed to conduct twenty-one interviews with students who were attending either their first, second, third, or forth year in the schools of Medicine and Surgery, Pharmacology, Applied Medical Science, and Dentistry.