Data Collection and Interviews

Purposeful Sampling Strategy

In this case, the inquirer selects individuals and sites for study because they can purposefully inform an understanding of the research problem and central phenomenon in the study.

Types of sampling that might be informed in the study’s methodology:

• Snowball or chain: Identifies cases of interest from people who know people who know what cases are information-rich;

• Extreme or deviant case: Learn from highly unusual manifestations of the phenomenon;

• Typical case: Highlights what is normal or average;

• Random purposeful: Adds credibility to sample when potential purposeful sample is too large;

• Stratified purposeful: Illustrates subgroups and facilitates comparisons;

• Opportunistic: Follow new leads; taking advantage of the unexpected;

• Convenience: aves time, money, and effort, but at the expense of information and credibility.

Forms of Data

There are four basic types of information: observations, interviews, documents and audiovisual materials.

Interviewing

Interviews are built around main questions, follow-up questions and probes that, together, elicit the data to answer the research question. Main questions begin a discussion about each separate part of your research questions. Some research questions are posed such that their main questions are obvious; for instance, if the research question is “how is the relationship between testers and front-end developers?”, main questions could be about the sucesses and failures of each relationship aspect of these teams. If the research is based on a specific theory, the main questions concern the main hypotheses of the theory.

Follow-up questions explore the interviewees’ answers to obtain further depth and detail, to ask for clarifying examples, and to clarify concepts and themes, sometimes immediately, or at a more appropriate moment. For an event, follow-up questions could ask what happened, who was there, what was accomplished, what remained unsolved, what was not even discussed. The researcher might ask about the reactions - were people angry, relieved, delighted? Or one could ask about what came before, how the stage was set, and what were the consequences. Further, follow-up questions could help clarify concepts they use to describe their work, culture or process.

If the themes expressed deal with your research question, you follow up on them, seeking more detailed explanation, looking for support or constrasts to what you think is going on. Sometimes you describe to the interviewee what you think is happening, summarize the theme, and ask how he or she responds.

Probes are questions, comments or gestures to help manage the flow of the conversation. They are short and standard, like “Go on…” or “Can you give me an example?”.

Conversational Guides

One way to control the anxiety before the interview is to prepare a conversational guide (protocols, jottings, question matrices/checklists, outlines). Writing down the main questions is critical; important follow-up questions can be prepared as well. Having a guide like that does not make it mandatory; depending on the path of the interview, many of its parts might be ignored; nonetheless many of the prepared questions are answered one way or another. It is much more important to listen than to cover all questions of the guide. If the interviewee answers a prepared question before it was asked, make sure this question is not asked again, which would be a sign of you not listening properly.

The guide is a protocol when it is more formal, in which the conversation is written out in full in advance. Even in this questions can be revamped after a couple of interviews, when things are clearer and initial questions may not make sense anymore. Ideally, you are supposed to cover the whole protocol in an interview, but this is rarely the case; failing to get through all questions is not a problem, meaning the descriptions were richer than previously expected (you can always schedule a second interview).

In constrast, informal guides are possible. You can use jottings, which are generated when observing a meeting or watching an event or doing an interview, suggesting main and follow-up questions to be asked in the near future.

Written questions are good, but can be intimidating for less experienced interviewers; they might look like they’re reading a script, mechanically. On the contrary, you should be human, engaging in a conversation. Researchers may use a checklist of issues just to provide some order and structure, but allowing for a spontaneous conversation.

Designing main questions and probes

First, use language interviewees understand. Academic jargon is not appropriate; use ordinary conversational language, and supplement with specialized vocabulary when needed. Sometimes, you have to use the technical terms of the field so you sound knowledgeable enough to understand their answers, signaling some level of expertise.

It is important to let interviewees answer the questions in their own way. In general, you have to be cautious about imposing your own uderstanding in ways that limit the freedom to respond. Also, don’t force answers into simple categories, cause reality is more complicated and subtle. Do not ask “Is your leader fair to you?”, on which the answer could be a simple yes or no; a better main questions could be broader, like “Could you describe how you and your leader interacted?”

In general, try to word your questions so that they tap the knowledge and experience of your interviewees. You should avoid questions about how the other people think or feel; you cannot ask one developer about how her leader feels about the relationship.

The most important thing here is deciding what main questions to ask.

Designing follow-up questions

Bibliography

Creswell

Rubin Rubin