3.4.2. The interview.
Interviews are beneficial as a research method. Different
scholars support this. For instance, Anderson (1990:222) states that there are
fewer problems with people failing to respond. Best and Kahn (1998:320) to
sustain this, hold that people are usually more willing to talk than to write.
It is worth stressing that interviews are not time-consuming and they offer
firsthand information on the matter discussed. Before I shift to the format of
the interview, I would like to mention that the questions to my interviews have
generally followed the format of the questionnaire with slight changes in the
formulation. The interviews were primarily meant to provide supplementary
information on lecturers' views or to complete the responses to their
questionnaire.
Interviews fall into two main categories: an unstructured
interview and a structured one. In Nunan's words (1992:149), an unstructured
interview is guided by the responses of the interviewee rather than the agenda
of the researcher. In a structured one, the agenda is totally predetermined by
the researcher (p.149). For my research the semi-structured interview has been
more favoured in that the researcher has initially a rough idea of where he
leads or directs the interview, and what should be the outcomes. Nevertheless,
this format does not only stick to the interviewer's direction but also allows
flexibility and freedom on the side of the interviewee who could develop his
ideas and speak more widely on issues raised by the researcher. In other
words, interviewers are allowed to digress; that is interviewers are permitted
to probe far beyond their prepared and standardised questions (Berg, 2001:70).
Nonetheless, the questions should not deviate from the focal point of the
interview. Instances include questions like `Do you think TV can be a valuable
teaching tool, for instance while teaching English? (see Appendix D/Interview
with lecturer No 2)
Closed items have also been included in my interview for the
sake of rendering the comparison between answers easier which could facilitate
me in the organisation and interpretation of the interview's responses.
Examples included such questions as `Do you ever use television while teaching
English? What English programme do you like to watch?' (see Appendix C)
During the interviews, my informants were tape-recorded and
the interview was later transcribed and then organised into manageable chunks
for analysis. Worthy of note here is the fact that I first of all briefed and
explained to my interviewees the nature of my research and the purpose of my
interview. On the question of using tape recorders, I had to consider more
strengths than weaknesses of this research procedure. I therefore agree with
Nunan's assertions when he lists the merits of tape recording as the following:
`We are preserving actual language, have an objective record and data can be
reanalysed after the event' (1992:153).
Relying only on the interviews and questionnaires' responses
was not sufficient, for the latter might not reflect what was actually
happening in the language classroom. I also had made recourse to written
documents. Thus, some valuable information about my research has been obtained
from the content of English programmes in use in the Department of English of
the Faculty of Arts and Humanities as part of archival data.
| 
