4.4.1 Interview
There are several types of interviews. In qualitative research the interviews are either fairly structured with a clear focus, often referred to as semi-structured interviews, or more open, so-called unstructured interviews (Dalen, 2004; Bryman, 2012). The semi-structured interview was chosen as the main data collection method in this research. Before entering the field, I developed an interview-guide which would help me obtain the information needed to answer my research questions. The interview-guide would enable the researcher to follow with broad questions, possible subjects and prompts to set the agenda and lead the conversation (Bryman, 2012; Dalen, 2004). Before making the interview-guide, I conferred with Malagasy people and asked for advice on how best to approach the topic. These were all Malagasies who knew both western and Malagasy culture and could tell me if any of my thoughts would be unclear for my informants. The interview-guide changed slightly after a couple of pilot interviews, but these changes were not noteworthy and mainly concerned the phrasing of questions, not the content of the interview (see Appendix 4 and 5). The interview guides were almost the same for the principals and the teachers. The semi-structured interviews gave me a structure, but still allowed me to follow up on interesting matters that came up during the interviews. Finally, another reason for choosing semi-structured interviews is related to the Malagasy culture being a culture where direct speech is rare (Dahl, 1998; Dahl, 1999). The ability to slowly narrow in the focus of the interview was therefore extremely important. A structured interview could limit the informants as they might wait for the next question, instead of taking the lead and sharing what is on their mind. This could possibly be a weakness in some interview settings. All things considered, I believe semi-structured interviews to be the most suitable method for this research as it provided me with a framework where the combination of structure and flexibility was balanced.
In an unstructured interview the interview is rather conversational (Bryman, 2012). The topic of the research makes the framework, the researcher asks few questions and the interview proceeds as the informants lead the way. The researcher may have some keywords to touch upon, but the content in two interviews may end up being completely different due to the lack of structure. I could have run unstructured interviews in this research, as unstructured interviews could have opened up for unexpected information adding to the limited knowledge
40
of the topic. However, keeping to the topic would have been a big challenge due to the way people phrase themselves in Madagascar. Furthermore, it could have been difficult to get to the core of the research, as informants often led the conversation in unstructured interviews.
Moreover, unstructured interviews may be perceived as less serious and more informal, which also could have been a risk in obtaining the principal’s approval of the interviews. If the paper I showed them only contained a couple of keywords, I may not have been given the permission to do research.
Type of questions
The questions I posed were mainly open-ended questions as these enabled exploration of new areas and allowed the informants to bring up issues I had not thought of beforehand. Some of the follow- up questions often included alternatives and became, in that sense, more closed/directed. Some informants came up with alternatives to the one I had mentioned, which was both surprising and interesting. Furthermore, some vignette questions were posed.
Vignette questions are descriptions of scenarios inquiring how a person would react or respond if a certain situation arose (Bryman, 2012). These scenarios were made after conversations with Malagasy teachers and principals concerning their daily work in school.
The vignette questions proved useful: I saw that they had a calming effect on the participants as they had scenarios which were realistic and showed that I knew something about their daily life, and what kind of situations they could meet. In many ways it helped develop a trusting relationship.
All in all, the interview-guide included what are called introducing questions (i.e. the participants tell about themselves),follow-up questions (i.e. allows participants to elaborate further on an issue), probing questions (i.e. following up on previous issues mentioned during the interview), specifying questions (i.e. asks about a participant’s reactions and/or feelings to something), direct questions and indirect questions, structuring questions (i.e. tells the participant what to continue with),interpreting questions (i.e. questions which challenge the informant or ask him/her for confirmation) and silence (Kvale & Brinkman, 2009, p. 147-149;
Bryman, 2012, p.476-478)
41 4.4.2 Questionnaire
As a second data collection method, a questionnaire was made (see Appendix 6). This was an open questionnaire containing a couple of questions which the informants received after the interview. Talking about fear may be frightening for some, as they would necessarily need to share inner thoughts about what causes fear and what s/he fears. Therefore, as the topic was sensitive, I wanted to give the informants a second chance to share whatever they had had in mind, in case they had been afraid of sharing anything during the interview, or forgotten to tell something or just preferred doing it in written. The Malagasy culture being indirect (ref.
Chapter 2) was also a reason that made me strive to reach the informants by different methods. The intention was to use the questionnaire as a supplement to the interview.
However, no one actually responded to the questionnaire. Only one participant returned it and this informant did not answer the questionnaire, but begged for money. Still the questionnaire had an effect: Instead of filling out the paper, people started to talk again when they read the questionnaire. In other words, the questionnaire had a function, though different from what I had intended. The questionnaire prolonged the interview and made the conversation a bit richer.
4.4.3 Language and assistant
The interviews were done in Malagasy, a language I speak. When conducting the interviews, I had a Malagasy assistant who took detailed notes during the interviews. Importantly she was oriented to the purpose of the study and the research questions before entering the field, and the interview-guide and the questionnaire were thoroughly explained. My assistant was a young, female teacher in the public school. She had participated in similar social research before and was well acquainted with the various procedures and challenges. Moreover, being a teacher she was familiar with the terms and the abbreviations the informants used in the interviews. To the informants she was presented as a secretary who would take notes and help out if there were any confusion. When an interview was finished, we (my assistant and I) reviewed the interview. Gestures, mimic, reactions, answers and stories shared was discussed and reflected upon. These reflections and things observed during the interviews were also noted and became a valuable data source when analyzing the interviews. All the interviews were recorded and then transcribed by me and/or another assistant. The assistant who helped in the transcribing, has done a large amount of transcribing and translating work, both for the
42
Malagasy government, international organizations and in other research projects. Friends had put me in contact with this person.