Data collection

The main data collection method in phenomenography and in thematic analysis is interviewing, and it was also applied in this study. The main aim of an interview is to explore the interviewee’s experience of a phenomenon in depth.

It has been suggested by several researchers that the interview questions for phenomenographic interviews should be as open as possible (Åkerlind, 2005b;

Bowden, 2000; Kvale, 2007; Marton, 1986). This is important because the interviewer seeks to acquire descriptions of the interviewees’ life and the meaning they attribute to certain phenomena (Kvale, 2007). Moreover, it is quite important what questions are asked and how they are asked (Åkerlind, 2005b; Marton, 1986). Furthermore, unstructured follow-up questions can be used to elaborate on a topic or check the meaning that interviewees associate with key words that they use. The aim is to provide opportunities for the interviewees to describe their current understanding of the phenomenon in question as fully as possible (Åkerlind, 2003, 2005b, 2005c).

During the Estonian study (Article I and II), the interview guidelines for the data collection phases were prepared beforehand and discussed in detail between the researchers in order to ensure consistency and smooth flow as well as appropriate depth concerning the interviews, which is necessary in phe-nomenographic research (Åkerlind, 2005a, 2012; Bowden, 2000). The interviews began with activating and open questions, with the students being asked to explain how they felt about entrepreneurial learning as part of their engineering studies and what they considered to be the main learning points. In addition, among other points, they were asked to describe the issues handled during the learning sessions and to compare the course with other courses in their study programme. When clarification was needed, additional questions were asked, such as, “Could you explain that further?” or, “Could you give an example?” – always keeping in mind the purpose of the study and phenomenon in question. The interview guide is described in more detail in Article I and Appendix A (Täks et al., 2014).

The interviews that were conducted in Finland and Namibia (Article III) were also semi-structured, in-depth individual interviews. The interview guidelines were prepared beforehand and the main questions asked in the interviews remained the same across all three interviews, that is, at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the programme. Depending on the progress and time scale, some questions were added at the second and third interview stage. The comparison of the Estonian study and Namibia and Finnish study is given in Appendix 1. The selection of the questions mentioned in this concluding dissertation is based on the similarities between the interview guidelines for the three countries, so not all of the questions addressed during the interviews are presented here.

4.3.2. The sample and data collection in Estonia

The Estonian participants (n = 48) were full-time, fourth-year engineering students from three different disciplines (automotive engineering, technical design, textile and resource management), and the average age of the par-ticipants at the time of the research was 24 years and 6 months. The majority of the participants joined the engineering study programme either after graduating from upper secondary school or after a few years of work experience. All of the participating students went on to acquire a higher engineering certificate with 240 credit points as a result of their four years of study. The entrepreneurship course was a compulsory part of their curriculum. The Estonian data were collected in two phases: firstly, group interviews were conducted shortly after the course, and, secondly, individual interviews were held two to three months after the course. More detailed overview of the Estonian sample can be found in Table 3.

Table 2. Overview of the Samples of the Semi-Structured Group Interviews and the Individual In-Depth Interviews (Articles 1 and 2).

Sample of group interviews

(n = 48, average age 24.6 years) Sample of individual in-depth interviews (n = 16, average age 24.8 years) the field of Clothing and Textiles, 1 group, and Technical Design together field of Clothing and Textiles (n = 6)

Male = 33 Female = 14 Male = 9 Female = 6

Female = 1 Female = 1

* The students of Technical Design and those of Technology of Apparel were not able to participate in individual interviews due to their internships at companies.

The Technical Design Curriculum is designed to develop knowledge and skills that enable learners to create and develop clothing designs by using the latest technological equipment and programmes. This specialisation requires the ability to handle production processes, production design, and management.

The Textile and Resource Management Curriculum is more focused on topics that relate to production processes. In this specialisation, it is important to understand and handle purchasing and sales processes that support production.

These two aforementioned groups were joined into one large group for the entrepreneurship course. The Automotive Engineering Curriculum is designed to provide specific knowledge and skills for working in the changing techno-logical environment of the automotive industry, with the possibility to specialise either in traffic control and maintenance or as a specialist car repair mechanic.

Due to the large numbers of students in the automotive engineering programme and its arrangement of time schedules, it was not possible to combine all student teams into one large group.

In considering the number of students, the suggested length of the inter-views, and the resource-intense processes of phenomenographic research, it was decided to use group interviews for the study. The group interviews were video recorded and involved 48 (89%) of the total of 54 students. Six students were not able to participate due to illness or work responsibilities. Four group inter-views (n = 48) were conducted separately with each group (17, 17, 6, and 8, respectively) on different days, each time immediately following the teaching session of the course. The group interviews were video recorded and each one lasted approximately 90–120 minutes. After conducting the group interviews, it became clear that the descriptions of the experiences that students shared during the interviews were incomplete; this was thought to have been due to the large number of students in each group. As a consequence, it was decided to conduct additional, individual in-depth interviews with selected students (n = 16) approximately two to three months after the course. The individual interviews lasted 40 minutes each, on average. The students’ permission for both recordings was requested before the interviews. The rationale for selecting interviewees was to ensure that the maximum variation in students’ experiences of the phe-nomenon in question would be represented. To capture the largest variation possible, the selection was based on students’ self-assessments and their final grades in the course (to make sure that the sample included students with different achievement goals and levels). Therefore, both high and low achievers were invited. Self-assessment was mainly based on self-monitoring scales that students had to fill out twice, that is, at the beginning and at the end of the course. Those students whose self-monitoring scales illustrated the largest and the smallest changes in personal awareness among engineering students were selected to participate in the study. All of the individual interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and these transcripts were the focus of the analysis.

4.3.3. The samples and data collections in Finland and Namibia

In Finland and in Namibia, the data were collected in conjunction with: 1) the Proacademy programme of Applied Sciences in Tampere, Finland; and 2) the Prolearning programme in Windhoek, Namibia. In Finland, six male and twelve female students (N = 18), aged 22 to 26 years, and in Namibia, seven male and six female students (N = 13), aged 22 to 24 years, participated in this longitudinal study.

In Finland (N = 18) and Namibia (N = 13), the data were longitudinally gathered through three individual in-depth interviews: one at the beginning, one in the middle, and one at the end of the programme. In Namibia, an additional, fourth interview was held (n = 10) almost one year after the end of the

programme. The average length of the interviews was approximately 60 minutes, in both Finland and Namibia. Both the Finnish and Namibian interviews were conducted by the same researcher. All of the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.