LABORATORIO DE ARTE URBANO “EL SEMILLERO”

In-depth interviews are an appropriate way to collect data in qualitative research. It is a form of purposeful interaction through which a researcher attempt to understand what the research participant knows about a particular subject matter, to discover and record what that individual has experienced, what they feel and think about it, and what is the significance of it all for them (Arthur, 2012). In the context of phenomenological research in-depth interviews are better than focus groups. Most of the papers followed interviews used semi-structured format (Brocki & Wearden, 2006).

One can also describe in-depth- interviews as a form of conversation but with a purpose (Arthur, 2012). According to Bremborg (cited in Stausberg & Engler, 2013), interviews are considered a viable method to understand the religious belief and experiences of research participants. It is a kind of conversation which results in the construction of knowledge about the social world through normal interaction (Rorty, 1980).

Kvale (1996), provides two different perspectives on in-depth interviews in the form of 'miner metaphor,' and 'traveller metaphor.' The minor metaphor is grounded in the assumption that

143

knowledge is given and out there and it is the responsibility of the researcher to act as a minor

and digs and unearth the valuable knowledge from research participants mind. “The knowledge

is waiting in the subject's interior to be uncovered, uncontaminated by the miner. The interviewer digs nuggets of data or meanings out of a subject's pure experiences, unpolluted by any leading questions. (Kvale, 1996. p.3)

The second perspective is 'traveller metaphor' which leans toward the constructivist research model and suggest that knowledge is not given but is constructed and negotiated by both the researcher and the research participant. Here, the interviewer acts as a traveller who journeys with the interviewee throughout the interview process. It is the responsibility of the interviewer to develop the meaning of the interviewer's story and interpret them accordingly.

As the communication between the interviewee and the interviewer develops, both of them works together to reach towards new insights and creates a transformative element to the journey. As further explained by (Kvale, 1996) "The traveler... asks questions that lead the subjects to tell their own stories of their lived world, and converses with them in the original Latin meaning of conversation as 'wandering together with.' (p. 4l).

This form of postmodern conception of attaining knowledge rejects the idea that there is only one form of Metaknowledge that can answer everything (Lyotard, 1984). Instead of knowledge is constructed and attains meaning through the interaction and understanding between the interviewer and the interviewee. Here, the pre-understanding, background and personality of the interviewer are of paramount importance since it acts as decisive factors in terms of construction of knowledge.

The feminist researcher Ann Oakley in 1981 supported the postmodern conception of construction of knowledge and rejected the positivistic epistemological viewpoint that knowledge is given and innate. During her research, she interviewed various women and

144

concluded that one has to build a relationship with the participants in order to attain quality results as compared to merely asking questions. During the interview sessions, the women participants asked Oakley more questions and seemed more interested in her personality. As recommended in positivist epistemology, she was supposed to respond to their questions since it would create a distance between the interviewer and the interviewee. However, by incorporating her self in the interview session, she was able to win the trust of the participants which resulted in the openness of the latter and the richness of the data obtained.

Meredith McGuire (2008), in her book “Lived religion” supported the assertion that one has to follow the constructivist form of qualitative epistemology in interviews to develop rich and nuanced data. She argues that understanding the religious experience of people is a complicated process. However, interviews with the research participants lead the researcher to understand their religious lives which positivist epistemological studies cannot show. She further explains that “Realizing the complexities of individuals’ religious practices, experiences, and expressions, however, has made me extremely doubtful that even mountains of quantitative sociological data (especially data from surveys and other relatively superficial modes of inquiring) can tell us much of any value about individuals’ religions” (McGuire 2008. p. 5). Therefore, the researcher has used in-depth interviews to answer the main research and objectives due to its potential to disclose in detail individual experiences and their belief system. The questions included in the interview guide (see Appendix 2) are divided into two sections. The first section of the interview guide asks participants about their religious beliefs and how it influences their personal, social and business lives. This part answers the first research objective which seeks to understand Islam as a religion and its teachings on entrepreneurship from participants perspectives. This section has also answered objective six and extended effectuation theory by adding Islamic beliefs and British culture as important factors that influence entrepreneurial actions.

145

The second section of the interview guide answers research objective 2,3,4,5 by examining participants business in general and their social media communication activities in particular. The findings of this section indicate Islamic beliefs and British culture influence participants social media communication activities and enable them to identify markets and engage customers. These participants utilize Islamic and British networks to resolve their communicational issues by seeking guidance and collaborating with each other for mutual benefit.