Collecting and recording data

The primary source of data collection was interviews. Times and places of each interview were predetermined in consultation with participants. All 9 (nine) interviews were completed at locations chosen by participants as discussed above. Interviews ran for approximately one to one and a half hours each. All interviews were audio recorded, with the written permission of participants (Appendix C) utilizing a primary recorder and a second or back-up recorder, so as to ensure interviews were not interrupted due to technical problems. Both recorders were small thus nonintrusive. Storage and protection of all data adhered to the guidelines outlined in the study’s Letter of Informed Consent (Appendix C).

A secondary source of data was that of resources identified and in some cases provided by participants. One participant provided a power point presentation that she uses in her work with professionals on the topic of complex trauma. Another introduced a toy resource she uses; a plastic scull with an interlocking plastic brain used to inform children and parents about the brain and the effects of trauma on different parts of the brain. Another provided informational articles used in her work with complex trauma.

182 Another participant provided copies of a book on childhood trauma and attachment, which she herself authored. Still another participant made reference to, and recommended a children’s storybook about the effects of trauma, which she uses in therapy. Reference was made to parent resources used in treatment, and a children’s colouring book written and developed by a participant was provided. This book focused on the effects of trauma using children’s language and age-appropriate examples. These resources were all reviewed in detail.

A third source was information obtained through the member checking process.

Five participants availed of this opportunity to provide feedback through the first member checking process, clarifying points that were extracted from their interviews, adding new information, and in one case choosing to change the wording used in the

member-checking document to more summative wording. Participant’s feedback was incorporated into their interview data. The remaining participants provided positive feedback on the member check document, and accepted the information as presented. Participant

feedback was imperative to the process, and no further interviewing was undertaken until this process was completed as this served to inform the next interview, a process that was repeated throughout the research so as to cumulatively shape subsequent interviews.

A fourth source of information was field journals and a logbook that I kept throughout the interview process. Field journals were kept by me and by my peer advisor as requested. My journaling included notes of day-to-day activities, communications, records of contact with peer advisor including peer debriefings, interviews, changes with explanations of same, budgetary documentation, and any other information relevant to recording for an audit trail. My peer advisor kept a record of all contacts made with her

183 throughout the study. The logbook included individual daily reflections, observations, and impressions throughout the interview period.

3.3.3.7.1 Demographics.

Information was collected from each participant using a 10-question

demographics form (see Appendix E), which was developed to determine homogeneity of participants. Homogeneity was confirmed in that all participants are certified play

therapists, and all are registered with their professional association of CACPT.

Participant’s year of certification as a play therapist ranged from 1995 to 2012. All participants were female, and all participants practiced play therapy using a combination of directive and non-directive approaches. All participants were experienced play

therapists, having practiced between 4 and 20+ years. Additionally, 8 participants identified having formal training in trauma, and one received training through her employment. Three participants practiced play therapy publically, four practiced privately, and two practiced both publically and privately. Practice within the public domain included counselling centers, community services, children’s services, and hospitals and/or hospices. Participants identified with the following disciplines: 4 social workers (at levels of diploma, degree, PhD(c), and PhD), 1 psychotherapist, 1 mental health counsellor, and 3 psychologists.

3.3.3.7.2 Data protection.

All collected data had been secured, inclusive of tape recorders, transcriptions, copies, documents, and individual paper files, in a locked cabinet in my personal home

184 office, accessible by me only. Keys to this cabinet are kept on my person, with back-up keys stored in my locked desk at my place of employment. All transcribed dictations are kept in files on my personal and private computer, which is password protected, and accessible to me only. As a backup measure, an electronic copy was uploaded to a flash drive and stored at my work office, in a locked cabinet accessible by me only.

Each transcription was copied three times. One copy was filed to serve as backup to guard against damage or loss; another copy was used as a working copy for coding and analysis, while the third copy was used for a recoding and reanalysis process. Paper files are identifiable by code only. A listing of participants names and their coded files names are kept in my private computer, password protected, accessible by this researcher only.

All electronic data analysis information, which had no identifying information but was identified by code names, was also stored on my personal computer, and backed up using a dedicated jump drive. It was stored at my office in a locked cabinet accessible only by me. Full data access was limited to me as principal researcher. However, exceptions existed and were afforded to my peer advisor Ms. Angela Seaward and my external auditor Dr. Dennis Kimberley who is also the chair of my dissertation

committee, both of whom had access to coded files only.

Both the original recordings and the backup recordings are to be erased at the end of the dissertation process. However, all other data will be maintained for a period of five years in accordance with Memorial University's Policy on Integrity in Scholarly

Research. Beyond this five-year period, data may be retained for future retrospective study.

185 3.3.3.8 Data analysis.

Interconnected with data collection is data analysis, together forming an

interactive refining process (Erlandson et al, 1993), which continued until the dissertation was completed. These are inseparable, as in the naturalistic inquiry data analysis begins immediately following the first data collection (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Continued analysis shaped the ongoing data collection, including changes to interview questions.

Data analysis involved taking information gathered from the interviews and their context, and reconstructing them into meaningful wholes. Methodological tools used in data analysis included triangulation (to established that the data gathered was generally supported or disconfirmed), and feedback received through the member checking process, which supported or disconfirmed the researchers findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

3.3.3.8.1 Thematic analysis.

Thematic analysis is best suited to explain the specific nature of a given group’s conceptualization (Joffe, 2012), in this case the understandings and conceptualizations of play therapists as to the change processes within the treatment of complex trauma. This type of analysis is also suited to data obtained through open-ended responses, within semi-structured interviews which imposes bounded topic areas to focus participant’s thinking, in areas where it may be preferable to gain a more naturalistic inroad into people’s meaning systems concerning the phenomenon under study (Joffe, 2012).

Thematic analysis was utilized to analyze and interpret the data set in this study.

186 This form of analysis simultaneously looks at evident themes as a route to understanding underlying themes and tacit content; its uses existing theoretical constructs to look at data while also allowing emerging themes to ‘speak’ by becoming the categories for analysis (Joffe 2012). Braun and Clarke (2006) provide a six-phase guide to performing this type of analysis (p.93) that was followed. Data analysis will be discussed in full detail in Chapter 5; however the following is an overview of the steps in thematic analysis:

1. 1. Familiarization with the data; this step recommends immersion in the data to become familiar with the depth and breadth of the content. I completed transcription of all interviews, using ‘audio to text’ in which voice is translated into text. This served the dual purpose of transcribing and immersion in the data, which entailed proofreading, and repetitious rereading of the data. It also ensured confidentiality of participant’s

information.

2. 2. Generating initial codes; this step required scrutiny of the data, listing ideas about what was in the data to produce initial codes in a systematic fashion across the data set. Each transcribed interview was studied individually, and then all were studied

together as a set, generating a list of ideas of what was found, and then translating the findings into codes. This again required scrutiny techniques (Ryan & Bernard, 2003) such as; reading and re-reading all transcriptions several times; identifying reoccurring

patterns across the data set, throughout this process and highlighting same; commenting in the margins of each document; use of a colour coding system; and use of a tracking system. In carrying out this process, I developed a codebook, which has become part of the documentation of the study’s audit trail.