Internal Document Research
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
Interview and focus group schedules (see Appendices 5 to 7) guided the research questions and aimed at asking participants to reconstruct their experience to enable me to explore their meanings (Glesne and Peskin 1992; Seidman 1991). In designing the research questions, I was mindful that the very first question on administrative frameworks could
prove difficult as very often an approach or a framework is employed in everyday practice without workers necessarily being aware of it as part of a framework. I therefore prepared myself to discuss some examples of higher education frameworks, for example, TQM and IiP after posing this question. If even after an explanation of these, answers were not readily forthcoming, I asked administrators and academics to explain to me what actually guided them in their everyday operations.
In discussing this question with the students, I not only described these higher education frameworks but I also listed the tenets in written format on a whiteboard. They were then invited to indicate whether they felt that any of these existed in any of the operations during their student life- cycle, which I explained begins at the application, through to admission, registration, examination, and graduation stages. This method not only provided me with some amount of structure, but also served to
corroborate other institutional studies previously carried out which targeted the effectiveness of the operations in some of these processes. I frequently probed the responses of participants and this was useful in capturing the full experiences and meanings as was necessary. I, as the “instrument” of data collection, could be responsive to the context, thereby probing for further follow-up (Merriam 1998, p.83). Of the three data collection techniques employed, the one-to-one elite interviews and the focus group studies were the main techniques used.
Semi-structured Interviews
A semi-structured interview was used to allow for “questions that are more flexibly worded” and included a mix of structured and open-ended questions (Merriam 1998, p. 74; Malseed 1987, cited in Pawson 1996, p. 299). These researchers discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the structured and unstructured types of interviews and, based on the
purpose of each, offer the view that the structured approach is useful for factual information, while the unstructured is useful for an interpretative approach. I opted for Malseed‟s (ibid) suggestion of the pluralist
“midway compromise” of the semi-structured interview which offered respondents a chance to discuss in detail their answers from which comparable and rich meaningful data ensued. The interview therefore allowed me to obtain special kinds of information such as people‟s behaviours, feelings, and interpretations of the world around them, and allowed me to glean what is “in and on someone else‟s mind” by
allowing me to enter into the other person‟s perspective (Merriam 1998, pp. 71-72; Patton 1990, cited by Merriam 1998, p.196). As discussed by Etherington (2004), I too was able to remain close to the data through the process of leading all 28 interviews and the focus group, as well as by carrying out the actual transcription of a large number of the interviews supported by audio recordings. In this way, I was also able to pick up and note nuances, hesitations, pauses, emphasis, expressions or any additional gesture that seemed important (Etherington 2004). The
interviews were found to be useful for case study investigations, and also to examine historical events that cannot be replicated (Yin 1994).
The Research Questions
Strauss outlines four types of questions that are useful in designing an interview schedule: 1) hypothetical questions, 2) ideal position questions, 3) interpretative questions, 4) devil‟s advocate questions (Straus et al. 1981, cited by Merriam, 1990, p. 77). Three of the four categories of questions were useful for this research. For example, hypothetical questions were useful in asking respondents to “speculate as to what” they felt are the criteria for administrators‟ approach to quality at the UWI. Some ideal position questions served to “elicit both information and opinion and proved useful in examining the “positives and the negatives or shortcomings” of the frameworks employed at the UWI, especially in regards to the follow-up question of whether or not these frameworks worked and why or why not. The interpretative questions sought reactions to earlier interpretations of frameworks identified by one set of participants thereby serving as “a check on what you think you are understanding”. The use of the Devil‟s advocate questions was not thought to be useful in this study as they are better suited for more controversial topics.
Other advantages of interviews included the flexibility, and cost- effectiveness it afforded me. One main disadvantage of interviewing is
that it is an interaction and what is assessed is what is heard from
respondents (Neuman 2003). I was mindful of this and employed Miles‟ and Huberman‟s (1994) critical data management procedures which enabled me to focus not only on what meanings were achieved, but also on how these meanings were achieved by analyzing what people talk about in abstract. Employing listening skills also allowed me to note silences, understand the implied and not just what was explicitly said (Guba and Lincoln 1981, cited by Merriam 1998).
Focus Group Study
Focus group studies were undertaken with the aim of providing insights into how people perceive a situation (Kreuger 1994, cited by Parker and Titter 2006). Initially, I intended to undertake three focus group studies inclusive of full-time and part-time, undergraduate, and postgraduate students but in the end only two were conducted with a purposive sample of full-time undergraduate and postgraduate students, which generated in-depth exploration (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990, cited by Parker and Tritter 2006). I found it difficult to organize enough part-time students to meet in one setting for a focus group study as their schedules differed to a great extent. The students in this sample were representative of students in the five faculties on the Mona campus who shared in common, investments in higher education and wished to benefit from a more efficient administrative service delivery. The researcher, on the
other hand, was interested in evaluating this delivery, hence the focus on frameworks and on the criteria for administrative quality.
The focus group interviews allowed me to question systematically and simultaneously several individuals (Babbie 2004). Views and
interactions were elicited from the students in these groups with a view to seeking their contribution for an understanding of the phenomenon (Merriam 1998). Patton (1990) highlights the usefulness of the focus group interview for evaluative purposes, which justifies my stance as an evaluator. Another useful purpose of the focus group study was that it served to assist me in purposive sampling which proved useful as during the interview respondents were asked who else they perceived as useful to be included in the study and some of these persons were included in the second focus group study. Another advantage of focus group studies was the access it provided to meet with different groups of persons in one setting, the access to interactions, and the cost effectiveness (Parker et al.1998 cited, by Babbie 2004). I played the role of facilitator and moderator which encouraged the participants to open up to me as a group. (Kitzinger 1994a; Johnson 1996; Bloor et al. 2001, cited by Parker and Tritter 2006; Punch 1998).
Interview versus Questionnaire
The main advantage that the interview has over the questionnaire is the interaction it provided between an interviewer and a respondent (Babbie
2004), which allows for probes, explanations, and clarification of responses. He also explained that the interview facilitates the interpretation of meanings from the behaviour and feelings of the interviewer. Other advantages include the flexibility, and cost-
effectiveness that it afforded. In the case of the focus group interview, the group dynamics frequently brought out aspects of the topic that would not have been anticipated by the researcher and would not have emerged from interviews with individuals (Krueger 1988, cited by Babbie 2004).
The questionnaire as a technique was therefore not considered an option as it presented a limitation in terms of flexibility of questions, and lacked the one-to-one interaction with participants. It is for these reasons that the interview was the primary instrument used in data collection.
Documentary Research
Documentary research provided secondary data. The review of internal official documents served to corroborate and augment evidence from other sources (Yin 1994). Silverman (2000, cited by Denzin and Lincoln 2000) cites other writers in support of the view that small numbers of texts and documents may be analysed in order “to understand the participants‟ categories and to see how these are used in concrete activities such as telling stories” (Propp 1968 and Sacks 1974, cited by Denzin and Lincoln 2000, p.826), and “assembling files” (Cicourel 1968;
Gubriaum and Buckholdt 1982, cited by Denzin and Lincoln 2000, p.826). I, too, felt propelled to examine these in detail, as Bogden and Biklen (2003) put forward, especially those referred to by participants and identified by them as frameworks. Access to these internal documents was readily available and participants not only made
reference to them, but also willingly offered them and/or indicated where they could be located. In addition to the ease of access to documents, the Mona Campus, as the site for the research, also proved advantageous with respect to the ease of access to individuals who willingly gave of their time. These advantages made the research process less time- consuming.
The matrix in Table 3.5 on page 93 shows the relationship between the research issues, four research questions, data sources, and data collection techniques.
Table 3.5: Relationship between issues, research questions, data sources and data collection techniques
Issues and Related Research Questions (RQ)
Data Sources Data Collection Techniques Issue 1: HE frameworks
RQ 1: Is there a framework in HE that guides UWI administrators in their approach to quality?
Senior Executive Management, Senior Administrators, Senior academic administrators, Faculty, Students Interviews Documentary research Audio/digital recording Focus groups
Issue 2: Working frameworks