Qualitative Assignment
SBRM
, Part A: Evaluating interview transcript
Methodological approach
The researchers study to what extent electric motorsport can help to further scale up, promote and
develop electric vehicles. A qualitative interview, an inductive and spontaneous process, is
performed to collect data for this research. The interview is set up in a semi-structured way, with
flexibility in the question order and with open questions (Bryman, 2012). The interview is active
because interviewing is not a neutral process. It also takes work to achieve passivity and
forthrightness of participating in an interview (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011).
The focus of the interview is on the Championship coordinator. The assistant of the Championship
coordinator also attends the interview, but is not taking an active role in the interview. Only once is
the assistant asked something by the coordinator but he is not involved any further in the interview.
The group dynamic does not seem to be affected by the attendance of the assistant because there
are no different perspectives or additions mentioned which could influence the group dynamics.
Before starting the interview and the recording, the interviewer asked the interviewee to sign a
consent form and to agree that the interview could be recorded. Which makes the interviewer less
distracted and makes it easier to analyze the interview afterwards.
Structure of the interview
When comparing the structure of the interview with the guidelines for the 'Writing Successful
Interview Protocols' by Jacob and Furgerson (2012), there are many similarities concerning the
structure of this interview and the guidelines described in the article.
First of all, the interview corresponds to a former research that has been used. In the former
research, the role of electric motorsport as a niche in the development of electric vehicles and the
transition to a more sustainable mobility system was investigated, which corresponds to the
questions posed in the interview.
In addition, open questions were mainly used, but also a few closed questions were asked. The
interviewee gave very short answers to these questions. With these types of questions, the
interviewee cannot provide you with additional information. An example of such a closed question is
"Will this also benefit the production of electric vehicles more generally?". The interviewer should
have asked how it affects the production and not whether it does or not. This would have resulted in
deeper and more meaningful information.
When looking at the order of questions in the interview, some parts can be considered messy. The
interviewer first starts with an easy question, whether the interviewee would like to introduce
himself briefly. That is an easy way to start the conversation. This corresponds to the Guidelines from
the article by Jacob and Furgerson (2012). However, the second question is in comparison very
specific. The interviewer immediately asks the championship coordinator for his opinion about
Projekt E. By immediately asking what the opinion is about the goal of the project, the championship
coordinator is surprised by a difficult question and this can also be noticed in his response to the
question. The questions should have been in order from least difficult or controversial to the most
difficult. The interviewer should have started by asking what exactly the project details are and what
the purpose of the project is.
It is not clear whether a script was used for the beginning and the end of the interview.
1
SBRM
, Part A: Evaluating interview transcript
Methodological approach
The researchers study to what extent electric motorsport can help to further scale up, promote and
develop electric vehicles. A qualitative interview, an inductive and spontaneous process, is
performed to collect data for this research. The interview is set up in a semi-structured way, with
flexibility in the question order and with open questions (Bryman, 2012). The interview is active
because interviewing is not a neutral process. It also takes work to achieve passivity and
forthrightness of participating in an interview (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011).
The focus of the interview is on the Championship coordinator. The assistant of the Championship
coordinator also attends the interview, but is not taking an active role in the interview. Only once is
the assistant asked something by the coordinator but he is not involved any further in the interview.
The group dynamic does not seem to be affected by the attendance of the assistant because there
are no different perspectives or additions mentioned which could influence the group dynamics.
Before starting the interview and the recording, the interviewer asked the interviewee to sign a
consent form and to agree that the interview could be recorded. Which makes the interviewer less
distracted and makes it easier to analyze the interview afterwards.
Structure of the interview
When comparing the structure of the interview with the guidelines for the 'Writing Successful
Interview Protocols' by Jacob and Furgerson (2012), there are many similarities concerning the
structure of this interview and the guidelines described in the article.
First of all, the interview corresponds to a former research that has been used. In the former
research, the role of electric motorsport as a niche in the development of electric vehicles and the
transition to a more sustainable mobility system was investigated, which corresponds to the
questions posed in the interview.
In addition, open questions were mainly used, but also a few closed questions were asked. The
interviewee gave very short answers to these questions. With these types of questions, the
interviewee cannot provide you with additional information. An example of such a closed question is
"Will this also benefit the production of electric vehicles more generally?". The interviewer should
have asked how it affects the production and not whether it does or not. This would have resulted in
deeper and more meaningful information.
When looking at the order of questions in the interview, some parts can be considered messy. The
interviewer first starts with an easy question, whether the interviewee would like to introduce
himself briefly. That is an easy way to start the conversation. This corresponds to the Guidelines from
the article by Jacob and Furgerson (2012). However, the second question is in comparison very
specific. The interviewer immediately asks the championship coordinator for his opinion about
Projekt E. By immediately asking what the opinion is about the goal of the project, the championship
coordinator is surprised by a difficult question and this can also be noticed in his response to the
question. The questions should have been in order from least difficult or controversial to the most
difficult. The interviewer should have started by asking what exactly the project details are and what
the purpose of the project is.
It is not clear whether a script was used for the beginning and the end of the interview.
1
