Interview Guide. [Background information and instructions]
Interview Guide. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. Your involvement will enable me to better understand your expectation on HR Business Partnering. The objectives of this research are to investigate • the cooperation and relationship with HR Business Partnering • the key factors that make HR Business Partnering successful or unsuccessful • the expectations on HR Business Partnering The interview should less than 30 minutes. I will be taping the session because I don’t want to miss any of your comments if that is okay for you? Although I will be taking some notes during the session. All responses will be kept confidential and I will ensure that any information I include in my report does not identify you as a respondent. Remember, you don’t have to talk about anything you don’t want to and you may end the interview at any time. Are there any questions about what I have just explained? Are you willing to participate in this interview? Your name Your organisation Signature Date
Interview Guide. The research study is entitled „Strategic alliances between Xxxx Kenya University of Agriculture and Technology and middle level colleges in Kenya‟. The study intends to look at these alliances from JKUAT perspective. The information to be gathered from this interview will be treated confidentially and will not be used for other purpose other than academic.
Interview Guide. (This method is based on the Critical Decision Method described in “Working Minds” by Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxx & Xxxxxxx (2006). The interview methodology is described in terms of ‘sweeps’or multiple accounts/iterations of the same incident, focusing on different levels and types of information each time. We need to make sure we are talking to the right people. If we are interested in the Command & Control (C2) piece, then we need to talk to people with recent experience of incident command, tactical C2 operations, etc. If we want to understand first responder (hose teams, search and rescue, etc) then we need to talk to people with recent experiences in that role. Make sure you explain to the interviewee at the beginning of the interview that we are trying to understand their working environment, the challenges they face, and so forth. We are NOT there to evaluate them or judge their actions. We ARE there to understand how they bring their experience and expertise to bear on overcoming challenging situations. Descriptions of their mistakes is OK as well if they are willing to share them, but we are equally if not more interested in their successes. At the beginning of the interview I would warn against raising the issue of technology or the real purpose of the study, otherwise they may try to anticipate your questions and make suggestions that are based on their opinion and may influence their responses to the initial questions. We are interested in their ideas and opinions, but we want them grounded in their lived experiences, which we will elicit in the interview first. When we have our detailed incident account, then we can ask them how advanced technologies might have helped, but not before. We should probably explain the purpose of our research to them at the beginning (not sure if there is any requirement for a consent form here?). But we should keep the technology-focus out of the initial description, in my opinion. For example:
Interview Guide. A semi-structured in-depth interview guide was developed based on the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations and previous research. Interview questions related to a) expectations for gun violence prevention measures, b) perceptions of current gun violence prevention measures and efficacy of those measures, c) relationship with the school, d) perceived seriousness and susceptibility of school gun violence and e) desired gun violence prevention measures. Interview guide was piloted on six mothers from Volusia County and subsequent changes were implemented to the interview guide to improve the order and quality of the questions. Content analysis was used to identify and describe core themes across data. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim through an external source, VerbalInk. All transcribed interviews were read by the researcher and imported into MAXQDA v11 software. The researcher developed a codebook using three transcripts and an iteratively refined codebook as the additional eight transcripts were coded. The transcripts were coded using MAXQDA v11 software. As the researcher coded transcripts, memos were written to document researcher insights, potential patterns in the data, and evolving understanding of the data. The finalized codebook included both deductive codes based on the interview guide and inductive content- driven codes. A secondary coder assisted by coding every 3rd transcript to compare for coding agreement. For any coding disagreement, the researcher reviewed the coded segments and made the final decision of what code(s) were applied. For analysis, a code-by-code review across transcripts was conducted through code reports and key observations from the most utilized codes were summarized. The researcher explored and documented links between codes. A second round of coding through a more focus-coding technique was employed to explore specific codes to develop patterns and create categories. Categories were then examined using a conceptual analysis approach to develop themes. Interviews were conducted by phone between July 26, 2019 and August 29, 2019. The length of the interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 66 minutes, with an average interview length of 51 minutes. Eleven mothers were interviewed for this study and given the pseudonyms Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx, Xxxx, Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, Xxxx, Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxx, and Xxxxxx. Nine Volusia County elementary schools were represented amongst the participants. The average ag...
Interview Guide. Background Asian Identity Faith
Interview Guide. Background demographics: o What is your major? o What do you like about it? Overarching narrative: o Can you tell me about your career development path, starting back as early as you want to? o When you decided to be pre-med, how did you come to decide on that career? o Once you got to Emory, what changed your mind about being pre-med? Pre-‐med decision formation: o What would you say were the most important factors in your decision to be pre-med? o What were the reasons you chose this path and/or goals you had in mind? (talents/abilities, interests, values/beliefs, aspects of the work itself (autonomy, money, helping people, etc.), relationship or family issues) o Who did you talk to as you were making the decision to pursue the pre-med track? (family, friends, teachers, other adults, etc.) o What did you talk to them about? o What were their reactions? o How was talking to people as you were making the decision to be pre-med helpful to you? (reassuring, supportive, advice, etc.) o How was talking to people as you were making the decision to be pre-med unhelpful to you? (stressful, claustrophobic, etc.) o What life goals did you think being pre-med might help you accomplish? o When you were still set on pre-med, what did you think your life would look like once you became a doctor? Experience of Emory Pre-‐Med Track o What was your experience like in classes? o First, could you just tell me: how would you characterize students in the pre-med track? o What do you think your life would have looked like in college if you had stayed on the pre-med track? (e.g. time allocation, relationships, health, self-esteem, status, networks, support, comfort level) o So moving away from the abstract, what was your experience of pre-med classes? o Did you ever shadow—if so, what was your experience like? o Thinking about Emory at an institutional level, how did you feel that Emory reached out to you going about helping you through the pre-med track when you were pre-med? o What systems do you know of that are in place to help pre-med students? (Anything you think is helpful- academic, organizational, emotional, etc.) o Did you seek out guidance (friends, older students, informal conversations with professors, the internet, books, etc.) about going through the pre-med track? o In what ways was the guidance you received from the university helpful? o In what ways was the guidance you received (or didn’t receive) from the university not helpful? FOR DISCONTINUED GROUP: Dec...
Interview Guide. Demographic Questions Sexual Health Communication Sexual Risk Taking Behavior Social Context
Interview Guide. Evaluation staff from the American Cancer Society developed semi-structured interview guides and tailored them to each type of respondent (i.e. leadership, staff). See Table 2 below for a list of interview questions that were used to guide this study. The interview guide was designed to capture a range of intervention aspects, including start- up activities, implementation, practice-level changes, policy changes, staffing structure, and challenges and facilitators of the intervention. On average, interviews lasted 45-90 minutes. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim to aid with future analysis. These transcripts served as the data source for this study. Table 2 presents the evaluation questions used to guide the evaluation, and the data source used to address each question.
Interview Guide. In-depth interviews were conducted with a semi-structured interview guide, which was piloted during the first week of data collection. Revisions were made during a two- week break and a refined version was implemented for the second round of data collection. Final edits were not aimed at content but rather at details of translation that might elicit lengthier responses from participants. The researcher asked open-ended questions from the interview guide and recorded participant answers on an iPhone VoiceMemo application. Additionally, the author took notes regarding participant behavior, demeanor, and body language in a notebook. After the interview was complete, the author listened to the recording and refined her written notes. The researcher transcribed the recordings between November 2017 and June 2018. The author designed the interview guide so that the first four questions were simple and straightforward to help build rapport and put the participant at ease. The next six questions were aimed at obtaining the data most relevant to the study. The last three questions were used to “cool down” the participant and allow them a space in which to add their own ideas and recommendations for future studies. The CARE Perú KPI questions were incorporated throughout the interview guide. For example, the fifth question asked participants to explain in their own words the Solar Bag disinfection process. This question was used to evaluate participants’ “Knowledge and Practice of the Solar Bag Treatment Process.” The second part of the fifth question asks participants to evaluate their preference between the processing times in the Solar Bag disinfection process versus the sedimentation-only process. This question was used to evaluate the “level of participant satisfaction.” The tenth question asks participants to outline times and places when the Solar Bag is not used. This question was used to evaluate the KPI “local substitutes do not replace the use of the Solar Bag.” Other questions in the interview guide covered water quality, quantity, uses of water, Solar Bag durability, stress surrounding water use, and changes in participant’s health and lives since using the Solar Bag. (See Appendix A for the complete interview guide). An observation guide was used during the observations. The guide was designed to incorporate the “Knowledge and Practice of the Solar Bag Treatment Process” indicators from CARE PERU’s monitoring and evaluation plan. The observation guide s...
