Much of the quantitative archival data related to the interviewees were collected during the latter half of the project (years 2010-11), while the qualitative data (in the form of interviews) were collected after completion of the CRA project implementation.
4.4.2
Qualitative methods
4.4.2.1 Introduction
As pointed out in section 2.7, there have been very few studies on academics at the coalface (i.e. teaching students) that have investigated their perspectives about their informal leadership roles as change agents in supporting institutional changes to teaching and learning. I also wanted perspectives across different levels of the organisation as explained in section 4.3. Focussed interviews (Merton, Fiske & Kendall, 1990) were chosen as the vehicle for gathering data about interviewees' perspectives, because they combined open-endedness with a set of questions derived from the research questions (Yin, 2003, p. 90). This type of interview permitted me to seek clarification of a comment or viewpoint, and more fully explore my research questions. I was a known entity to most as I had worked closely with many of them (see 3.2.3). The most productive interviews, according to Oakley, are 'when the relationship of interviewer and interviewee is non-hierarchical' (2008, p. 222). This was the case with the school champions regardless of their academic level of appointment, but not with co- head of the ADU, Narelle (my line manager) or with the Chair of the Senate, Joseph (see 4.4.2.3). I was alert to warnings by Silverman (1993) not to treat all interview data as true or false, but as a display of perspectives that can be affected by factors such as: the status of the interviewer and interviewee; and the untrustworthiness of some interviewees, which can distort their responses.
4.4.2.2 Development of the interview questions
All the interview questions were developed directly from the research questions and linked to the CRA implementation plan, to ensure explicit alignment and because the questions were part of the process and not separate (Gubrium & Holstein, 2009). The questions were designed to explore the selection and role of the school champions, the DL approach used to implement institutional change at DUU, and the implementation of CRA. My supervisors provided feedback on draft questions for the school champions and Associate Deans. Following four school champions' interviews, four questions were modified into two because of minor overlap. I sought independent advice from a colleague at a different university who helped me develop the interview questionnaire for the nominees of the DVC,
including the probes. I mirrored this process when developing the academic developers' individual questionnaires on which he gave feedback. Each developer then gave feedback on the other's revised questions, including the probes.
For the school champions and Associate Deans, pre-devised probes were not used. Instead I generated these when necessary during the interviews. Probes were devised in advance for the other interviewees. This was because I was not confident I would feel sufficiently relaxed to generate probes during the interviews as these interviewees included my line manager (co-head of the ADU), another academic developer, plus very senior academics (then nominees of the DVC). Questions for all four groups included open and closed ones. I did not pilot the questions with academics outside the four groups, as the questions would have made no sense to a person not involved in the CRA project. A non-school champion could have answered some of the questions, but they were not as intimately involved, nor were they subjected to the same expectations or face the same challenges. Questions were sent to all interviewees in advance so they would have time to reflect on the CRA project and DL, and thus refresh their memories of it, as the interviews were being conducted one to two years after the project. Another reason for giving interviewees advance notice was so they could feel comfortable in the transparency of the process, and accept my invitation to be interviewed by giving fully-informed consent. Refer to Appendix C for the interviewing documentation that includes the information sheet, consent form, sets of interview questions, and associated probes.
4.4.2.3 Conducting the interviews Technique: Responsive interviewing
I asked two school champions, in advance of their interviews, to comment on my interviewing style under three headings and email back their evaluation after the interviews. The two I chose were colleagues with whom I had worked extensively. Their evaluations of my interview technique, structure of the interview and quality of the questions were thoughtful, instructive and positive. Both were comfortable with my interview technique, with one responding that it was 'informal and
engaging, thus I responded freely and openly'. The other alerted me to what could be interpreted as an overlap of two questions, which I subsequently rectified. My interview plan was to present myself as an active listener, feeding back some of each interviewee's earlier quotes later in the interview to pursue points related to the questions. This was a conversational style incorporating an investigative approach 'in which the data arise in an interpersonal relationship, co-authored and co-produced by [participants]' (Kvale, 1996, p. 159). I consider my style has similarities to what Rubin and Rubin refer to as 'responsive interviewing', where the interviewer treats the interviewees as 'partners in the
research rather than objects of research' (2005, p. vii). The main difference to my style of interviewing was that I was keen to have the main questions answered because these were essential in thoroughly
examining my research aim. I adapted each interview according to how the interviewee responded (Warren, 2012) as well as to the setting (telephone, face-to-face, Skype) and to social roles (Maxwell, 2102).
Interviewing academics with positional power: Some challenges
There were exceptions such as my line manager, Narelle, who was co-head of the ADU during the CRA project. She had been promoted to Head of the ADU before I interviewed her, and also, at the time, my primary PhD supervisor. This situation proved very awkward for her—my notes say that I 'did not think she was herself; she was very careful in her word choice, and instead of her chatty self, she seemed very much on guard even though she had the questions in advance'. Towards the end of the interview, her tone of voice changed, as did the pattern of sentence construction, so I assumed she had relaxed a little. She was the most guarded of all the interviewees and I had the impression she was almost reading a script. I had known and worked for her for four years as a colleague, so this
unexpected protectiveness on her part may have compromised the depth of her data. I assumed that other events at DUU happening at the time (a faculty restructure and staff retrenchments) could have contributed to her seeming reticence.
When faced with interviewing the two nominees of the DVC (both at academic E), I was apprehensive about how they would react to me by telephone. I had not met Joseph (Chair of the Senate) when I worked at DUU, but had met the other nominee, Gordon, PVC (Learning and
Teaching) many times. Gordon seemed much more relaxed on the phone than Joseph, who, according to my notes, was 'very chatty giving me the impression he was genuinely collegial, open and
thoughtful'. This may have been his strategy to put me at ease. My notes also say he was 'very long- winded' and that 'I was surprised, when at the end, he said he enjoyed the interview'. He later apologised for the long interview, which I was not expecting him to do. He was impressed with the CRA project—'it was a very good project'—and with the extent of my knowledge about the changes DUU had been undergoing since I left. He then wished me well and proceeded to give me specific advice about the challenges of conducting qualitative research. I found him the most challenging to interview of the 40 interviews I had conducted for this study, as I did initially feel intimidated by him because of his Senate position, which may have affected how I interacted with him. When he became more focussed in his answers, I knew he had decided for some reason to be a bit more forthcoming with me, although he was far more circumspect than Gordon, who appeared more open and blunt, with no qualms saying exactly what he thought about DUU and the DL model.
Table 3.6 shows that Joseph had been at DUU for a very long time, perhaps accounting for his reluctance to say anything critical and indicating his strong loyalty to DUU, compared to Gordon who had been at DUU for half as long. Gordon's role was only for three years and was focussed entirely on learning and teaching across the university. Joseph's role was much more political involving all
aspects of DUU, and this may also have explained his much more guarded comments to me. He decided to step down from his Senate position at the end of 2012. My concerns about interviewing the two very senior academics reflect the power differentials related to position, which impacted me (academic B) and the school champions (academics A, B and C). However, Joseph and Gordon allayed many of my fears during the interviews with their collegial approach, which I very much appreciated as a novice researcher. The impact of different types of power in HE arose as an important factor for the role of the school champions, Associate Deans and academic developers, and form part of my conceptual framework (see 4.5.3.3).
Recording
Most interviews were by phone because I lived in another state. I offered Skype instead of a telephone interview, but only one accepted this offer. I did not consider that the telephone interviews were more limited than face-to-face because I knew most of interviewees. Seven interviews were conducted face-to-face at DUU in September 2012 because I was at the university for a graduate research conference. All interviews were audio-recorded and backed up on my home computer and two external hard drives. One recording with an acting Associate Dean, who knew little about the project, failed. I interviewed the incumbent when she returned from study leave. All school champions' interviews were conducted in 2012: four face-to-face, one by Skype and the rest by telephone. The average interview time was 68 minutes (range 48-97). Three of the Associate Deans' interviews were conducted face-to-face at the respective Associate Deans' campuses, while the remainder were by telephone. The average interview was 69 minutes (range 42-85). Both academic developer interviews were by phone and were 60 minutes each: Narelle's interview was in late 2012 and Stephanie's in mid-2013. Phone interviews with the two nominees of the DVC were held in February and March 2013. Joseph's interview was for 73 minutes and Gordon's lasted 53 minutes.
4.4.2.4 Transcription and verification procedures
All interviews were transcribed by a professional company unrelated to the university. Lists of DUU and tertiary sector acronyms were provided, plus copies of the interview questions for each of the four groups of interviewees. I proofread the transcripts for accuracy of transcription by listening to the recordings and amending transcripts where necessary (e.g. terminology; where the transcriber did not hear what was being said, but I could work it out). I also deleted parts of the interviews that were unrelated to my research questions. Each transcript took two to three hours to check. Proofed
transcripts were emailed to interviewees with a thank-you for their time. The approved or corrected transcripts they returned became the ones used for analysis. Interviewing four groups of academics (see 3.1.3) allowed me to corroborate some of the information and provide 'thick description' of the
significance of the CRA project from their perspectives, to ensure that the 'voices, feelings, actions and meanings of interacting individuals are heard' (Denzin, 1989, p. 83) throughout this thesis.
4.4.3
Quantitative methods
Quantitative methods consisted of counts of themes and subthemes using NVivo10 (see 4.5.1 and 4.5.2), plus compiling archival data mostly about the school champions collected for reporting purposes to my line manager and Senate during the CRA project. These latter data included numbers of: discipline-based workshops organised with specific school champions; unit (course) outlines revised; rubrics developed; degrees (programs) which had their outcomes developed or redeveloped; consultations I had by invitation with the school champions; plus papers published by school
champions. These archival data were integrated with interview data to create vignettes of a selection of school champions in stage three of the research design (see 4.2.2).