As already mentioned, this study adopted the qualitative interview as primary method for generating data. A qualitative interview may take many forms. In this research project, both semi-structured and open-ended interviews were conducted (see Section 10.3. in Appendix for Interview questions).
4.5.1. Semi-structured Interviews
The flow concept was developed through qualitative work, and has been widely studied using semi-structured interview method (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 2009). “The semistructured interview provides a holistic, emic account of the flow experience in real-life contexts. (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009 p. 198).
When conducting a semi-structured interview, the researcher has a “shopping list” of questions or topics that she wants to ask the informant (Robson, 2002). The semi-structured form gives the researcher freedom to adjust the question to “fit” the informant, and to ask exploring question to get a precise understanding of what the informant wants to express (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). This is also called “probing” (King & Harrocks, 2010). See Section 10.3.1. in Appendix for interview guide.
In the qualitative interview situation, the interviewer may be seen as a traveller or a miner (Kvale, 2009). When doing a semi-structured interview it is suitable to think of the interviewer and the participant as fellow travellers, exploring and reflecting together. In the first round of interviews my position as a researcher matches this description. The road may take unexpected turns, and the travellers may end up in a place that was not planned (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).
4.5.2. Using Remote Video Technique in Interviews
The remote video interviews were conducted using Skype, and was audio recorded, using digital audio recorder.
Using remote video technique to do interviews has both benefits and detriments. The required equipment is not at this point available to everybody, and may result in exclusion of participants who might otherwise bring important contributions to the study. It may also propose problems if the Internet connection breaks or is not sufficiently fast. A risk is also that the video or sound quality is not sufficient for the two parts to understand each other (King & Harrocks, 2010). Despite these factors it was considered to be beneficial to use this technique in the current study, as travelling around was not possible. Through living abroad I have countless positive experiences of using this tool for communicating across boarders. I
experienced twice that the connection broke for a few minutes, but both interviews were continued and finished. In a few cases I had difficulties understanding the recordings. These are marked in the transcriptions (see Section 4.6).
4.5.3. Written Interviews
The email interviews were conducted after the first interviews were transcribed. The intention was that the researcher would have the opportunity to ask exploring questions to elements that came forth in the first section of interviews. This may thus be considered a step in the process of analysing the empiric data. The research design also allowed the participants to explore and reflect around the topic of the first interview. They even had the possibility talk to friends or read about the topic of interest between the interviews. The participants were not asked about this, and some may not have thought about the topic at all since last time.
The email interview was considered beneficial in the second round of interviews for various reasons. An e-mail (written) interview may generate different aspects compared to an oral interview because of the difference in level of intimacy between the participant and the interviewer. There is evidence that people generally are more self-disclosing about personal information online than face to face (Joinson, 2001).However, the participants’ opportunity of to self-censure is greater, and may result in less openness. Undoubtedly, the participants have to a much greater extent the opportunity to think through their use of words and author their answers.
Receiving the interview questions by e-mail allowed the participant to choose when to do it and how much time to spend on it. Concurrently, there is a greater risk that the
participants are distracted or multi-tasking when writing their answers (King & Harrocks, 2010). It was also seen as beneficial that this method is much less time consuming for the researcher (organising meetings, transcribing recordings etc.), and the frames for the master thesis did not allow for more oral interviews.
The written interview included three questions of which two of them had sub
questions. It was suggested in the information sheet that the participants could spend between 30 minutes and one hour for the second interview. There was no strict time limitations or a required amount of words; the participants were in the email encouraged to use as many words as they found appropriate.
The contrasting idea of the interviewer as a traveller is the miner. In this perspective the researcher is revealing knowledge that is already there (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). The miner metaphor is often connected to the positivistic approach to science, but may also be
seen in connection to phenomenologist’s thoughts of searching for the essence (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). In the second round of interviews, my position may be similar to the manager of the mine, providing the participants with mining axes and the opportunity to travel into the mines.