Report on Data Production

Report on Data Production

In this report the interview and survey on physical disability in higher education are deconstructed in order to understand what both have to offer and how using two different methods in a research affects the outcome. Both of them will be analysed on the basis of their cons and pros and on how they worked in this specific research. It will also be explained how they were constructed and given examples on how they successfully helped to collect data while critically looking at the process.

As interview is one of the most popular methods of collecting data in sociological research (Mann, 2016) it is important to understand how they should be constructed and what kind of data it allows us to get. The method’s popularity comes from its ability to gather individuals’ views and provide us a new perspective on how a topic can be understood (Turner, 2010) (Mann, 2016). However, as Kvale and Brinkman have said: it ‘seems so simple to interview, but it is hard to do well’ (2009:1) (Mann, 2016). Therefore, like said in the beginning, it is crucial to understand what makes or breaks an interview, which will be analysed in the following chapters.

Every interview starts with the topic and the interviewee. The latter is essential as it is the source of data and therefore it is important to make them feel cooperative and interested towards the research. In this case, the interviewee was first introduced to the concept of the interview and then asked if they would want to partake in it. This method was deemed suitable as it doesn’t pressure the individual and avoids making the interviewee feel like they are going to waste their time (Moser, 1959). The first prospect interviewee was contacted face-to-face which occurred unplanned but worked out in the favour of the research as they accepted the offer. Next up was finding the time and place for the face-to-face interview, which was easy in this case, but can be very time consuming in other ones as both participants can be busy. The interview was in this case held a week after our acquaintance and the interviewee was luckily knowledgeable about the topic and offered up some additional information like which questions seemed harder to them and some real-life examples for the questions (Appendix 4). Because of that the interview was successful at collecting data on the view physical disability in higher education has from the stand point of the student. As mentioned before ,the interview was conducted face-to-face, which was deemed to be the most convenient and resourceful approach. First, the physical presence was seen as a way to make the interviewee feel at ease ,and to assure all the questions were understood and answered. It also allowed for more data to be collected as it made it easier to ask more probing questions to get deeper answers (Bilton et al., 2002). Face-to-face interviews also allow to collect physical information like how the interviewee’s expressions and energy changed throughout the interview. Therefore, more data was collected ,and more knowledge gained by doing face-to-face interview than if it would have been conducted by email or any other non-personal way.

Reflection is essential to a well-rounded data analysis, but is often easy to ignore, especially if the interviewer is not used to it. It means that the research is being analysed during its process, not just at the end (Mann, 2016). From the beginning of the thought of the interview the actions taken to progress should be looked at critically as they might show us information about the topic. For example, while choosing the questions about sensitive topics, it may happen that some questions might be deemed too insensitive. In that case a new question can be formed on why we as a society see those questions as insensitive. In this research, the reflection process started by choosing non-personal questions for the survey, which was a source of minor confusion as the resources provided by the university said different things about asking questions about personal experience. This led the research group to think about ethics and choosing to steer away from personal questions as they could compromise the subjects’ privacy. Without it there could have been some ethical problems that could have compromised using the data. Therefore, reflection is important at every step of the process as it can improve the research, ensure ethical approach, and help deepen the understanding on the topic.

As briefly mentioned in the last paragraph, the sensitivity of the topic was also kept in mind. It is necessary to ensure that the interviewee doesn’t get upset over the questions as this is unethical. Therefore, the information page (Appendix 2) informed that they should not answer these questions with personal  experience as that could compromise their privacy. Still, it is important to choose the right questions as they define the quality of the data that will be collected. When choosing the questions there were a few key points that were kept in mind, the first one being the importance of an open-ended question (Bilton et al., 2002). This was essential as the objective was to gather attitudes towards disability in higher education and the most authentic answers often come from spontaneous thoughts (Gilbert, 1992). In this particular case the first question showed that the principle worked as the interviewee additionally showcased a wide range of examples and attributes to their answer, which gave a little more insight on how the individual saw physical disability (Appendix 4). The second key point when constructing the interview was that the questions were not leading and left room for a bigger discussion as can be seen in the second question, where the data given does not try to pull a certain answer, but rather let the interviewee give their spontaneous thoughts (Bilton et al., 2002). It was also kept in mind that making the questions too vague could result in vague answers that would not contribute to the research (Gilbert, 1992). While constructing the question the general direction of the research and the survey questions were kept in mind to avoid general answers and to try link the survey and the interview data results. After constructing the interview, the next challenge was to avoid influencing the interviewee to want to appeal to the researcher.

The common problem with interviews is that often bias is added to the mix (Silverman, 1985). This is hard to avoid, especially in a face-to-face interview as the interviewee might want to appeal to the researcher and try to give the ‘appropriate’ answer. In this particular case it is not evident, but there is no way to know it for sure. To try and prevent it, the interviewer took a few steps to ensure that. Firstly, they tried to portray themselves as approachable by making small talk before the start of the interview, which gave a lot more information on how the interviewee was feeling and how they might be probed for additional information in the case their answers were vague. This, however, might have had an opposite effect to what it was aiming for as some people find it more difficult giving their opinions to an acquaintance that to a stranger. As said before, there is no way of making sure what was the case in this research, but from the relaxed and imaginative answers that were given it can be assumed that the interviewee felt comfortable expressing their opinions and views on the topic. The process was also influenced by the practical inexperience of the interviewer. This made the interview feel a little unorganised and frantic as the interviewer felt the pressure to get everything from making the interviewee understand the question to reflecting on the process right. Additionally, as the language that the interview was done in was not the interviewer’s first language it created a slightly stressful environment. This might have made the interviewee feel bad about asking to repeat the question, even though they showed willingness to in this case. Therefore, the interviewer’s inexperience in the situation and lack of formal language made the interview feel less professional and more frantic, but the data received still gave the research a lot of new information and perspective (Appendix 4).