Following a brief assertion of some of the concerns a researcher should be aware of when conducting an interview, this section covers the data collection procedure. The interview concerns address issues prior, during and after the interview. Such a brief assertion is meant to serve as a reasoning for some of the researcher’s choices described in the current research project’s execution in section 3.5.2.
28 3.5.1 Interview considerations
Dörnyei (2007) presents and addresses some important concerns in the three critical stages of an interview: its beginning, conduction, and conclusion. Before powering up the recorder, when creating the atmosphere of the interview (Dörnyei 2007: 139), there are certain considerations which often help improve the odds of obtaining relevant and spontaneous information. Depending on actions of the interviewer, the interviewee will either feel relaxed and comfortable, or tense and ill at ease.
For example, to loosen the interviewee’s shoulders, the interviewer should provide a reminder of the interview’s purpose while assuming a non-threatening and slightly informal demeanour (Seliger and Shohamy 1989: 161) Moreover, by spending a few minutes on light-hearted small-talk, the interviewee has a chance to warm up and get used to speaking with the interviewer (Dörnyei 2007: 140). If the interview is conducted in a setting which the
interviewee does not frequent or is not familiar with, such small-talk is key to loosening the subject’s shoulders and tongue (Dörnyei 2007).
While conducting the interview, the researcher must maintain a natural flow while at the same time aiming to acquire rich, detailed information, though without introducing their own, personal bias and assumptions (Seliger and Shohamy 1989: 166). Furthermore, the order of questions should follow the same pattern for each conducted interview. Changing the order of questions between interviews will make it difficult (if not impossible) to compare answers (Perry 2005: 119).
The researcher should also try to be aware of his or her own facial expression, body language and tone of voice – and offer feedback only when necessary (Dörnyei 2007: 142), e.g. through use of nods, simple ‘yes’ utterances, or other signals to indicate that the
researcher is paying attention and is interested in what the subject has to say. At certain intervals, it might also prove necessary to lead the subject back on track, for example by encouraging elaboration on something that was previously said. If the interview subjects are unfamiliar with the topic, it might also prove useful to provide some form of reinforcement feedback, a kind of feedback where the interviewer indicate that he or she is pleased with the provided answers (Dörnyei 2007: 142). As Dörnyei (2007) argues, these concerns are not always easy to address, at least not for inexperienced interviewers – though awareness of such elements improve the odds of maintaining the flow of the interview.
Lastly, when concluding the interview, the researcher should allow the interview subject to comment on what has been said, or to elaborate or change previous statements
29
(Dörnyei 2007). Furthermore, the participant should also be informed of some way to reach the researcher if s/he later has comments, questions or for other reasons needs to get in touch due to concerns regarding his or her participation. The interviewee should also be sincerely thanked for participating.
3.5.2 Data collection procedure
The interviews were conducted at the teachers’ work places, either inside a conference room or a group study room (whichever was available and vacant on site), settings the interview subjects were familiar with. A smart-phone was used for voice-recording, a device with a recorder in both the head and rear end, which assisted with better simultaneous capture of the voices of the interviewer and interviewee.
Before the starting the interviews, the participants were reminded of their anonymity, of why the interview would be recorded, and of the interview’s estimated duration. They were also reminded of how the collected data would be used and potentially presented. The
teachers consented to being recorded, and all except one of the them agreed to conduct the interview in English. While establishing the atmosphere, the first five minutes were first spent on small-talk (before the recorder was turned on).
The interviewed teachers for the present study stated prior to and during the interviews that they were unfamiliar with the topic at hand. Reinforcement feedback therefore proved necessary. Occasional confirmations, smiles and nods seemed to help make the teachers more confident of themselves and their answers. The final question of the interview guide gave the respondents a chance to offer some of their final thoughts or opinions. Each interview subject was thanked for participating, and a few minutes were spent on additional, friendly small-talk before leaving.
Distribution and overseeing of the DCTs was done through personal attendance for better control of the procedure and the adherence to a repeated pattern for data collection (Dörnyei 2007). Regardless of whether some of the classes had been alerted of the visit from a researcher beforehand by their teachers, about ten minutes were spent on briefly stating the visit’s general purpose, i.e. the distribution of a DCT and how to answer it. With the pupils’
consent, the instructions and information were given in English. The pupils were asked to write actual language realisations, i.e. exactly what they would say in each situation, word for word. They were also informed of their anonymity and that no answers would be traceable to any single individual.
30
Furthermore, one point was explicitly stressed – the option to refuse to participate. The pupils were told that participation was strictly voluntary and would not be graded, nor affect their standing with their teacher or school in any way whether they participate or not.
Additionally, they did not have to give a reason for choosing not to participate. Only one of the one-hundred-and-sixty-six visited pupils refused to participate.
Afterwards, they were offered the opportunity to ask questions about the test’s format, though no information was given about the concrete purpose of the DCT. Everyone could ask for help while answering the DCT, if there were certain words or scenarios difficult to
understand. Lastly, two points were repeated and stressed in Norwegian: that they were expected to write explicit responses to each prompt, and that they could back out at any moment.
Each class spent roughly ten to fifteen minutes completing the DCT. After personally collecting the pupils’ answers, they were asked about what they thought the DCT measured.
Though reluctant to answer at first, the general assumptions in each class was that “it had something to do with asking for things”, “politeness,” or “how boys and girls ask in different ways”.
They were then explicitly informed of what the DCT measured and how the data would be used in a thesis. The explanation resulted in five spontaneous instances of very brief, though engaging and informal back-and-forth discussions about politeness in Norwegian language in comparison to the English language with the pupils. To show
appreciation for their participation, a couple of minutes were also spent on sincerely thanking them for their help and time, and on light-hearted small-talk.