CHOOSING THE RESEARCH METHOD

Burr (2003: 24) points out that although there are no research methods that are intrinsically social constructionist, the propensity for

99 researchers to value the social meanings of accounts and discourses often logically leads to qualitative techniques as the research method of choice. In practice this regularly transpires as an analysis of interview transcripts and written texts of other kinds. In keeping with these assertions, this project aims to ‘[view] events, action, norms, values,  etc. from the perspective of the people who are being studied’ (Bryman,  1992: 61). Consequently, interviews were considered to be the most appropriate method for this research. Three forms of interview were considered for this research project: unstructured interviews, focus groups and semi-structured interviews. These are critically discussed in turn below.

Unstructured interviews are particularly popular in heavily qualitative fields of research. Bryman (2001: 314) comments: ‘[t]here may be just a  single question that the interviewer asks the interviewee and then is allowed to follow freely, with the interviewer simply responding to points that seem worthy of being followed up’. The unstructured interview  allows the respondent talk at length about a topic without the intervention of the interviewer. As my research intended to elicit meanings and experiences that shape carers lives, unstructured

interviews were initially considered to be a possibly suitable method. In this way, an interview would be shaped by what the carer deemed important for discussion, without being influenced by my research agenda. This is advantageous as an interviewer may unintentionally interrupt the respondent’s flow of speech and inadvertently lose 

100 valuable information. Due to the unstructured nature of the method, however, the interviews can be very time-consuming, often lasting many hours (Ding and Minh Ho Dac, 2005). Consequently, the transcription and analysis process is lengthy, often producing much irrelevant data. Furthermore, this research aims to answer three research questions. As such, some structure was deemed to be of particular importance so that these questions could be answered within the time each respondent was interviewed. These factors are

particularly salient when considering the strict time frame imposed on this project and as such unstructured interviews were rejected on the grounds of their lack of practicality for use within this study.

Focus group methods allow the researcher to carry out group interviews of up to six participants (Greenbaum, 1998). This research method has been successful for some social researchers investigating illness and disability (e.g. Lester and Tritter, 2005). It allows individuals to share common experiences, which can be positive and liberating. Additionally, in some situations participants speak more freely producing rich data (Kitzinger, 1995). However, there are frequently particular participants that dominate the session and it often requires two researchers present to allow every voice in the group to be heard. Furthermore, Silverman (2007) argues that due to the number of respondents contributing to the discussion, the core focus of the meeting can be easily lost. In

response, Fontana and Frey (1998) suggest that the method should also be carried out in conjunction with individual interviews. These

101 issues question the use of this method for this research as there will only be one researcher present during the fieldwork, and multiple methods are considered to be too time consuming.

Semi-structured interviews were eventually chosen as the interview method for this research. Britten (1995: 252) defines the method as ‘conducted on the basis of a loose structure consisting of open ended questions that define the area to be explored, at least initially, and from which the interviewer or interviewee may diverge in order to pursue an idea in more detail’. Consequently, an interview guide was designed prior to entering the field8 so that each respondent could answer relevant questions pertaining to the research questions. Furthermore, the interviews could be guided by introducing a new question if a respondent digressed from the focus of the research topic. The flexibility of the method also enabled the participants to respond to issues or themes that I had not previously considered. Bryman (2001: 313) explains, semi-structured interviewing allows the interviewer to ‘respond […] to the direction in which interviewees take the interviews’.  Consequently, this method allowed a number of themes to emerge from the interviews that were unpredictable at the research design stages.

Wengraf (2001) argues that within semi-structured interviewing, the researcher’s purpose and theory is crucial. In this way, he warns those 

8

See Appendix 07 for a copy of the interview guide for carers, and Appendix 08 for a copy of the interview guide for professional respondents. See section 3.6 for a discussion of how the interviews were carried out.

102 who undertake this method to be especially attentive to the design of the research questions. This constitutes one of the biggest challenges of semi-structured interviews. Bryman (2001) argues that although the method allows a researcher to specifically address the research aims within the study, they must be careful not to ask ‘leading questions’.  Britten (1995) argues that ‘the novice research interviewer needs to notice how directive he or she is being, whether leading questions are being asked, whether cues are picked up or ignored, and whether interviewees are given enough time to explain what they mean’. In  response to this I aimed to be reflexive about these challenges to the method and remain aware of them throughout the fieldwork.