The questionnaires supplied valuable information both qualitatively and quantitatively. However, another investigative method was required to enable individuals to provide rich personal narratives detailing their own experiences, feelings and opinions in a particular time and setting. I decided to conduct recorded face to face semi-structured interviews throughout the academic year with the four voluntary participants.
75 As Bryman (2008: 192) states, interviews elicit from participants ‘… all manner of information: interviewees’ own behaviour or that of others; attitudes; norms; beliefs; and values’ which could never be presented adequately simply by means of a questionnaire. A key element of the face to face interview is the interaction between interviewer and interviewee; the visual / physical cues of unvoiced body language, expressions and laughter which enriched the investigative experience and provided light and life to my observations. Opdenakker (2006:4) categorises the face to face (FtF) interview technique as ‘synchronous communication of time and place’ compared to a telephone interview which he describes as ‘…synchronous in time but asynchronous in space’ (ibid: 4). He explains that an advantage of FtF interviews is that ‘…there is no significant time delay between question and answer; the interviewer and interviewee can directly react on what the other says or does’ (ibid: 5). ‘Social cues, such as voice, intonation, body language’ all add to the advantage of this synchronous communication [within a shared dimension of time and place] and ‘the answer of the interviewee is more spontaneous, without an extended reflection’ (ibid: 5). The inclusion of FtF Interviews provided an intensely personal dimension which complimented the more prescriptive written responses from remote respondents to a static, paper based questionnaire.
In the winter term of 2011, I met with a group of 18 volunteers who were interested in my research. All were Thai scholarship Master’s students studying in the UK during the academic year 2011-2012. I explained the overall methodology and I answered any questions they raised. I emphasised confidentiality by employing the use of pseudonyms and that they could withdraw their consent at any time during the academic year. There was no pressure
76 to participate. As I mentioned earlier, those who wished to participate voluntarily were presented with a bilingual consent form which explained the focus of the study.
Due to my full-time work commitment, I needed to plan my strategy carefully and ‘define the boundaries’ as Simons (2009: 29) advised in order to be able to complete my research and obtain in-depth meaningful testimony within the timescale of the one-year Master’s course. Therefore, for logistical reasons, of the group of 18 Master’s scholarship students, I chose four volunteers who studied different subjects at three universities near my office. In total, I interviewed the four students 15 times throughout the academic year for a total of eleven hours which I have detailed in Table 3.1. The first interviews took place in the familiar surroundings of their universities to enable them to feel more relaxed and to provide responses which were rich in detail and personal viewpoints.
During the Spring Term, I interviewed the students after I had observed their lessons. This proved very beneficial. The semi-structured questions provided a focus for each of the interviews, but also offered the flexibility to build on the shared experience of the lesson content and interactions which had taken place. This format worked very well providing a familiar contextual framework within which to set the interview and opportunities for in- depth exploration of ideas, views and opinions. Table 3.1 lists recorded face to face semi- structured interviews with the four key participants and details the time and location of each.
77 Table 3.1: Log of recorded face to face interviews with four Thai students
Date Time Interviewee
Pseudonym Location Degree Subject Notes
Feb 8 2012 16.00 -
16.30 Plum
Reception area
of university Law
Interview with student after observed lecture Feb 9 2012 13.00 -
13.30 Abe
Reception area
of university Physics
Interview with student after observed lecture Feb 9 2012 15.30 -
16.00 Sid
Reception area
of university Finance
Interview with student after observed lecture Feb 14 2012 18.30 -
19.00 Plum
Student lounge
area of university Law
Interview with student after observed lecture Feb 17 2012 18.00 -
18.30 Sid
Cafeteria of
university Finance
Interview with student after observed lecture Feb 22 2012 14.00 -
14.30 Abe
Dining room at
my work place Physics
Interview with student after observed lecture Mar 9 2013 17.30 -
18.00 Wendy
Vacant classroom
at university History
Interview with student after observed lecture Mar 14 2012 11.30 -
12.00 Wendy
Student lounge
area at university History
Interview with student after observed lecture Mar 21 2012 17.00 -
18.00
Abe, Plum
& Sid My office
Physics, Law, Finance
Interview with group prior to a meal I
hosted May 30 2012 14.00 -
15.00 Abe
Library at my
work place Physics
Reflections on the year May 31 2012 16.00 -
17.00 Sid
Library at my
work place Finance
Reflections on past year May 31 2012 15.00 -
16.00 Wendy
Library at my
work place History
Reflections on past year June 19 2012 15.30 -
16.30 Plum
Library at my
work place Law
Reflections on past year Aug 7 2012 17.00 -
18.00
Abe, Plum
& Sid My office
Physics, Law, Finance
Interview with group prior to a meal I
hosted Nov 5 2012 15.00 -
16.30 Wendy
Library at my
work place History
Reflections on past year
As the year progressed, I developed a good rapport with each of the participants. Later we met at my work place either in my office or in the library. Most interviews were one to one
78 but on two occasions [March 21st and August 7th] I conducted group discussions with three of the students [Abe, Plum and Sid] to observe how they interacted with each other and whether being in a group would influence the views and opinions they had expressed during individual interviews.
In the example below [Table 3.2] I interviewed Plum after a lesson I had observed during which the teacher posed many questions to the class. This interview focused on UK and Thai pedagogy. I initially asked Plum whether she found this inter-active teaching style challenging as I had observed that during the lesson she had not responded in class. The semi-structured nature of the interview provided the flexibility to follow-up on Plum’s initial response by requesting clarification [ Row 2].
Table 3.2: Excerpt from Plum’s interview transcript [14/02/2012]
ROW
TIME [from start of interview]
TRANSCRIPT
1. 00:09:19 Respondent: I think it’s really good. Because when you um I think
the nature of Thai student which has been in you know kind of Thai traditional academic style we don’t really expose ourselves in class.
2. 00:09:35 Interviewer: What do you mean by ‘don’t expose yourself’?
3. 00:09:38 Respondent: We just sit there and listen. [heavy rain in the
background] That’s just what we do because we’ve been in kind of
we we’ve never encouraged to to say something in class , I would say. I mean in my generation it was like that but now they they tend to improve to to be towards like you know kind of international kind of Westernised and encourage students to contribute to classes more and more and more so I would say that.
79 Repeated probing [Row 4] resulted in rich, descriptive data when Plum compares her classroom experiences in Thailand with those of her younger brother illustrating the changing nature of Thai classroom culture ‘Yeh it is changing …he’s been telling me … I see the differences’. However, she qualifies this statement with the caveat ‘…but it it takes time for for Thai students to actually … contribute themselves in class, raising hand and asking questions is just it is rare.’ [Row 5].