Chapter 3: Research design
3.17 Chapter reflections
It would have been desirable to carry keys to reduce the impact of the research upon the staff member’s time. However, the prison decided as I was only visiting the prison one day each week that this could be managed with minimal impact to the staff members.
The interviews were recorded by taking notes with a pen and paper. However, within the original design of the research I had identified that I would record the data by using a Dictaphone. As part of
175 | P a g e
the ethical approval process for the research, I was not able to take any device into the prison to record the participant interviews. On reflection, by taking detailed notes of the participant answers I was able to identify that categories were emerging from within the very first interview. These categories would later become important as I developed a theory from the research.
It is acknowledged that by taking notes during the course of the interview I may have missed some of the non-verbal communication, although I did try to look up as often as I could when taking the notes, I also made notes of any non-verbal behaviours. However, it is acknowledged that note -taking does allow non-verbal communication to be documented, such as tone, silence, length of pauses during the interview (Charmaz, 2014). Even if a Dictaphone had been permitted, it would have still missed some of the visible discomfort of the participants.
In light of this, I noted the details of any non-verbal communication, which would have been
recorded by a Dictaphone, such as a participant pausing and any changes in the tone of their voices.
Therefore, I do not consider that having to take notes represented a significant disadvantage for the research project. However, it is an aspect of the research project, which I would change if I was permitted to do so by the NOMS ethics committee. The reason I would have chosen to use a
recording device is that I would have then been able to concentrate solely on building a rapport with the participant by keeping eye contact and not having to divide my focus by having to note-take as well as ask questions.
On reflection, another aspect of the design, which I would have changed, was improving the
information the prisoner received regarding the purpose of the research, as this was misunderstood by one prisoner who thought they were actually being interviewed to become a prison listener.
When I explained the actual purpose of the research, which evidently was not to become a listener, the prisoner still wanted to take part in the project, although her body language during the course of the interview illustrated that she was frustrated. This also made me feel uncomfortable during the interview, which meant I rushed the interview, as I felt uneasy. This situation could have been prevented if I had met with the prisoners before the interviews had taken place, to provide more
176 | P a g e
details of what the research involved. When I was designing my research I did not consider that this was feasible, as I was aware that the availability of the prison staff to give me access was very limited and therefore as I designed my research I was increasingly aware that I needed to reduce the
involvement of the prison staff. This represents a part of the design which if I was to conduct the research again, I would change and I would hold a meeting before the project commenced to ensure all potential participants had the correct understanding of the purpose of the research.
The focus group did eventually go ahead after I had reassured the listeners that their identity would remain anonymous and that the data collected would be confidential. However, two of the listeners did not wish to participate, which I feel on reflection could have been avoided if I had spent more time with the listeners so that they could have developed a relationship with me, so that they trusted the information would not be disclosed to anyone. The research was not disadvantaged by this issue, as those who did participate still provided detailed answers to my questions, which indicated that they engaged with my research, despite the difficult start.
At the request of the listeners, the Samaritans were present during the focus group, which ensured that the listeners felt comfortable about the research. However, having the Samaritans there could have prevented the listeners from being honest about the ways in which the scheme could be improved for self-harm. On reflection, if I had developed a trusting relationship with the listeners, by having increased contact with them, they would have perhaps felt comfortable to go ahead with the focus group without the Samaritans being present.
Similarly, some prisoners did not feel comfortable disclosing the details of their own self-harm behaviour, which on reflection I could have avoided if I had spent more time within the prison environment building rapport and trust with the prisoners. However, I also needed to strike a balance between advancing my research and the project becoming too demanding on the prison resources. It is often difficult to build rapport with prisoners whilst also retaining an element of authority, which ensures the protection of personal information. Whether the research population is authoritative or lacking authority, there are still tendencies to be untrusting of the researcher, the
177 | P a g e
intended purpose of the research and use of the findings (Kusow, 2003). In light of this, on reflection I would have increased the time I spent with the prisoners, although I recognise there would always be some prisoners who would not feel able to disclose the details of their self-harm.
178 | P a g e