Results of Piloted Investigatory Tools

Four different methods of information gathering, analysis and evaluation were piloted. The intention was to familiarize us with their main features as well as increase our proficiency with their execution. The undertaking of these pilots not only helped illuminate which tools may be of most value to our enquiry, but also helped further clarify our enquiries and provide further contextual research.

My lack of clarity with my final subject hampered the focus group I held at the last campus session, limiting both the benefits I could derive from it as well as depriving me of any valuable insights at the this early stage of my enquiry. My primary concern with this tool would be the negative influence to the responses given resulting from group perception.

My pilot survey was rather more successful and although I have chosen other tools for my current enquiry I learned a lot from its execution and will without doubt use surveys in the future for data gathering.

I used a mix of descriptive and analytical questions to gain more useful information. The additional information boxes as I did from the tick box section. I can get many peoples opinions relatively quickly and easily. The information is likely to be easier and quicker to interpret. However it should be noted that social desirability is likely to be present in both Survey and Interview. Although in an interview you are able to put the interviewee at their ease to increase the chances of eliciting a truthful answer, the survey does have the advantage of being anonymous so it could be argued that this encourages the most truthful responses. With an interview however you may be able to spot an un-truthful answer, through their non-verbal communication but with a survey you would need to carry out a number of surveys in which you could trial the ordering as well as phrasing of questions to attempt to lessen any affects that social desirability may be playing which would take a lot more time but also require a lot more resources. I asked the questions in a set order as it leads through a natural process so I didn’t want to randomize the order in which they were asked. Saying this one of the respondents did say that a couple of the questions were misleading because they came too early in the survey.

My survey was answered by 7 people, meaning that the results can only be relied upon to an extent, when drawing hypotheses from their data. Irrespective of this fact, the process was a very beneficial and a number of valuable lessons were learned from the experience as well as some unexpected points to consider and explore further throughout my enquiry. It doesn’t really assist my enquiry directly but was non the less an interesting exercise to gain the opinions from the other side of the coin (not just the coaches but their clients). In terms of improvement, Q1, Q5 could be less ambiguous which could result in better end data. Q2 & 6 worked really well and Q8 brought out some information that I had not even considered.

After having completed my survey I found a link to Peter Bryant’s post on preparing a survey [http://peterbryant.smegradio.com/?p=42] through Alicia’s blog which, after the experience I had just had creating my own was very helpful. Together with actually completing Peter’s Survey I was able to apply his thoughts to the practice of survey writing. It was concise, clear and focused. He had it in 2 pages making it less intimidating, encouraging fuller answers. Q1 “What terms describe your artistic form (you may select more than one)”, clearly illustrates the importance and ease with which you can lead the respondents to provide their answers but in the format you desire. The use of the instructions in brackets really would have helped a number of my questions. 

In terms of hours per week, how long do you spend: [table] excellently designed to capture exactly the info he wanted to capture. After taking part in a couple of other surveys I also gleaned some great ideas which I shall carry through to future surveys. Jo Bradley’s Blog – my comments.

When writing this survey I did not really have a crystal clear idea of what I went into it to achieve other than just to do one for the experience. I ask mainly questions based on public speaking. Although this information was very interesting it is inevitably less useful than had there been a clear objective and one about coaching. I know now that if I were to be using a survey for other future enquiries I will ensure that it has a very clear objective which I will summarise at the top and have very clearly written, unambiguous questions with plenty of instructions in brackets. The order of the questions will also be more carefully considered to ensure an easy to follow train of though for the respondent. I suspect that many of my new questions will be informed from the responses that I have gathered from other BAPP students through our discussions and comments. One such insight came from a discussion with Sarah Pearson on qualifications/ ethics (Phil’s Blog - Task 5A) in which she picked up on my point of a lack of formal qualifications required in Life Coaching to which she asked would people not expect to see ‘Proof of qualifications’. I would like to investigate this further, the publics qualifying process for someone’s ability to be a good coach. I am likely to want to use it to find peoples thoughts on coaches, what would make you choose one over another, how and where would you look for one etc. This however is for another future enquiry.

My pilot observation was non intrusive and I notified the subject afterwards to ensure that they were comfortable with me using the data I gathered. This did afford me the opportunity to clearly compare his actual behavioral patterns to those he had identified two days earlier in my interview with him. His coaching style in a group seminar setting, as we discussed in his interview [Appendice], was very energetic and polished and to be able to draw any discerning reflections I would need to observe him a few more times and in a one to one setting. The insights, observations potentially yield, despite their inherent power to unearth ‘real behavior’ are, however not relevant for my enquiry.

Two pilot interviews were carried out. Both interviewees are coaches although Paul Preston does so primarily through group public speaking, whilst Susan Alexander, operates more on an individual basis.

Useful qualitative results were gathered and have inspired areas of research.

The first interview was with Susan Alexander (transcription notes can be viewed if requested and permission by the interviewee is granted) and was conducted face to face in her offices and was a great learning experience.

An audio recording was used rather than a video as I felt it would be less intrusive allowing her to relax more and feel comfortable enough to give truthful answers.

Many valuable lessons were learned this first interview experience.

How the placement of one incorrect word, can throw off the entire response to that question (page 6).

On a couple of occasions Susan got off topic (page 11/12) and after the first time this happened I began re-asking the question more precisely (page 14) as well as asking her to expand on her last answer (page 15).

It was important to design my questions to lead very naturally into each other, whilst still fascilatating me the flexability to easily adapt or reposition them. Both of these aspects were vital to maintain the natural flow and elicit the most comprehensive responses. I tried to structure it so that the earlier questions were geared more towards something they are certain of, easy to answer (page 1) and not too controversial until such time as I could build up a rapport and help them relax and gain their trust. As the interview progressed I began with the more probing and challenging questions where they are required to offer their feelings/reactions about certain subjects (page 17).

It was clearly demonstrated in one of Susan’s answers that my question was not clear enough. I asked too many questions within the same question leading to her answering only the last of them and forgetting/not hearing the others, although they were related (page 16). At another point it was clear that she no longer wanted to talk about that topic any longer (page 20) so to keep the momentum going I carefully phrased my next question to be “Moving more onto…” subconsciously this I think reassured her that we were moving away from that previous point.

I also began re-iterating back to the interviewee what they had just said and found that it had the desired affect which was to reassure them that they were both making sense and were making interesting and valid points (page 22).

Conscious of the great length of my previous interview with Susan, I wanted to keep my second interview with Paul Preston (transcription notes can be viewed if requested and permission by the interviewee is granted), which, due to convenience for the interviewee, was held over the phone, short and to the point. The quality of the recording was greatly reduced making the transcription much more difficult.

My expectations were that it would take a more structured tone, due in part to the difficulty in creating the ambiance that is more easily created in a face to face situation, however in reality, I found the interview much more difficult to manage, in terms of it’s length and staying on point as I was unable to utilise normal non verbal cues. Despite, this time, qualifying pre interview what the focus and objectives were (Page 1), combined with Paul’s talkative nature resulting in the interview taking more of an informal structure. It was certainly more convenient for the both of us and, despite my preference of interview style being semi structured, may need to utilize this interview method again due to the busy nature of my intended interviewees. If this were the case I would ensure that, before beginning, I discuss my objectives for this interview with them so they are clear on my desired outcome.

I built on my learning from my first interview kept the questions simple, open and purposeful to optimize the information gathered whilst maintaining the freedom of structure to role with the answers and explore unprecedented avenues of thought/responses (page 8).

Firstly I noticed a much easier, and so less intrusive to the loose natural flow of our conversation, transition when I introduced the change of topic as well as framing the importance or sensitivity of the next section (page 8/9).

All in all these were incredibly interesting and beneficial to carry out.

For the purposes of this enquiry I intend to use primarily a face to face, Semi structured Interview technique. After considering the different styles of interview techniques, from Non directive through to fully structured, I feel that this format strikes the best balance between keeping an informal enough nature to elicit real and honest responses with just enough direction to ensure the desired areas are comprehensively managed whilst minimising deviation from topic.

Through this approach I hope that the natural conversational flow will draw out a deeper/fuller answer through the rapport built and easy flowing approach I intend to take. I will get a more rounded answer to my questioning and more depth as well as having an opportunity to meet these professionals and speak to them on a more personal level, making contacts and possibly increasing my Network at the same time.  To ensure that I have the best chance to capture the exact phrasings used, as well as the interviewee’s full depth of experience, I will be making a clear recording of the interview, which will be much more accurately than note taking.

The obvious potential down sides of gathering data through interview is the volume of material produced to transcribe and analyse, as well as the reliability of results when comparing across the respondents. However as I have at this time little intention of direct comparison of these interviews and am hopeful of gathering lots of material to improve the chance of drawing out some real meaningful points, neither of these are, to me, real down sides. Although I wish them to relax and speak freely, I will be guiding the interview to optimize the quality of data gathered whilst keeping to a minimum digression or getting side tracked with superfluous information.

To add further depth and colour to the information I gather from my interviews I intend to use a range of various solid Literary pieces, such as Biographies, Auto Biographies of Life Coaches as well as other inspirational people in the field of motivational speaking and coaching. My hope would be that though the examination and study of these individuals, who have made the transition from other fields, I will be able to triangulate the information and explore any correlation between the literary stories and those I’ve captured through interview.

Stay safe - Phil