英语论文网

have on a particular topic’ (Goldenkoff, p.342). Instead, I will employ in-depth, one-to-one interviews, which according to Darlington (2002, p.48) are the most common type of qualitative data collection.

One pertinent issue is that of me as subject (one of the co-principals). If I were the interviewer, this would lead to both ethical and validity issues. To avoid this I could use a third-party interviewer or pair-up subjects so they interview each other.

The first choice could reduce trust in the subjects but should increase validity overall (especially with a professional interviewer). Realistically, I will pair up subjects as I cannot afford a professional interviewer nor find a voluntary third-party interviewer.

However, rather than just simply have each co-principal interview a partner and then reverse the roles I want to mix the pair each time based on the amount of overlap of their defined roles so that interviewer and interviewee pairs will change each time (fig.5). I hope this will prevent a simple repetition of stories and also help facilitate reflection.

Fig.5: Interview pairs. Arrows lead from interviewer to interviewee.

Interview training will also be necessary to ensure that we follow the same interview procedures and conduct in as neutral a way as possible.

Morgan and Guevara (2008, p.469) point out that there is a continuum of approaches to interviewing which range from ethnographic interviewing designed to ‘draw out the participant’s own accounts,’ to using a highly structured survey questionnaire that ‘prespecifies both the content and possible responses for each question.’ Seidman (2006, p.15) cites nine further sources that detail this continuum.

Ribbins (2007, p.209) identifies four broad types of face-to-face interview according to their structure, planning, who controls them and how they are controlled: ‘Seen as a continuum at one pole are ‘verbal questionnaires’, followed by ‘interviews’, then ‘discussions’ and at the other pole are ‘chats’.’

Many researchers refer to structured, semi-structured and unstructured interviews. There must be a degree of freedom in this study’s interviews to allow open responses but also structure to ensure some standardisation as there are multiple interviewers. Patton (2002 p.249) identifies what I am seeking as a ‘standardised open-ended interview’ where working and question order is determined in advance but the questions are open-ended. The benefits being, a better ‘comparability of responses’, ‘facilitating organisation and analysis of data’, ‘reducing interviewer biases’ as well as the transparency of the ‘instrumentation used in the evaluation’. Patton lists the weakness of the tool as ‘little flexibility’ and ‘constrain and limit the naturalness and relevance of questions and answers’. While partly agreeing with Patton about the weaknesses (I think if it were less structured it also runs the risk of not obtaining useful responses) I consider this the best option.

I propose interviews to last a single session (which I expect to be from 90-120 minutes in duration) although I can also see the benefit of multiple sessions that deal with discrete issues (such as context, specifics of working in the team, opinions etc.). Finally, the interview locations should be quiet, be unlikely to have disturbances or have anyone overhear the conversations.
本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。