interview table of contents previous chapter
The interview instrument elicited spontaneous and favorable comment for its structure, comprehensiveness and clarity from a number of subjects. One interviewee commented that it was the best she had seen and another that it was a model. From an interviewer’s perspective the instrument enhanced their ability to elicit good quality responses and sustain a logical chain of thought. Perhaps the best praise was that a majority of subjects commented that the interview had prompted them to think deeply and reflectively about their projects in ways that they had not previously done. Conducting the interviews face-to-face was certainly worthwhile. This was beneficial for the subjective impressions the interviewer gains using this method and the benefits of being able to get a “feel” for places and people. In addition, because the instrument needs to be standard to allow for comparable responses, yet cover digitization projects that use a variety of media and exist in a number of different institutional contexts, it inevitably has occasional shortcomings. Therefore, being able to offer an interpretation, explanation or example on a question where its meaning, relevance or application was not immediately apparent, was invaluable.
Nevertheless, one subject commented that they felt the instrument was more suited to libraries and that some areas could be addressed with more nuances for non-library projects. Certainly there are sections, particularly regarding cataloging and references to MARC, that are most applicable to libraries but it is difficult to see how this can be avoided if we are to gain information on their particular areas of expertise. Possibly an additional section with more detailed questions regarding teaching and learning or managing academic input would address this but it is straying off the purpose of the research. Furthermore, the size of the instrument is about as large as one could go, in most cases there was a sense of fatigue and loss of concentration towards the end.
The distinction at the start of the instrument over programs and projects, did not work in practice and was effectively ignored, leading to some repetition in questions. The latest version has been modified slightly to reflect this; another duplicate question was removed and the meaning of a couple more clarified (as much for the benefit of the interviewer as for the interviewee).
Here you can find a complete version of the Interview Instrument in pdf format. If you don’t have the free Acrobat Reader to read it you can find this software here.