Individual Assignment: Data Collection Methods The Government Technical Advisory Centre (GTAC), under the National Treasury, released Terms of Reference (ToRs) for the provision of Evaluation Services relating to the Impact Evaluation of Jobs Fund Projects Intervening in the Digital Economy. The evaluation aims to assess selected Jobs Fund initiatives focused on facilitating employment opportunities in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and Business Process Outsourcing (BPO). Interested and suitably qualified organizations were invited to submit bids by 20 June 2025. Reference: GTAC Tender Portal (Accessed: 23 July 2025). Task: After reviewing the ToRs, respond to the following FOUR components. Each section accounts for 25% of the final mark. Part 1: Understanding Interpretivism in ContextLength: Minimum 2 pages Define the interpretivist paradigm and its relevance to qualitative inquiry. Critically examine the strengths & limitations of this approach based on the GTAC ToRs. Apply theoretical insights and scholarly references to support your critique. Part 2: Designing a Semi-Structured Interview Schedule Create a semi-structured interview schedule aligned with the evaluation objectives outlined in the ToRs. Include a concise purpose statement; Ethical considerations; and Five primary questions, each accompanied by at least five probing questions Part 3: Reflections on the Semi-Structured Interview ScheduleLength: Minimum 2 pages Critically analyse the potential strengths and limitations of the interview schedule you developed. Substantiate your reflections using relevant literature and ensure alignment with the GTAC evaluation context. Part 4: Reliability, Validity, and Interviewing InsightsLength: Maximum 3 pages Discuss strategies to uphold reliability and validity in qualitative data collection. Identify and briefly describe five key lessons learned about conducting effective interviews, particularly considering the GTAC ToRs. Format Requirements: Submit the assignment in narrative format with appropriate in-text citations. The final submission must include an introduction and conclusion and not exceed 10 pages (excluding references). Due Date: 29 August 20251 ASSESSMENT ASSIGNMENTCriteriaExcellent (8-10)Good (5-7)Unsatisfactory (3-4)Poor (1-2)MarksIntroduction(weight: 10%) Explains the purpose of the assignment and the background/context comprehensively and imaginatively.Explains the main purpose and the background/context of the assignment clearly.Purpose and the background/context of the assignment only partially described.Purpose and the background/context of the assignment are not described and/or are described in a way that is not related to the assignment.Introduction(10) Criteria: Main body (weight: 60%)Excellent (16-20)Good (11-15)Unsatisfactory (6-10)Poor (1-5)MarksSub-heading: Knowledge and applicationof theoryDemonstrates comprehensive, detailed and in-depth knowledge base and the complexity of issues, and the ability to integrate theoretical and substantive knowledge creatively.Demonstrates a well-organised theoretical and/or substantive knowledge base and the appropriate application of theories within the context of the assessment task with a limited level of creativity.Some relevant and/or required knowledge missing or confused and the application and/or understanding of theories is limited.Many inaccuracies in knowledge presented is confusing and application and/or understanding of theories is very limited.Knowledge/ applicationof theory(20)Sub-heading:Analysis and SynthesisExcellent critical analysis of knowledge, theory and practice, with high-level understanding of the interrelationship between them, and the ability to synthesize diverse concepts to construct a coherent argument/position.Good critical analysis of knowledge, theory and practice and an understanding of the interrelationship between some key aspects, and the ability to synthesize some related concepts and theories into a coherent argument/position.Limited ability to analyse knowledge, theory and practice and limited understanding of the relationship between related concepts and theories.Attempts at analysis ineffective and/or uninformed by the discipline, and little or no evidence of integration of related content.Analysis and synthesis(20)Sub-heading:Motivationof statementsExcellent and well-founded motivation of statements/conclusions, substantiated by data/ theories, and reflecting high level critical evaluation of theories, concepts and assumptions, creativity and independent thinking.Clear motivation of statements/conclusions based on appropriate data and/or theories, and reflecting some critical evaluation of theories, concepts and or assumptions.Limited motivation of statements with little evidence of findings and conclusions supported by data/theories.Arguments not motivated or poorly motivated or unsubstantiated/invalid conclusions.Motivation of statements(20)CriteriaExcellent (8-10)Good (5-7)Unsatisfactory (3-4)Poor (1-2)MarksLogical structure(weight: 10%) Excellent logical organisation of information into a coherent document that integrates content in a systematically structured manner that indicates a critical approach and originality.Clear, accurate and systematic organisation of information into a logically structured and coherent document.Poorly presented information in a document that is poorly structured.Disorganised and/or incoherent presentation of information.Logical structure(10)CriteriaExcellent (13-15)Good (9-12)Unsatisfactory (5-8)Poor (1-4)MarksConclusion(weight: 15%)Conclusions exceptionally well developed and show considerable originality. They form an integrated part of the overall argument and/or discussion, reflecting commanding grasp of theory, evidence and/or literature and appropriate forms of conceptualisation.Sound conclusions are drawn which are clearly derived from evidence and/or theory and/or literature.Limited or ineffective attempt to draw together arguments.Limited or ineffective attempt to draw together arguments; lack of conclusions or unsubstantiated and/or invalid conclusions drawn.Conclusion(15)CriteriaExcellent (5)Good (4)Unsatisfactory (3)Poor (1-2)MarksTechnical quality(weight: 5%) Excellent overall technical quality of the document, in terms of language use, referencing, contents page, headings & sub-headings, appendices, legibility of the text and diagrams, etc.Good overall technical quality of the document.Overall technical quality of the document unsatisfactory with numerous areas for improvement.Poor overall technical quality of the document.Technical quality(5)