Personajes 19 

The study also made use of interviews as a data collection method. Interviews in

ethnographic studies range from spontaneous, informal conversations to formally arranged meetings (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). This section reviews interviews that were formally arranged, because field notes were used to record informal conversations that contributed to the research. Alvesson and Ashcraft (2012, p.240) describe interviews as “reliable gateways into what goes on in organizations” and Janićijević (2011) suggests that they are often used in organisational culture research for gathering data on cognitive

cultural elements, such as presumptions, values, norms, and attitudes.

Easterby-Smith et al. (2012) present a number of practical considerations that I followed when conducting the interviews. One of the important factors they refer to when

conducting interviews relates to obtaining the trust of the interviewee. Before each

interview, I outlined the purpose of the research to the participants. Furthermore, I assured all research participants that their identities would not be linked to information provided in the interview (Whiting, 2008).

The language used is another important consideration when interviewing (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012). The language used throughout my interviews was free from technical jargon, and if I sensed the interview participant was unclear in relation to a question asked, I attempted to clarify. Recording the interview can also add to interviewee anxiety (Whiting, 2008). Easterby-Smith et al. (2012) encourage the interviewer to consider letting the interviewee turn the recorder on and off themselves when they wish to do so, and I

followed this advice. However, this offer was not taken up by any of the interviewees. The location of the interview should also be carefully considered (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012). King and Horrocks (2010) identify three aspects of the location as being especially

important: comfort, privacy and quiet. I visited the employer organisation to interview employer participants. These interviews took place in quiet and private rooms free from interruptions. I prepared a sign on an A4 sheet of paper with the text “Quiet Please,

Interview in Progress”, which I put on the outside door of the interview room (after getting permission from the interviewee). Many of the learners who were interviewed were

completing a WBL programme delivered several hundred kilometres from HEI X, so I booked a room in the location where the WBL programme was being delivered, and conducted the interview either before or after their class. Other learner interviews took place in my office. The interviews with HEI X staff took place in my office at times and dates that suited the interviewee. HEI X staff were given the option to choose the location for the interview, and they all indicated they would like to be interviewed in my office.

A major decision the researcher has to make is in relation to the interview structure. Highly structured interviews were ruled out, as this research required in-depth discussion that could not be facilitated by closed questions. Although unstructured interviews are often used in ethnographic studies (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012; Whiting 2008), I decided to use semi-structured interviews. With semi-structured interviews, the interviewer has prepared an interview guide but does not necessarily strictly follow the wording or sequence of questions (Braun & Clarke, 2013). I identified a number of key themes from the literature and from my own experience. The themes with reference to the literature that helped to inform these themes are presented in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Interview themes informed by the literature

Interview Theme Literature

Motives for engaging in WBL partnerships

Abduljawad, 2015; Abukari, 2014; Basit et al., 2015; Harris et al., 2013; Healy et al., 2014; Higher Education Authority et al., 2015; Kewin et al., 2011; Kornecki, 2012; O’Connor et al., 2013; Plewa et al., 2015; Ropes, 2015; Sweet, 2014.

Challenges presented to the stakeholders

Ball & Manwaring, 2010; Basit et al., 2015; Berman, 2008; Bolden et al., 2009; Galan-Muros et al., 2013; Hardacre & Workman, 2010; Hughes & Slack, 2012; Kewin et al., 2011; Kozlinska, 2012; Lind & Styhre, 2013; Linehan & Sheridan, 2009; Schmidt & Gibbs, 2009; Schofield, 2013; Siebert & Walsh, 2013; Shaw et al., 2011; Tartari, et al., 2012; Wilson, 2012.

Communications and collaboration between the stakeholders

Ahmed, 2013; Ball & Manwaring, 2010; Basit et al., 2013; Benefer, 2007; Bolden et al., 2009; Brennan, 2005; Choy & Delahaye, 2009; Cyert & Goodman, 1997; Dowling, 2015; Rohrbeck and Arnold, 2006.

Learner support Ball & Manwaring, 2010; Boud et al., 2001; Benefer, 2007; Choy & Delahaye, 2009; Hardacre & Workman, 2010; Ramage, 2014; Siebert & Walsh, 2013.

Design of programme Ardizzone, 2012; Basit et al., 2013; Choy & Delahaye, 2009; Healy et al., 2014; Mumford & Roodhouse, 2010; Plewa et al., 2015.

Delivery of programme Anohina-Naumeca, & Sitikovs, 2012; Boud & Costley, 2007; Choy & Delahaye, 2009; Ferrández-Berrueco et al., 2016; Healy et al., 2014; Lester & Costley, 2010; Linehan & Sheridan, 2009.

Assessment Abduljawad, 2015; Basit et al., 2015; Choy & Delahaye, 2009; Healy et al., 2014; Johnson, 2001; Norman & Jerrard, 2015.

Issues in relation to policies, procedures, priorities and systems within the HEI that impact on WBL

Basit et al., 2015; Bolden, 2009; Choy & Delahaye, 2011; Dowling, 2015; Expert Group on Future Needs, 2015; Hughes et al., 2016; Kewin et al., 2011; Kozlinska, 2012; Layer et al., 2010; Shaw et al., 2011; Sheridan & Fallon, 2015; Thayaparan et al., 2014; White, 2012.

Issues in relation to policies, procedures, priorities and systems within the external employer organisation that impact on WBL

Benefer, 2007; Boud & Solomon, 2001; Johnson, 2001; Lemanski et al., 2011; McEwen et al., 2010; Ramage, 2014; Siebert & Walsh, 2013; Wright, 2008.

Issues as a result of cultural differences between HEI and external employer

Anohina-Naumeca & Sitikovs, 2012; Basit et al., 2015; Cronin, 2001; Dowling, 2015; Healy et al., 2014; Lind & Styhre, 2013; Plewa, 2009; Rohrbeck & Arnold, 2006.

An interview guide that identified themes to be discussed in the interviews was developed. This guide, which included separate themes for the HEI, employer and learner participants, is presented in Table 4-3 below.

Table 4-3 Interview guide Learner Participants’ Guide Employer Participants’ Guide HEI X Participants’ Guide

 Motive for enrolling on programme

 Details about the programme

 Motives/objectives for engaging in WBL partnership?  Details about the

programme.

 Motives/objectives for engaging in WBL partnership?  Details about the

programmes  How was learner informed

about the programme?

 How did you hear about WBL at HEI X?

 What stories did you hear about WBL at HEI X?  Promoting WBL to employer  Promoting WBL internally (challenges and recommendations)  Selection of learners

 First impressions of HEI X  Early meetings with theHEI  Communications with HEI  Relationship with HEI X

 Early meetings with the employer.

 Communications with employer

 Relationship with employer.

 What commitment did employer make in relation to support?

 Was this commitment kept?

 Programme design  Programme delivery  Programmes assessment  Programme design  Programme delivery  Programmes assessment  Challenges presented to the

stakeholders

 Challenges presented to the stakeholders

 Challenges presented to the stakeholders

 Support from HEI

 Support from employer  Coordinating WBLinternally.

 Coordinating WBL internally

 What do you like/dislike about the programme?

 Benefits of WBL to stakeholders

 Benefits of WBL to stakeholders

 What could the HEI do to improve WBL?

 What could the HEI do to improve WBL?

 What could the HEI do to improve WBL?  What could the employer

do to improve the programme?

 What could the employer do to improve the

programme?

 What could the employer do to improve the

programme?  Advice for employer and

HEI

 Advice for employer and HEI

 Advice for employer and HEI  Importance of WBL within HEI/employer organisation  Importance of WBL within HEI/employer organisation  Importance of WBL within HEI/employer organisation

Although an interview guide was used, I tried as much as possible to let the participants lead the discussion (Kvale, 1994). I was also aware that many of the interview participants knew me, and might presume I already had answers to some of the questions, and this might stop them from elaborating with their responses. I discussed this with the

participants prior to the interview, and told them to imagine that I knew very little about WBL. There are also benefits associated with interviewing people you know. Watson (2011) raises doubts about the information interview participants provide for people they do not know, and suggests that interviewees will be more revealing when interviewed by someone they know.

A further concern I had was in relation to my position within HEI X. I was the WBL coordinator in HEI X at the time of the interviews, and I did not want this to influence how participants responded. I explained that I wanted participants to be as open as possible and that the objective of the research was to improve WBL for all stakeholders. I also

explained that I had no problem receiving feedback that criticised how HEI X managed WBL.

Williamson (2006) recommends piloting when using interviews as a collection method. For this research, three pilot interviews (one with each stakeholder group) were conducted eight weeks prior to conducting the main interviews. The pilot interviews resulted in amendments to the interview in relation to the wording of questions, sequence of questions and number of questions. From completing the pilot interviews and listening several times to the recordings, I realised that I needed to improve my interviewing skills because I was doing too much of the talking and not probing sufficiently. For the main interviews, I became less reliant on the interview guide and more concerned with getting interview participants to elaborate on initial responses provided. King and Horrocks (2010) make a similar claim by urging the qualitative interviewer to be flexible and respond to issues that emerge as opposed to relying on a set of fixed questions. I also found that it was a good idea to pause for a few seconds after the interview participant finished a sentence before asking the next question to encourage elaboration. In the pilot interviews, I was too quick in asking the next question.