Interviews & Focus Groups
Interviews are a qualitative research method and typically takes the form of a conversation where questions are asked to elicit information. The interviewer poses questions to the interviewee, in an alternating series of usually brief questions and answers. The questions may be highly structured, open-ended, or somewhere in
between the two.
In phenomenological, phenomenographic or ethnographic research, interviews are used to uncover the meanings of central themes in the life world of the subjects from their own point of view (Ayres, 2008). A particular case are focus groups which are specially chosen groups of people whose reactions are studied in guided or open discussions to determine the responses that can be expected from a larger population (David, 1996).
The use of focus groups is intended to collect data through interactive and directed discussions by a researcher. It is a form of qualitative research consisting of a group conversation in which prompts are given to elicit sharing data about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes. Researchers should select members of the focus group carefully for compelling and authoritative responses (Bloor, 2001). Questions are asked in an interactive group setting where participants are free to talk with other group members. During this process, the researcher either takes notes or records the vital points he or she is getting from the group.
Advantages of the interviews include flexibility to the interviewers; and the ability to collectdata about the non-verbal behaviour and spontaneity of the respondent. Advantages in focus groups include the diversity of voices and opinions included in those authoritative responses. Conversely, as with other qualitative methods, there can be issues with replicability. Conducting interview studies can be time-consuming and may provide less anonymity to participants. Care needs to be taken to avoid researcher bias (Bailey, 1994). Member checking (sometimes called participant or respondent validation) is a technique that can improve the reliability of results – see Birt et al. (2016).
Interviews & Focus Groups: GO-GN Insights
Penny Bentley used semi-structured interviews with 20 Australian primary and secondary teachers of STEM subject areas interviews to explore and describe the experience of professional learning through open education (PLOE). Following the removal of transcripts used for the piloting and refinement of interview questions, data analysis and subsequent findings were based on the interviews of 16 teachers.
“I chose to explore and describe the different ways professional learning through open education (PLOE) was experienced by Australian teachers of STEM subjects, not to focus on PLOE itself. In doing so I viewed experience as a relationship between teachers and PLOE (non-dualistic ontology) and assumed this relationship was the source of new knowledge (epistemology). I wanted to explore, understand and describe the different ways teachers experienced PLOE, from their perspective. This was an interpretive activity, situating my research in the interpretive paradigm. Also, describing the perspectives of teachers, in terms of what PLOE means to them, was research of a qualitative nature. However, there are a range of methodologies within the interpretive paradigm, such as ethnography, grounded theory, phenomenology and phenomenography.
“In order to justify my choice for this study I needed to consider the differences between these methodologies. I was not studying the culture of a group of teachers using the open Web to learn about STEM education (ethnography), although culture may be an aspect of how the phenomenon of PLOE is experienced. Nor was I generating a theory to explain the cause of social processes and interactions when teachers engaged in PLOE (grounded theory), although I was interested in understanding and describing the different ways these processes and interactions are experienced. Even though human experience is the focus of phenomenology and phenomenography, it is the phenomenographic focus on variation of experience, rather the focus on essence of experience made by phenomenologists, that made a difference to which methodology and methods I chose.”
Marjon Baas conducted interviews in both the first and the fourth study of her research. In the first study, interviews were used to explore teachers’ current practices with OER and their need for support. The questions in the interview guide were based on the different layers of the OER Adoption Pyramid. Baas used additional interviews to gain more insights into teachers’ perceived value of an OER Community of Practice.
“A mixed method approach was adopted in which a questionnaire was sent out to examine the current state of affairs within the context of my study. Afterwards, interviews were conducted to explore teachers’ current practices with OER and their need for support. The instruments were designed based on the different layers of the OER Adoption Pyramid (Cox & Trotter, 2017). We used additional interviews to gain more insights into teachers’ practices because previous research showed that there is still a lot of ambiguity around the term OER and so-called ‘dark-reuse’ could be prevalent which cannot be measured in quantitative measurements alone.
“The second study was a qualitative study to improve our understanding how teachers assess OER and how they move from initial assessment to adoption. In this qualitative study teachers were asked to collaboratively assess OER within their teaching subject. The aim of our study was to characterize what elements teachers take into account when assessing OER quality and not to generalize what defines a quality OER. We also explored by asking teachers to create an association map before and after the three months in which teachers could explore OER, if their perception changed during. We choose this qualitative design because it provides rich insights into the elements teachers’ take into account when assessing OER rather than a quantitative measurement in which teachers are asked to self-reflect how they assess OER.
“The follow-up study focuses on a subject community in which we will make use of a mixed-methods design. Qualitative data will be collected through interviews with teachers based on the five phases of the OER re-use process as defined by Clements and Pawlowski (2012). This data will be used to analyze how teachers make use of the subject community.”
Viviane Vladimirschi used focus groups to assess the overall effectiveness of the intervention in her research. These focus group conversations consisted of semi-structured, open-ended questions.
“Focus groups are excellent for gaining new insights and assessing interventions. In my opinion, the biggest challenge is knowing what questions to ask in order to obtain useful data. I used Guskey’s (2002) Multilevel Evaluation Framework to guide the semi-structured, open-ended interview questions. In my opinion, Guskey’s model is effective and straightforward for educational interventions.
“Although the use of mixed methods can be excellent to collect and compare different sources of data enhancing the quality of data and promoting convergence and confirmation of findings, the researcher must feel comfortable with and be knowledgeable with both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. I would also not recommend quantitative data methods for small sample populations.”
Useful references for Interviews & Focus Groups: Ayres (2008); Bailey (1994); Bloor (2001); Morgan (1996)
