The main criterion for choosing an organisation was that it must have an IAF. Interview participants were selected from organisations with a view to generating insights regarding their IA experience. A familiar environment helped the researcher to identify organisations with individuals that would be willing to participate. Although engaging and accessing participants for research can be difficult (Lloyd & Hopkins 2015), it was not a problem in this study because there was effective coordination with the data collection supervisor. The supervisor enabled the researcher to access the OAG and the OCIA, whose roles are significant in IA activities in Rwandan PSOs.
The researcher conducted the first interview with the OCIA to become more familiar with the culture of the IAF in Rwanda prior to the data collection. Although the researcher had consulted IA materials used by the IAF in Rwanda
58
PSOs because data received from the OCIA provided an overview of the IAF for all PSOs. The OCIA’s role as the coordinator of all IA activities in Rwanda helped the researcher to understand the IA culture, legal system and structural framework. Data provided by the OCIA were of a higher hierarchical level regarding the IAF, which enhanced the trustworthiness of the research, as emphasised by Lincoln and Guba (1985), Pitney (2004) and Shenton (2004). The researcher then analysed the actual operations of IA activities in their individual settings to examine the extent to which stakeholders’ expectations and effectiveness were achieved, as well as the factors that influenced IAE.
The OCIA communicated to all IA units in PSOs via email that a researcher was conducting a study on IAF. As a senior government executive who was responsible for coordinating IA activities in the public sector, the OCIA’s willingness to participate was a strong endorsement of the study and the researcher. Further, the session with the OCIA generated information that helped the researcher to identify which organisations were suitable for the study in the three segments of PSOs. Prior preparations had helped to identify the concepts to be studied, but the session with the OCIA helped to identify the organisations that would be willing to participate. The session provided an understanding of people in positions of power, authority and with technical skills desired for the study. When choosing case organisations, the researcher focused on CEOs, whose willingness to participate influenced the participation level of their organisation.
The researcher obtained a list of PSOs and the contact details of CEOs, who were contacted by phone. The researcher introduced herself, briefly explained the reason for the call, outlined the study and requested permission to conduct interviews within the organisation. When the CEO agreed, they were informed that a plain language statement and a consent form would be sent via email, and they were asked to sign the form and return it to the researcher.
After receiving the signed consent copy, the researcher arranged an appointment to conduct the interview. Almost all contacted CEOs were willing to participate, except one who was not comfortable sharing organisational data. This CEO was replaced with another from the same category of organisation. The respondents were therefore obliged to participate, and challenges were negligible. At the researcher’s request, the
59
CEOs informed their audit committee that the researcher wanted to interview them. Table 4.1 outlines the participation in all organisational categories and how the identity of each participant was encrypted to protect their identity and enhance confidentiality. The table below shows the date and duration of the interviews. Since participation in interviews of this project was voluntary, and no rewards was expected from it participants had the liberty to withdraw from participation at any time during or after the interview. A withdraw of consent form would be attached, in that case would be signed and sent by email to let the researcher know that a certain participant withdrew his or her consent to participate in the project interviews. However, none of the participants withdrew his or her consent for the duration of this study.
60
Table 4.1: Interview Participants in Each Organisation
Organisation type Participants Date of interview Duration of interview
OAG Deputy Auditor General 17/11/2016 1.30 hrs
Office of Government Chief Internal Auditor
Chief Internal Auditor (CIA) 01/11/2016 2 hrs
Autonomous organisation
CEO—Participant 1 Au 30/11/2016 1.40 hrs
Audit Committee—Participant 2 Au 19/12/2016 1 hr
Head of IAF— Participant 3 Au 20/12/2016 2 hrs
Auditee— Participant 4 Au 17/11/2016 1 hr
Semi- autonomous organisation
CEO—Participant 1 Semi 02/12/2016 2 hrs
Audit Committee—Participant 2 Semi 08/12/2016 1.30 hrs
Head of IAF—Participant 3 Semi 10/11/2016 2 hrs
Auditee—Participant 4 Semi 10/11/2016 1 hr Non- autonomous organisation (ministry, province, district) Permanent Secretary—Participant 1 Ministry 14/11/2016 1.10 hrs
Advisor to the State Minister in the Ministry of Finance and Audit Committee at another ministry — Participant 2 Ministry
23/11/2016 1.30 hrs
Head of IAF —Participant 3 Ministry 14/11/2016 2 hrs
Auditee—Participant 4 Ministry 20/11/2016 1 hr
Governor of the Province—Participant 1 Province 08/11/2016 1.30 hrs Executive Secretary—Participant 2 Province 03/11/2016 2 hrs Audit Committee—Participant 3 Province 04/11/2016 1.30 hrs
Head of IAF —Participant 4 Province 03/11/2016 2 hrs
Auditee—Participant 5 Province 03/11/2016 1 hr
District Mayor—Participant 1 District 16/11/2016 2 hrs
Audit Committee—Participant 2 District
16/11/2016 1.30 hrs
Head of IAF —Participant 3 District 06/12/2016 2 hrs
61