An interview can be defined as a conversation that takes place between two or more individuals, where the interviewer initiates a direction for the discussion or pursues subjects raised by the interviewee (Kumar 2011: p.144; Babbie 2007: p.306). They are a useful way of accumulating data about the experiences of people from their own perspectives (Patton 2002: p.341).
Interviews can range from unstructured, consisting of open-ended questions that are few in number and designed to draw out the views and opinions of research participants (Creswell 2009: p.181), to highly structured where a formal protocol is used and strictly adhered to (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe 2002: p.86; Cooper and Emory 1995: p.299). The latter generally comprise a larger number of questions and are constructed to elicit a narrow range of responses. Semi-structured interviews fit somewhere along this continuum, and adopt a guided approach with the flexibility to diverge quite widely from it (where this is appropriate and promises to yield richer data). This research will adopt this flexible approach to enable the researcher to understand the broader issues about PPP operations whilst having the capacity to ask direct questions about aspects of the subjects' experiences to obtain more detail (Cooper and Emory 1995: p.299; Kumar 2011: p.144). Interviews will therefore be semi-structured, to ensure adequate coverage of topics, but sufficiently 'open' to allow the 'stories' of interviewees to emerge.
Phenomenological interviewing emphasises that information obtained from research participants be meticulously captured and described (Patton 2002: p.104). Therefore tape recording and transcribing interviews will form an integral part of this research (Sanders 1982) which will be conducted face-to-face and carried out at locations convenient to the interviewees. Where this is not possible due to geographical or other restrictions, telephone interviewing or Internet communication systems will be employed.
A key advantage of using the interview method is that an interviewer has an opportunity to explain and elaborate on questions that might otherwise be difficult to answer (Gill and Johnson 2002: p.103). It is possible to address vague responses and / or allay the concerns and misunderstandings of research participants (Hoyle, Harris and Judd 2002: p.102; Kumar 2011: p.149-150). There are also other advantages including:
- High response rates. Researchers that employ the interviewing technique can typically expect high response rates for take-up, sometimes in excess of 80 per cent (Hoyle, Harris and Judd 2002: p.102; Babbie 2007: p.264), but obviously the rate will depend on the nature of the research and availability and motivation of participants;
- Control. Researchers can control the order in which questions are asked (and therefore answered) (Creswell 2009: p.179) which may be important for contextual or historical reasons; and
- Rapport-building. Interviewing provides a platform by which the interviewer can establish rapport with interviewees which may motivate them to answer questions (Hoyle, Harris and Judd 2002: p.102) more fully or in greater depth.
The acquisition of data should begin with informal pilot testing to assess the feasibility of research plans and for making adjustments to them (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight 2004: p.42-43).