Conducting and transcribing the interviews

Each participant was interviewed individually. The semi-structured interview plan contained a sequence of themes to be covered along with ‘a loose agenda of questions’ (Arksey and Knight 1999 p.82) however in conducting the interview openness was applied to changing the sequence of themes and used additional probing questions in response to the

‘stories’ told by the participants’ (Kvale 2007 p.51). My experience of the

type and number of probes used was similar to Arksey and Knight’s (1999 p.83) assertion that ‘the list of probes and prompts is as long as

93

explain what the interview would involve and to obtain the participants’ written consent to be involved. A consent form (Appendix V) was

designed following NHS research ethics guidance (National Research Ethics Service 2009). Throughout the interviews I used the artefacts in a flexible way; I started each interview by asking about their first artefact and ended most with discussion of their third one. In some cases the participants brought the artefacts in to the discussion to illustrate their thoughts and in other cases I prompted them to show me when dialogue on an aspect had come to a natural end.

The necessary skills were achieved through my professional practice and from training on medical interviewing to ensure that the ‘interpersonal,

interactional, communicative and emotional aspects’ of interviewing

(Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007 p.362) were addressed. Bleakley (2005) argues that the attributes of researchers are central to the quality of narrative inquiry and he posits reflexivity, tolerance of ambiguity, sensitivity to participants and data as critical to people and artefacts being read closely as text. DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006) also refer to the process of developing rapport in a research interview and Arksey and Knight (1999) assert that an oral history interviewer needs to be skilled at listening and probing. DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree highlight ensuring respect for the interviewee and the information shared and this was particularly significant given my relationship with the students; during the introduction to the interview I made it clear that information shared during the interview would not be used for other purposes e.g. course related. DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree also argue that social roles

94

shape the interview process and that acknowledging and responding to the power differentials that exist requires reflexivity on the part of the researcher. Similarly Higgins (2000) specifically highlights the power differential that exists between tutors and students in the HE context and argues that tutors have the ‘legitimate means to exert control over

students through their academic authority’ (p.2). I have attempted to

bring these issues to the foreground in my research design and have made an explicit point of attempting to ‘integrate reciprocity into the

creation of knowledge’ (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree 2006 p. 317)

throughout the study. As will be discussed later in this chapter (3.4), I was particularly explicit with participants that their involvement or any subsequent withdrawal from the study would not affect either my relationship with them as their lecturer or their educational future.

I was also conscious of the environment where the interview would take place. Elwood and Martin (2000 p.649) present an interesting discussion of the implications of selecting an interview site, arguing that the site itself ‘embodies and constitutes multiple scales of spatial relations and

meaning which construct the power and positionality of researcher and participants’ and I was careful to consider this in designing the project.

The most practical option for me was to conduct the interviews in my office; I knew I would not be disturbed there and would be comfortable. The trial interviews that I conducted during Module 4 took place in my office and I asked participants how they felt about it taking place in ‘my space’. Neither felt intimidated by this but both were students who knew me reasonably well. I felt, however, that participants may relate my

95

office to our tutor-student relationship and therefore a relatively neutral space, a meeting room elsewhere in the School that was quiet enough for audio recording, was chosen to attempt to establish a ‘safe and

comfortable environment for sharing the interviewee’s personal

experiences and attitudes as they actually occurred’ (DiCicco-Bloom and

Crabtree 2006 p.316) thus again attempting to take account of the power relationship between us.

Interviews were audio recorded using a digital audio recorder. Merton (1956 cited in Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2007 p.364) comments on the tendency of taping to ‘cool things down’ however I struggle to take notes and listen at the same time and felt that the depth of analysis required needed an accurate record of what was said. Digital

photographs of the artefacts that the participants had selected were taken.

The first few interview recordings were transcribed verbatim by me directly into MindManager software and the remainder were transcribed by an experienced audio-typist into MS Word and then I transferred them to MindManager. Using mind-mapping software rather than a word- processing package or bespoke qualitative analysis software (e.g. NVivo) had the advantage of making use of the interview plan mind map

(Appendix II) and allowed the analysis process to start during

transcription. Mindmapping is a thinking tool underpinned by the concept of ‘radiant thinking’ (Buzan and Buzan 2000) where associative thought processes radiate from a central idea, allowing concepts to be integrated

96

and connections to be made. Tattersall, Watts and Vernon (2007 p.33) argue that ‘the process of transcribing using a mind map will allow

creative thinking, with links being made between themes or statements in real time as the transcribing goes on’ and this was my experience of

transcribing into MindManager. Tattersal et al. (2011 p.20) further assert that it may be ‘naive’ for researchers to be objective and non-

judgemental during data collection and perhaps that accepting that analysis begins at the interview stage and embracing this subjectivity by using mindmapping may be more realistic. I felt that this echoed with my attempts to be aware of and foreground my own subjectivity.