Times for interviews were enthusiastically agreed to in spite of the very busy schedules of the members of the cohort. There were no refusals to participate even though each person was given that choice. There was even a small degree of competition to be the first interviewed. Thus, there was not the need to provide the explanatory detail about the project that is usually required in an interview although the formal protocols required for ethical conduct of research were approved and followed. As well, because the interviewees were colleagues and fellow students there was a well-established rapport already in place. In fact, there was a sense of ownership of the project by each member of the cohort at each interview rather than the more stilted ‘first meeting’ interview situations I have experienced in the past.
Due to this familiarity there was none of the hesitancy and reserved answers at the beginning of the interview that is usually apparent in first interviews as the
participants did not need to establish a position within the conversation. In one way this was useful as my knowledge of my peers allowed me to probe without hesitation, or to comment on or to question things they did not at first reveal. Thus, by exposing previous situations, I could report as data information I already had. However, my prior knowledge of the participants was not always advantageous as some answers were not given fully because of the degree of understanding implicit between us. There was an unusual level of abbreviated verbal communication during the
interviews, “y’know” being a common phrase used by the interviewee. This utterance was used in lieu of a more elaborate description of a shared experience.
Unfortunately for the interpretation of the data, these utterances were understood by myself, I did indeed ‘know’ what was meant and it was not until the later transcription of the data that this abbreviated communication was revealed. Other interviews were unnecessarily detailed as the interviewees were aware of the possibility of giving abbreviated answers and they overcompensated for it.
The interviews were arranged randomly, somewhat in the order that the phone or email details were arranged in the stack of contact details supplied to me by members of the cohort at the conclusion of the coursework. However, upon reflection, I am now aware that I attempted to complete the interviews that I thought might involve some difficulties earlier rather than later in the process: the students whose accents I considered would be difficult to transcribe; those I felt would be verbose; or those whose concepts and arguments I had had difficulty comprehending during the coursework component of the course.
The order of the interviews determined the pseudonyms given, pseudonyms being necessary because of the confidentiality requirements of this university’s Human Research Ethics Committee. Thus, ‘Bob’, as the second interviewee, was given a pseudonym beginning with second letter of the alphabet, ‘Chloe’, the third
interviewee, was given a pseudonym beginning with the third letter and so on. It was necessary to transpose the first interviewee with one from further down the list as number one was so excited about being ‘first cab off the rank’ the entire cohort became aware of it. Another interviewee, coincidently, was in a position that gave a
pseudonym with the same initial letter as their original name and so the two positions were swapped. The pseudonyms were gender specific, derived from Western culture for everyone regardless of their original culture and chosen for their brevity to assist in the time management related to word processing the study.
The interviews were held in a variety of venues and at various times throughout the day or evening. The choice of venue depended upon either the wishes of the
interviewees or my own convenience. Three interviews were held at the homes of the interviewees, one in the morning and two during the afternoon. Two interviews were held at my home, with the interviewees calling in on their way home from work. Three interviews were held in the interviewee’s workplace during their afternoon work sessions and one was held on a Saturday morning during a normal Saturday work session for that interviewee. Workplace interviews proved to be the least satisfactory because of frequent work related interruptions. Such interruptions are symptomatic of the situation; busy people need to multi-task in order to get through the vast number of obligations that they are required to undertake as directors or managers of educational institutions. Having the opportunity to witness the
constraints and pressures under which my colleagues spend their professional lives made me extremely grateful to them for finding the time that they did to take part in the study.
One interview was held in a classroom at the university when no other appropriate space was available, quite late at night after a cohort gathering. The remainder of the interviews were held at the university in a small conference room, during the
evenings. This venue proved ideal for the purpose as the students were familiar with their surroundings and with being at the university at that time. Most importantly, however, there were no distractions due to family, phones, pets or enquiring staff and disgruntled students such as are found in a domestic or office situation. Finally, one interview was conducted by phone due to one of the interviewees, whose working life is now spent in the United Arab Emirates, visiting his wife’s family in a third country, instead of returning to Australia for their annual leave as was originally planned. The interviews were conducted using an active listening technique as advised by Kvale (1996:132). I paid particular attention to facial expressions and body language
for signs of discomfort or stress by the interviewee as well as listening attentively, allowing the interviewees descriptions of their experiences to unfold without interruptions from additional questions posed too hastily.
Silence was also used at what I considered appropriate times as an aid to furthering the interview. By allowing prolonged pauses in the conversation the interviewees were given time to reflect on pertinent points and then to break the silence themselves with further information once they had formulated their thoughts. It is of interest to note that the interviewees also used this technique with me. Several times when a question or comment made by me was unclear or required rephrasing, the interviewee remained silent until I had made the appropriate adjustment to my previous utterance (Appendix 5, no. 37).
There was no time limit specified for the interviews. Initially, it was predicted they would be of sufficient length for the interviewee to tell his/her story. This would normally not be longer than ninety minutes with further sessions to be negotiated as required, until the story was completed to the satisfaction of the interviewee. In reality, the interviews were all completed in one session, with times ranging from half an hour (a phone interview) to one and a half hours; most were around 50–60 minutes in length.