In this section I provide a largely theoretical discussion with regard to gathering data from interviewing. I then describe how I obtained the data for this study. First I briefly describe the participants and how interviews were conducted.
I obtained narrative data from a purposively selected group of doctoral graduates from Stellenbosch University. Not all doctoral graduates were willing to be interviewed and not all willing graduates were still living in the area or were able to schedule an appropriate interview time. It was also important to have a variety of participating graduates representative of different disciplines, academic and social backgrounds, age and gender. The interviews were semi-structured and the questions asked were influenced by an appreciative inquiry (AI) approach which means that these questions were directed towards the recollection of positive experiences as all graduates had already completed their studies successfully. The interviews were conducted in Afrikaans or English, depending on the preference of the participant although the participant often changed language during the interview. I interviewed all the participants specifically in relation to doctoral success at Stellenbosch University and my opening question to the graduates was why they had been interested in obtaining a doctoral degree and what they thought the purpose of doctoral studies was.
Qualitative interviewing places an isolated participant at the centre of the picture (Owens, 2007, p. 307). It is therefore important to reassure the participant at the start about the purpose of the research and interview, as well as the confidentiality of the study. A tactic that I used during the interviews, especially when a participant was somewhat nervous, was to do most of the talking during the first few minutes. I lost some minutes of the interview time, but this was compensated for by getting the participant to relax, which improved the quality of the rest of the interview. As result the responses were of a much deeper nature in terms of honesty, truthfulness and profundity. It is possible to use Wengraf’s Biographic Narrative Method (2001) to approach respondents who are highly articulate and just ask one question followed up by exploratory probes to clarify and deepen meaning (Owens, 2007, p. 304). However, not all respondents have the capacity to respond to one question. They rely
on the skills of the interviewer to provide prompts for additional data. Therefore, to secure meaningful narratives, the researcher needs to be adaptable and has to have a high degree of flexibility to be able to use different tactics. Plummer (2001, p. 145) encourages the use of techniques such as ‘funnelling’ in the interview situation. This is a technique in which questions and linked probes keep an interview going. The ‘standard funnel’ is applied where the researcher uses closed questions that open into more in-depth questioning. The type of funnelling used in the interviews for this study was ‘inverted funnel’ where I started with five or six general questions and became more focused around specific areas. It is important for the researcher to be attentive and responsive and to be familiar with the informant’s linguistic turn because the researcher is reliant on the interview as a means of gaining access to the experiences and evaluative accounts of respondents.
Interviewing places an isolated participant at the centre of attention (Owens, 2007, p. 307). Therefore, some respondents might possibly not be used to this kind of pressure which could cause the interview to be tense and problematic. When interviews are difficult to conduct or when respondents are not open enough to conduct a meaningful interview, the researcher must apply his or her interpersonal skills. Egan (2009) suggests that ‘micro-skills’ be used to ‘tune in’ to people. This means that the researcher relies on his or her sensory skills instinctively and be aware of non-verbal communication in order to enhance the interview relationship. Another approach is to ‘tune in’ to people by active listening (Egan, 2009, pp. 65-66). The researcher has to be present psychologically, socially and emotionally. Therefore, listening involves at least four elements: listening and understanding verbal messages; observing and reading non-verbal behaviour (e.g. tone of voice, posture and facial expressions); listening to the context of the whole person in the context of their social setting; and listening to the less pleasant experiences or things that may require challenging. Detailed observations are a useful tool that can give more breadth and depth and can assist understanding in certain situations. The researcher acknowledges that the world is complex, multifaceted and socially constructed while utilising these kind of approaches in conducting interviews. Using observational methods alongside interviewing enabled me to explore, understand and interpret how others construct and experience their worlds.
Another important skill involved while conducting interviews is empathic listening. According to Egan (in Owens, 2007, p. 305) empathic listening is an ‘intellectual process that involves correctly understanding another person’s emotional state and point of view’. This seems to be an important skill in an interview situation as it plays an important part in building relationships. An added skill that evolves while conducting interviews is ‘shadow listening’ (Owens, 2007, p. 305). During an interview, the researcher always has a conversation with him- or herself. In my study, for example, during the interviews my mind often wandered and made certain statements such as: ‘This is really interesting; I should refer to that point later on in the interview.’ This skill can deepen an interview, allowing the interviewer to probe emergent feelings.
Whatever type of research, the researcher has to have certain attributes in order to conduct interviews. One of the most important qualities seems to be good social skills (Walsham, 2006, p. 322). Researchers can work to improve their social skills through self-reflection and with input from others such as friends, colleagues and supervisors. A researcher needs the ability to take ‘no’ for an answer, but still have the persistence to try a different approach to a question. The researcher has to acquire a certain level of respect from selected respondents in order to be taken seriously and obtain full involvement. This is mainly done by briefing selected respondents. By contacting and explaining the study to the selected respondents before the actual interview, the researcher could acquire respect from the respondents and therefore get the full attention which was necessary to conduct a fruitful cooperation and an in-depth interview.
For this study, the prospective participants were fully briefed about the purpose of the study and how their information was to be handled. Their confidentiality was assured and was always guaranteed. I informed them that they would not be identified in the study, either in written work or in reporting back to Stellenbosch University. It was essential to be sensitive to time pressures in fixing a suitable interview time and then not overstaying my welcome during the interview. It was better to finish interviews and lose some interaction time – if interviewees were clearly pressured – than to irritate them by taking too much of their time especially when it came to interviewing their supervisors. The questions during the
interviews were sequenced in such a way that the respondents remained focused on the subject of the study. All respondents expressed their willingness to cooperate and gave their consent for the recording of the interviews. Where there were uncertainties about the meaning of some of the answers, their responses were repeated in order to verify the data.
The process of interviewing goes hand in hand with maintaining an ethical stance (Owens, 2007, p. 305) in relation to the researcher and the participant. I kept in mind that I was a visitor at the respondents’ homes or places of work and leisure. There was a premium on preserving personal space, privacy and, above all, the dignity of each person. Therefore a more conservative approach to observation was adopted, making it not too obvious for the participant that I also took note of their body language, gestures, facial expressions and other non-verbal indicators of communication. If these observations are too obvious, it might cause respondents to become self-conscious and therefore limit and constrain their spontaneous reactions.
This study involved an active engagement with recently graduated doctoral students, their supervisors and significant others; therefore several interviews were conducted. Eighteen participants were interviewed. Six doctoral graduates were purposefully selected from Stellenbosch University. Three participants who graduated in March 2010 at Stellenbosch University were interviewed, as well as three graduates from March 2011. Of the six graduates, three were from the social sciences and three were from the natural sciences. For each graduate, his or her supervisor, as well as a ‘significant other’ of the graduate, was interviewed. The latter was a person who was closely involved in the life of the participant and could follow the influence of the doctoral process on the graduate.
The interviews in this study were recorded digitally. This had both advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages the recordings had was that these were a accurate record of what was said compared to notes taken during the interview. No matter how extensively notes were taken, they could never have reflected exactly what was said, without compromising the quality of the interview. However, field notes were taken concerning direct quotes or facial expressions. I made use of observations and spent some
time during the interviews on observing the respondents. This freed me to concentrate on engaging with all the respondents as recordings do not capture the tacit, non-verbal elements of an interview although they are crucial aspects of the interview experience. Walsham (2006: 323) notes: ‘We may not know exactly how we assess people, as human cognition remains something of a mystery, but we know that we do not judge people’s view or attitudes solely on what they say.’