23rd May: Kerry's last lecture - Reiteration of main concepts and some concluding thoughts

Kerry held his last lecture today and reinforced several main concepts which he wants us to keep in mind for the rest of our research journey.

(1) Elements of a good proposal and good write-up

Research Problem (Motivation)
- Debate/Confusion in “specific” literature

Theory (Theorisation)
- Proposed explanation/solution to research problem

Method (How?)
- Approach to “get evidence” to support theory

Data/evidence/argument (Argumentation)
- Evidence “mobilised” to argue for (against) theory (theorisation)
- What do the quotes bring to your solution? You need many quotes to make a good argument.
- With quotes (as opposed to stories), you would have to introduce the interviewee first before using the quotes. 

Conclude (Come up with best solution)
- Resolve problem
- Look forward

The above points were being mentioned in most of Kerry's lectures, so by this time of the year, I'm more or less familiar with what they are and their importance. Nevertheless, this is a good reminder, since I'm starting on my write-up soon. 

(2) Difference between academic contribution and practical contribution

Kerry also mentioned that researchers (experienced/PhD students/Honours students/etc.) tend to confuse academic contribution and practical contribution. To have a clearer idea of the key difference between both, he explained that more often than not, academics seek to resolve an on-going debate in their area of research, while practical implications are on a much larger scale that are applicable to the real world. This is a trap that I often fall into - I often write theoretical contribution from a practical point of view, neglecting the academic approach. Kerry also mentioned that in most cases, an academic contribution is made first, and it'll usually be extended and made applicable to the real world. Given that I have always been quite casual about theoretical contribution (in fact, I never quite saw its importance!), I will certainly be more careful with the way I pen my theoretical contribution from now on.

Research is a never-ending journey

 
So what have I learnt as a budding researcher?  

I guess the most important lesson which I've learnt is, research is a continuous process. Even though this is my last entry for Kerry's course, I don't think this blog will be dropped off the radar just because it will no longer be assessed for the purpose of BUSN8018. The journey to learn more about research, good research, qualitative research, and qualitative research methods has been extremely revealing. Even though my thesis will be a quantitative one, the exploration of the qualitative aspect of self-efficacy has brought colours to the quantitative research which I'm working on currently. Additionally, it has given me greater insights into the process of how self-efficacy beliefs are formed and their impact on several outcomes. 

In a nutshell, these are my key take-aways from Kerry's course: 

Rules of the game for good research

• Good research = good argument, bad research = lousy argument
• Research is all about creating good arguments, and not conceptualising absolute "truth"
• Ontology - Epistemology - Methodology
• Kerry's Good Proposal Template ©
• What is my key academic paper?
• What is the problem (mistake/gap) in that paper? (research based on "gap")
• What is the "model" of the process you are looking at?
• What is my "best guess"/theory for how I would expect the gap to work?
• Why is the gap important for cause-and-effect issues?
• What evidence do I need to "fill the gap"?
• What is a reasonable way to gather the evidence I need?
• How will my case site/location/area provide the evidence I need?

Find a gap (safe approach) vs. Make a gap (unsafe approach)

• Case study (what you're looking at) ≠ Research question (what reader wants to know)
• Position yourself as the reader: What do you want to know?/What doesn't make sense?
• Identify audience, and motivate them
• Gap: Extend knowledge/What is new, novel, and surprising?/Paradox/Contradictions
• Summarise existing pool of knowledge: find a break or make a break
• Essentially, no gap > no motivation > no research paper. Hence, research problem (based on research gap) is extremely important for good research!

Theory and theorisation

• Knowledge > Generalisable knowledge > Theory (Contribution back to literature)
• Research Purpose: To generalise to theory, as research without theory is journalism! 
• In research, we are always trying to extend theoretical understanding by making arguments and using theoretical tools
• Two competing theories: Choose the one that you recognise/resonate with
• Nature of qualitative research particularly apt for theorisation, which involves exploring relationships and dynamics 
• Jacobs' Six Step Approach © on how to use theory
• Start with an important problem (why and to whom is it important?)
• Demonstrate shortcoming in existing approach
• Re-construct with theoretical bridge (argument), introduce and explain theory
• Carry out study with acceptable method, which depends on the theory chosen
• Show the contribution to knowledge/existing theories
• Reflect on what you have found (new theory/model)

Research design - Case studies

• A case is a strategy (method) rather than a genre, it can be applied to any setting
• Essential questions that shapre research design
• (1) What? (Research gap/problem)
• (2) Why? (Significance of research)
• (3) Theorise the problem (Theory)
• (4) How? (Proposed approach to gather evidence/collect data, research design!) 
•  Positivist approach/Interpretive approach (preferred)/Critical approach
• Positivist: testing/refining a hypothesis
• Interpretive: understand meaning and process
• Critical: critical reflection on practice

 Interviews and fieldwork

• Advantages of interviews: flexibility, observe non-verbal cues, controlled environment, ensure interviewee answers, complex and sensitive questions
• Disadvantages of interviews: time-consuming, interviewer bias, verbal claims differ from actual behaviour (social desirability bias) 
• Interview process: (1) Start-up, (2) Conduct interviews, (3) Recording, (4) Problems, (5) Group interviews or focus groups
• Start-up: Background, Motivation, Confidentiality, Permission, Break the ice
• Conducting interviews: Don't speak too much, Don't agree/disagree, Reflective listening
• Recording: Ask for permission, do pre-recording to see if device is functioning
• Interview problems: Don't lead interviewee, Don't offend interviewee, Don't go off-topic
• Group interviews/focus groups: Facilitate discussion, dynamic setting
• Getting in, getting on, getting out, and getting back (Buchanan, Boddy, & McCalman, 1988)
• Negotiate research access to organisations (Getting in)
• Establish effective relationships with respondents (Getting on)
• Withdraw from the relationships (Getting out)
• Return to organisation for follow-up (Getting back)  

Data analysis

• (1) What do you expect to find? (based on prior/existing literature and theory)
• (2) Who are the players and what are the relationships? (based on these, formulate design)
• (3) Analyse data (in my case, interviews) in relation to expecations and design
• (4) Challenge/Extend/Reject/Develop theory
• When data is different from what you're expecting, adjust theory
• When doing qualitative research, never separate the analysis and discussion
•  Group exercise on ANU-CBE international students' experience: A good interview analysis strikes a balance between having too much data/too little theory and having too much theory/too little data
• Can you support the proposition?
• Mobilise evidence to support proposition and theory

Write-up

• Write every day from the beginning, even when you're not in the mood
• Have a structure before writing, but be flexible with the structure 
• Write the conclusions first - to provide focus for the write-up    
• Be parsimonious: write clearly and succinctly
• Claim(s), evidence to support claim(s), warrant (explain why evidence is relevant to the claim), and qualification

From the points above, one certainly is able to tell that I have had so much to learn and gain from this course. Special mention to Kerry who's always been so supportive - challenging us intellectually, joking when we're feeling tired and stressed, and entertaining us with your stories and quotes. William Sanderson, an American actor, once famously said, "one of the joys about acting is researching", I'd like to modify it and end off with - "one of the joys about studying is researching."

In-class Exercise: Writing Up (16th May)

(1) Select three quotes to defend a point ("Quotes")
- Write a paragraph to position and another to analyse quotes
- claim → quotes → argument

While current literature suggests that gender remains a primary factor that affects a person’s perceived career choice(s), I suggest that owing to the evolvement of gender roles over the past few decades, social capital has replaced gender to be the most influential demographic factor that determines the level of self-efficacy a person possesses, and subsequently his or her perceived career options.

For example, one of the female interviewees stated:

… from a young age, I knew about my parents’ careers and I think this contributed to the scope of careers that I wanted and knew I was able to achieve. The range of careers which I considered is somewhat similar to theirs, in that they were mostly middle- to upper-class occupations, mainly because I was exposed to my parents’ jobs, and because my parents sought to ensure that my siblings and I have the same level of education (or higher) as what they achieved and enjoyed.

Additionally, another male interviewee responded:

… if your mom is an accountant, you’ll be more confident about being an accounting (parental occupation).

Clearly, from both of the above responses, it can be seen that parental occupation plays a highly influential role in a person’s perceived career choice(s). There was no mention of race/ethnicity and gender affecting their perceived career choices. Hence, among race/ethnicity, gender, and social capital, social capital is shown to influence a person’s perceived career option(s) to the largest extent.

(2) Select an individual to defend a point ("Story")
- Structure narrative of individual – highlight key issues 
- Prepare an analysis of the narrative 
- claim → quotes → argument

Mark*, the male interviewee whose views differed slightly from the rest, stressed that in addition to social capital, a person’s self-efficacy beliefs, personality, and other personal motivations would also affect his or her perceived career options. He opined that:

(because) I’m quite risk-averse, I am not that keen to start my own business or become an entrepreneur […] I have a friend (a Hong Konger) who is relatively wealthy and whose parents are business people, he started his own real estate business in Australia after he graduated from an Australian university. I think that one’s own career choice is related to one’s family background and exposure. For my friend, because his family owns a business and is naturally more risk-taking than the average family, he is thus more risk-taking that others like myself. Coupled with the network of contacts that his family has, there are more opportunities for him to establish a business than others.

While many interviews did mention personality as one other factor that may affect a person’s perceived career options, Mark* went into detail by suggesting that the level of risk a person is willing to take on will also influence his or her perceived career choice greatly. The distinction he drew between his friend (risk-loving) and himself (risk-averse) is one other area that is worth exploring, since prior research has shown that personality is another influential factor that shapes a person’s perceived career choice(s).

Mark*’s parents were not highly-educated – in fact, both of his parents did not complete secondary education. However, because his father had a skill that was in demand, he was able to set up his own electrical engineering business, which gave him a decent income that was enough to support Mark*’s and his siblings’ overseas tertiary education. Note that to send all three siblings overseas for an education is quite a hefty sum even for a typical Hong Konger family by today’s standards.

Mark* also stated that:

No, I don’t think (my social capital) affected my career choices. I think even if I came from a lower-class or upper-class family, I will still choose the same career choice.

 But he did acknowledge that:

… my social class (as someone from a middle-class family) has given me a lot of exposure and opportunities. Most importantly, because my parents were able to pay for my tertiary education both in Hong Kong and Australia, this gave me more choices than a lot of my peers back in Hong Kong.

Mark* provided a more complete picture of a person’s self-efficacy beliefs and how they influence his or her perceived career options, which are both subjected to a person’s social capital, personality, and personal motivations. Hence, from Mark's story, we are able to understand the various factors (in addition to a person's social capital and demographic background) that influence a person's perceived career options. Essentially, it is not just about a person's social capital and demographic background.

What works best - tell a story or get straight to the point by using quotes? 

Personally, I found writing up using quotes much faster and easier than telling a story. At the same time, I also realised that while telling a story requires far more details and takes up a longer period of time, it essentially converts knowing into telling. Initially, I preferred using quotes because I could easily mobilise the quotes to either support or defend my claims. Because I was clear with the end goal in mind, I knew which particular quote I wanted to be included in the write-up and was able to utlise the quotes to back-up my argument and dismiss other claims. With stories, mobilisation became much harder. First, within the story alone, I had to consider the introduction, the background, the views and actions, and lastly the interpretation of the story. I then had to position the story in such a way that it is relevant to and supports my claim.

It was only after I've produced two versions of the write-up that I realised that story-telling manages to capture the emotions, goals, and decision-making thought processes that quotes tend to miss out on. When using quotes to defend my claim, I did feel as though I had more control of how I went about managing and using the data, but I felt that I was putting too much of myself into the write-up. Instead of letting the stories speak for themselves, I was making assumptions and operating them in a way that fits my write-up. On the other hand, story-telling was a detailed approach which enabled me to decipher what exactly the interviewee meant, with his/her careful choice of words which brought out different emotions, meanings, attitudes, and experiences. With quotes, my write up was straight-to-the-point, they represented the outcomes and conclusion. But herein lies the issue, in research (especially qualitative research), we are not only interested in the outcomes, we are also interested in the processes that led to the outcomes. How did the researcher arrive at this conclusion? Why did he interpret it in this manner? It is only through story-telling that we are able to answer these crucial questions, and thus developing a story for the purpose of research is definitely worth the extra effort and time. 

Table 1. Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis Methods (Kendall & Kendall, 2012)


For my research project, I will be using a mix of quotes and stories to defend my argument(s). I think quotes and stories are particularly appropriate for interpreting interviews, since they do not attempt to alter the underlying meanings of the interviewees' responses and are able to complement one another well. Given the limited time-frame for this course, a research write-up filled with stories will be overwhelming on the part of the researcher. Essentially, while the researcher aims to represent the data as accurately as possible, he or she doesn't need to include everything that's being said and recorded. Throughout this exercise, Kerry provided us with constructive feedback and comments which I found to be extremely useful in not just honing my writing skills, but informing me what a proper qualitative research write-up entails. With this, I feel more confident and prepared for the actual write-up of my research project.

References

Kendall, J. E., & Kendall, K. E. (2012). Storytelling as a qualitative method for IS research: Heralding the heroic and echoing the mythic. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 161-187.

Reflections on "Getting In, Getting On, Getting Out and Getting Back - The art of the possible"

This article by Buchanan, Boddy, and McCalman (1988) provided a behind-the-scenes perspective of how they go about carrying out their qualitative research, elaborating on the painstaking process of research (in particular, data collection) that is not well-understood by the general public. The most important message that I got after reading this article is that when embarking on a qualitative research project, it is important that the researcher remains flexible, reflective, and open-minded throughout the research process.

Drawing on their experience in conducting fieldwork in organisations, Buchanan et al. (1988) proposed a four-stage process in which researchers go through when trying to gain access to organisations for data collection purposes. The four stages are: (1) getting in, (2) getting on, (3) getting out, and (4) getting back. To summarise, at the "getting in" stage, researchers are expected to be clear about their objectives, time, and resources, and with those in mind, negotiate their way through to the organisation to gain research access. Once access has been granted to the researcher, it becomes necessary to establish connections with members of the organisation, so having basic interpersonal skills and procedures such as good appearance, verbal, and non-verbal communication will play an important role at the "getting on" stage. This subsequently determines the quantity and quality of the data provided by respondents. Having collected the necessary data, the researcher will now embark on the "getting out" stage. Buchanan et al. (1988) suggested that the best way for a researcher to proceed with his/her own research is to agree on a deadline with the organisation, so as to bring the data collection process to a closure. Finally, the option of "getting back" (returning) to the organisation for further fieldwork should be kept, and this requires the researcher to manage the process of withdrawal from the organisation favourably.

I read the article three times, and gained new insights each time I read it. I can't help but agree with Kerry that each time the researcher reads the article, he/she will find the points mentioned more and more salient and relevant to his/her own research. Because I have mainly conducted interviews with university students (for convenience sampling), I may not be able to relate to the article entirely. Nevertheless, the authors brought up certain issues and incidents which I did encounter, and I'd like to reflect on two obstacles which I've encountered in data collection

(1) I totally agree with the authors that not all research projects will progress according to plan, even if the researcher(s) has closely followed the process of theory development and data collection methods, is highly conscientious, meticulous, and well-prepared. For instance, I planned to interview Indigenous students studying at the Tjabal Indigenous Higher Education Centre in the ANU and I had assumed that with the help of Kerry and Stuart, I would definitely be able to interview one or two Indigenous students. However, the Manager of the Centre did not like the idea of making the decision herself, and this is rightly so, since he/she does not represent the students, and merely manages the Centre and deals with the administrative issues. In performing research, there are always unavoidable realities, which instead of tackling them, it's sometimes best to not continue pursuing those interests and embark on the other alternatives. Because I could not gain access to Indigenous students at the Tjabal Indigenous Higher Education Centre, I sought the help of peers who I thought may have access to the Indigenous community within ANU. As luck would have it, my fellow Honours coursemate (Luke) recommended some Indigenous students to me, and Kerry along with the Manager of the Tjabal Indigenous Higher Education Centre referred me to the President of the Indigenous Students' Association, and suggested that I contact him directly to gain access to Indigenous students in ANU. I have since conducted one interview with a second-year CBE Indigenous male student, and will be carrying out another interview with a first-year CBE Indigenous female student over the weekends.

(2) One downside of conducting structured interviews is that the researcher, who is the one facilitating the interview-conversation, might fall into the trap of becoming overly mechanical, thereby impeding the process of eliciting personal, sensitive information which may play a crucial role in addressing the research question. Being overly mechanical may lead the researcher to "ignore many apparently trivial remarks and passing comments in the interview which if pursued could lead to further insights and improved understanding". In my case, I realised that when I was uncomfortable with the setting of the interview (e.g. a noisy cafe), I tended to be more mechanical and maintained a psychological distance with the respondent. This comprised on the quality and the quantity of the interview responses. Hence, I would like to think of the interview as more of a conversation, which can only be sustained through input from both the researcher and the respondent, via little gestures like being genuinely interested and showing genuine interest in the responses and life of the respondent. Another way is to use ice-breakers such as "how has your day been?", "have you got a lot of work to do?", and "have you heard about the latest (fashion/news/trends/cafes/store/etc.)" just to get the respondent into a relaxed mode and ease him/her into the interview. As Burgess (1988) puts it, qualitative research interviews, as opposed to structured survey interviews, are usually taken to involve some form of "conversation with a purpose". Hence, when carrying out interviews, I try my best to keep them conversational, dynamic, and flexible, so that I can engage effectively with the interviewee, and in the process, learn more about their opinions with regards to the research issues and their experiences.

Summary: The four stages a researcher has to go through when collecting data from an organisation

Stage 1: Getting In - Negotiate research access to organisations
Stage 2: Getting On - Establish effective relationships with respondents
Stage 3: Getting Out - Withdraw from those relationships
Stage 4: Getting Back - Returning to the organisation to follow up aspects of previous findings

Buchanan et al. (1988)

References

Buchanan, D., Boddy, D., and McCalman, J. (1988), "Getting in, getting on, getting out and getting back", in A. Bryman (Ed.), Doing Research in Organizations, Routledge, London, pp. 53-67.

Burgess, R. (1988), "Conversations with a purpose: the ethnographic interview in educational research", Studies in Qualitative Methodology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 137-155.

Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis

Kerry introduced the triad thesis-antithesis-synthesis to assist us in forming good arguments and developing reasoning based on evidence. He mentioned that thinking or writing in terms of thesis-antithesis-synthesis can also help us position ourselves in the flow of scholarly discourse regarding our topic. Additionally, he mentioned that existing literature is essentially an on-going argument, so if we can show such a pattern of thought in a literature review, the literature review is likely to be comprehensive, thorough, and sophisticated.

The thesis is essentially an idea that we propose (e.g. high social self-efficacy enables a person to be successful in dating). In research, the thesis is the proposition. The antithesis is a response to the thesis asserted, a negation of the thesis (e.g. Z argued that people with high social self-efficacy tend to be flirts instead, hence people tend to avoid dating them). As illustrated in both examples, a conflict exists between the thesis and the antithesis. Based on the antithesis, a person with high social self-efficacy would not be successful in dating since he/she is usually known as a flirt. Perhaps social self-efficacy is one of the necessary traits for a person to be good in dating, but we also have to consider the person's appearance, personality, and experience to determine if he/she will be successful in dating. I have positioned the new idea as a synthesis of the thesis-antithesis dyad. In other words, the synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling both and forming a new thesis, thereby starting a new cycle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

Applying the thesis-antithesis-synthesis thought process has given me a better idea of how I can go about formulating good, robust, and persuasive arguments. Despite Kerry's constant emphasis on making good arguments, I have struggled considerably in this aspect. This was evident in the first literature review assignment of this course in which Kerry remarked that I have not addressed the gap, even though I have found and indicated that there is a gap in existing self-efficacy literature. Consequently, I decided to practice using the thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach on my current qualitative research project on self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options. The exercise is shown below:

(1) Thesis: Current literature suggests that gender is by far the most important demographic factor that influences a person's self-efficacy beliefs, and his/her subsequent perceived career options.
(2) Antithesis: However, in most of the interviews which I have conducted (which involve full-time ANU CBE students), a person's social capital appears to be the most influential demographic factor that affects his/her self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options.
(3) Synthesis: A possible explanation is that the traditional gender roles have already evolved such that the influence of gender on a person's self-efficacy beliefs and perceived career options is diminished. Consequently, a person's social capital has become the most important demographic factor in determine the level of self-efficacy a person possesses, and the formulation of his/her perceived career choices (possibly as a result of greater social inequality).

I found this exercise to be extremely useful in helping me understand what is lacking in a salient argument. From now on, I will definitely be using the above approach when constructing arguments!

On Planning and Carrying Out Interviews (Experience of ANU-CBE International Students)

For this interviewing exercise, Luke and I interviewed a total of six international students - each of us conducted two interviews individually and two individuals jointly. On listening to the recordings while transcribing the verbatim, I noticed some differences in interviewing styles between Luke's and my interview style. In addition, I realised that I have a tendency to interrupt and make assumptions during interviews, which greatly compromises on their quality. This indicates that I have to improve my interviewing technique.

Upon further reflection on the exercise, I broke down the interviewing process into three main phases:

(1) Prior to the interview

Before coming up with the interview questions, Luke and I discussed about the theory with regards to the topic that was assigned to us - the experience of CBE international students studying at ANU. Our theory was based on semiotics, which is defined as the study of the structure and meaning of language. We proposed that a person's semiotic background, not just his or her command of English, will play an important role in influencing his or her experience in the ANU. We took some time to develop the interview questions, because we both felt that it was important to first formulate a theory.

Coming from a quantitative background, I also noticed that the way in which we went about theorising and forming interview questions is slightly different for both types of research. For example, Luke (coming for a qualitative background), was sharing with me how certain words (such as describe, can you tell me more about ..., experiences, influences, attitudes, etc.) were preferred in qualitative research when formulating the interview questions.

When constructing the interview questions, we tried to make them as broad and neutral as possible so as to reduce potential interviewer and social desirability bias. The following five questions were part of our interview: 

1. How do you feel as an individual in ANU with regards to your identity?
2. How do you associate with others at ANU?
3. How does your experience at ANU differ from your experience of Australia/home
   country?
4. How satisfied are you with your conduct at ANU and ANU’s conduct of you?
5. Overall, do you find your experience at ANU enjoyable?

All five questions leave open the possibility for interviewees to mention any issues which they consider to be relevant to their experience in ANU-CBE. 

(2) During the interview

Many international students did not fully understand our interview questions, and were only able to respond only after we have clarified the meaning of certain words in the interview questions. This was an oversight on Luke's and my part, because we had assumed that firstly, all ANU-CBE international students will have the same command of English as us, and secondly, they they will understand the meaning of the words "identity", "associate", and "conduct" in the context of semiotics. It is important that interviewees understand and do not misinterpret the questions, otherwise the responses may not help in collecting relevant data. However, the questions that interviewees asked also shed light on certain issues that were new to us, and gave us a better understanding of their cultural backgrounds and customs.

On the whole, I found that having a scribe and an interviewer made it much easier to conduct an interview. The quality of the interview was also maximised. When we conducted the interviews jointly, one of us was in charge of ensuring that the recorder was functioning and taking down observational notes, and the other was in charge of asking the questions and interacting with the interviewee. Having conducted interviews individually most of the time, I found myself less stressed and hectic in the joint interviews.

In terms of interviewing technique and style, I felt that while I could connect with most of the interviewees who came from Asia (Filipinos, Malaysians, and Chinese), I struggled when I had to prompt interviewees for further elaboration of the claims they made. Sometimes, in prompting interviewees to explain in detail, I felt that I have interrupted the conversation and their train of thought, and even imposed my views on their responses. Luke assured me that such incidents usually point to a lack of experience rather than a lack of interviewing skills. I must admit that I'm so used to structured interviews, that semi-structured and unstructured interviews seem a little overwhelming to me at first. Fortunately, after conducting a few more interviews, I slowly got the hang of it and conducted the semi-structured interviews more confidently.

(3) After the interview

Transcribing the interviews verbatim took some time, but having a systematic approach facilitated our subsequent data analysis. Based on our theory, we used coding to analyse the transcribed data. After the entire interviewing process was over, I referred back to the observational notes I took during some of the interviews. Together with the transcripts, I thought that the fieldnotes contributed to the entire data analysis process, especially when we proceeded to code and make sense of the wealth of data that we had collected.

Having gone through this exercise, I would like to thank my groupmate, Luke, for being so wonderful and patient to me. Given that I am still learning the ropes of carrying out qualitative research, I must say that I have learnt a lot from you! I thoroughly enjoyed this exercise.

Fieldwork Methods & Issues - Interviews

Kerry went through a few qualitative data collection techniques today, focusing mainly on interviews, and touching briefly on focus groups, field notes, and participant observation. I found this session to be particularly useful because I will be conducting structured interviews for my research project. While my interview is made up of pre-determined questions and will be replicated for each interviewee, most of them are open-ended, which may lead to unnecessary/additional information since the interviewee is free to respond. Hence, it is necessary that I follow proper interview procedures and keep the conversation centred around the topic of interest.

Interviews

There are three fundamental types of research interviews: (1) structured, (2) semi-structured, and (3) unstructured. As mentioned earlier, for the purpose of my qualitative research project, I'll be adopting the structured interview approach. I chose interviews as the data collection method because face-to-face interviews are particularly apt when the depth of meaning is of importance and the current research is primarily focused on gaining insights and achieving a better understanding (Gillham, 2000; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Additionally, given the limited time and resources for this course, structured interviews will facilitate the data collection and analysis process. This is because: (1) regulation and standardisation: all respondents are asked the same questions in the same manner, making it easy to replicate the discussion; and (2) since I will be using NVivo 10 to code the collected data, the process of creating a coding structure to subsequently code the data will also be easier.

In the field of self-efficacy beliefs, conducting one-to-one interviews is probably the best way to elicit detailed responses of the interviewee's successes, failures, and experiences which contribute to and sustain his/her self-efficacy beliefs. Researchers in the area of self-efficacy have agreed that studies have mostly been quantitative, hence the need for more qualitative inquiries to provide richer descriptions via narrative (Zeldin, Britner, & Pajares, 2008).

In class, we had a short role-play in which Kerry was the interviewer and I the interviewee. On hindsight, I was very lucky to have been part of the role-play as I got to experience how it felt to be interviewed, which made me aware of the potential issues that an interviewer might overlook. One important aspect which I have never encountered was the fact that as the interviewer/researcher, I am actually the learner and not the expert. In other words, I am interested in the interviewee's opinions, experience, and feelings, so even if they differ from mine, I am not in any position to judge, criticise, or disagree. Kerry first portrayed the role of a "bad" interviewer by interrupting me (the interviewee) as I spoke and then disagreeing with one of my opinions. In both cases, I either stumbled or became very cautious of my subsequent responses - to which Kerry pointed out that because of his insensitivity, the interview has become a tense affair. Consequently, the quality of the data collected  may be comprised, since the interviewee's responses will be affected.

Kerry subsequently went through how we could become "good" interviewers who facilitated interviews and enhanced the quality of the responses, instead of quelling the interviewee's responses and potentially diminishing the quality of discussion. He provided a few tips on how interviewers could go about doing so:

• Don’t speak too much - the interviewer should not be dominating the conversation. He/she should be a listener, since the interviewee's responses are most important.
• Reflective listening - a communication technique involving two steps: (1) seek to understand the interviewee's idea, and (2) offer idea back to interviewee. Both steps help ensure that the response/opinion/idea of the interviewee has been understood.
• Rephrasing - "So you are saying that..." can help to clarify any vague ideas or responses from the interviewee. 

I have carried out two pilot interviews and three actual interviews thus far, but I struggled in one instance when the cafe was too noisy. For a number of questions, I could not hear and understand my interviewee's responses. Additionally, the quality of the recording was muffled. I do not intend to include that interview, and will instead be interviewing an additional person just to compensate for this interview.

References

Opdenakker, R. (2006), "Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research", Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 11.

Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008), "A comparative study of the self‐efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers", Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 45, No. 9, pp. 1036—1058.

Other helpful links/references:

For Interviews

Open- versus close-ended questions (http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/jrichardson/dis220/openclosed.htm)

5 types of interviews: structured, semi-structured, unstructured, informal, and focus groups (http://www.qualres.org/HomeInte-3595.html)

Strengths and weaknesses of semi-structured interviews (http://www.academia.edu/1561689/The_use_of_semi-structured_interviews_in_qualitative_research_strengths_and_weaknesses)

Gillman, B. (2000), The Research Interview, Continuum, London.

Kvale, S. (1996), InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, Sage Publications, London.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2004), Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.