Resultados de las Encuestas

Interviews are usually divided into structured, semi-structured and unstructured interviews (Dörnyei, 2007), Richards points out that ‗there is a difference between those following a specific agenda, where the interviewer controls the development of the interview, and those which are allowed to develop more naturally‘ (2003: 51). In a structured interview, 'the agenda is totally predetermined by the researcher, who works through a list of set questions in a predetermined order' (Nunan, 1992: 149), while in the semi-structured interview 'the interviewer has a general idea of where he or she wants the interview to go, and what should come out of it … topics and issues rather than questions determine the course of the interview' (ibid., 149). Nunan claims that the advantages of a semi-structured interview are first 'that it gives the interviewee a degree of power and control over the course of the interview' (1992: 150). Secondly, 'it gives the interviewer a great deal of flexibility. Finally, and most profoundly, this form of interview gives one privileged access to other people's lives' (ibid.). Richards ignores 'the sort of tightly structured interview that has at best a rare place in qualitative research' (2003: 48) and the unstructured interview as he

130

says ‗there is no such thing as a completely ‗non-directive‘ interview‘ (ibid. 51). The qualitative nature of this research required conducting semi-structured interviews.

There is another ‗distinction between formal and informal interviews' (Richards, 2003: 51). Richards argues that:

Some interviews are formally arranged in advance and all parties understand what is taking place, but others arise in the context (…) When we observe, and listen, we don't shut ourselves off from what is happening around us, and in the course of our work there will be plenty of opportunities to talk with the people we encounter. Whether or not such talk could be described as interviews really doesn't matter too much (…) we could say that talk becomes an interview when the researcher designs their contribution to elicit responses focused on a particular topic (2003: 51).

Given the nature of this research and my role as a teacher-researcher, I found using informal talk very helpful in eliciting the participants‘ comments and feelings about their daily experiences of using the internet materials. These talks were mostly recorded, although learners sometimes used to come to me and to talk about their experiences when we were about to leave the classroom and when my recorder was off, but I used to write all the details immediately after getting out of class.

Mann (2010) argues that many metaphors are used to describe the interview process. These metaphors ‗are revealing from an epistemological perspective‘ (Mann, 2010: 2). He cites Kvale (1996: 5) who makes a contrast between two interview metaphors: ‗mining‘ and ‗traveling‘. In fact, ‗the traveller evokes a post-modern constructivist position that stands in contrast to the positivist miner extracting nuggets of raw truth‘ (Mann, 2010: 2). Given the qualitative nature of this research and the constructivist paradigm within which it operates, the interviews conducted were perceived as co-

131

constructions in the sense that the questions asked to each interviewee were not pre- determined. They were interactively shaped throughout the interview. Mann argues that ‗it is now well established that interview talk is inevitably a co-construction between the interviewer and interviewee‘ (ibid. 4).

According to Mann ‗an emphasis on co-construction leads to a greater emphasis on the interviewer‘ (2010: 11). He argues that:

The social science literature has focused primarily on distinctive features of the interviewee (e.g. attention to age, race, gender, and issues of power). The importance of co-construction is that it inevitably requires more attention to be paid to what the interviewer is bringing to the process (2010: 5).

To highlight what the interviewer brings to the process, a number of procedures need to be taken. The researchers, for example, ‗need to be more open in their accounting for how membership, roles and relationship can affect the way talk develops‘ (ibid.11). Is the interviewer the teacher and the interviewee a student? Power distance is a very important factor to consider in this regard as students may only report what they think the teacher wants them to report. Mann points out that ‗researchers often fail to consider the impact of key aspects of interviewer identity in their analysis‘ (ibid.). Another procedure to take is to provide transcribed extracts from interviews that include both the interviewer‘s and the interviewee‘s turns. Mann claims that ‗it is likely that any study that seriously grapples with the co- construction dilemma will need to represent the talk with some kind of transcription‘ (ibid. 10). Also, the context in which the interview is conducted needs to be considered. In Chapters Five and Six, I try to show longer stretches of interviews to show some of my contributions and not airbrush them out.

132

In qualitative research, interviews are usually conducted to understand social events from the participants‘ perspectives. The researcher may 'ask numerous open-ended questions, or open-ended probes … Such open questions are important in allowing the respondents to say what they think and to do so with greater richness and spontaneity‘ (Nunan, 1992: 81). Richards claims that 'in qualitative inquiry we need to go deeper, to pursue understanding in all its complex, elusive and shifting forms; and to achieve this we need to establish a relationship with people that enables us to share in their perception of the world (2003: 50). This was what I tried to do in order to build this kind of trust between the interviewer, me in this case, and the interviewees, to establish a good relationship that would ensure rapport; a quality that 'keeps the respondent motivated and interested in answering the questions truthfully' (Oppenheim, 1992: 89). Mann argues that ‗each interview is set up and there are often requests, explanations, and rapport building before the research interview begins in earnest‘ (2010: 5).