Conducting interview is always an interesting aspect of the researchprocess. During the interviews, my colleague was very confident andexpressed both positive and negative opinions and experiences aboutpublic service. In this interview, he articulated satisfactions withsome of the questions asked. During the interview, my colleague hadan understanding of the question that was asked. Moreover, he waswilling to cooperate, at different levels, during the sessions.However, he had different attitudes towards some of the aspects ofthe interview.
There were both bad and good experiences from the conversation. Therespondent was assertive about the questions. He sought clarificationand attempted to explain his answers, even in cases where a yes or noresponse was required. Nonetheless, it was clear that he was tryingto create a good impression during the session. On the other hand,she was very pessimistic about some aspects of the interview.Consequently, he needed to know why he needed to answer the questionsand how they will add value to his lives and the public. It is alsoto point out that he had a different understanding of some of thequestions. As a result, it was very easy to think that his statementswere not coherent and thus conflicting answers. However, this did nothave a significant impact on the study.
The experiences of the interviewer during the research created someperceptions about public administration. For example, since theinterviewee identified some negative encounters with administrators,it persuaded the graduate student to believe that unprofessional,irresponsible, unfair and lacks transparency. Additionally, theresponses created a perception that the general public has adequateknowledge of the expectations of the civil service and the challengesfacing them.
Bloomberg, L. et al. (2015). Public value and publicadministration. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
No related posts.