Feedback from Michael on my interview questions

Before heading out to NYC, Michael e-mailed to say that he would be stuck on Long Island looking for things to do to pass the time. I obliged by e-mailing him my proposed interview questions. As ever he came back quickly with valuable suggestions, as follows (actionable points in bold):

Hello there, James,

Looks great. Impressively precise questions.  I just had a few observations, but the structure is perfect so I wouldn't change too much.

 1.  Does the consent form refer to confidentiality and anonymity? If not, you might state that upfront, that their identity will remain anonymous, etc.

 2.  What type of analysis will be applied to the transcripts? Narrative? If so, I suggest less is more in terms of the number of questions. Ask one, and then prod and probe for more explanation.

3.  In fact, consider jotting down a few probes to spur greater reflection on the most important questions.

4.  Is this question on topic? "It is suggested within the literature that the ability of students to present ideas in new and innovative ways necessitates the need for tutors to be re-trained. How do you feel about this?" By this, I mean does it advance any of your research questions? I am thinking tutor retraining is a separate issue from assessment or maybe I am wrong?

5.  I might consider having a "must-ask" list of questions followed by nice to have questions. I think an hour would be difficult to get through all of this.

6.  Same for this question: "Across the literature it is suggested that students are able to draw on a growing range of technologies and modes to present their ideas. Based upon your experience on the MSc in E-Learning, do you feel that students have exploited the multimodal potential of the range of tools from which they might craft ideas?" Does this relate to assessment? The tools aspect seems secondary to what you are after.

7.  Reflect briefly on whether the questions are too rigid for long answers. I think the greater the structure of the question, the more specific (and shorter) the answer. Do your questions provide the participant an ownership stake in the conversation? If so, they talk more. But I think your questions are great. Just consider versions that are more open-ended and couched in everyday language.

I'm off now to revisit the questions ahead of the first interview tomorrow morning.