Conducting pilot interviews (April 2016)

In Chapter 2, I indicated that during the proposal phase of my research, although I identified the in-depth interview as the most suitable data gathering method, I approached the overall research process with an open mind and endeavoured to adopt a flexible research strategy (Snape & Spencer, 2003). I therefore opted to conduct two pilot interviews, which I also refer to as entry-into-the-field interviews. While conducting interviews appears to be a natural thing to do (Silverman, 2010), like quantitative researchers, qualitative researchers are advised to conduct a pilot to test

their interview questions/guide and to enable them to practise their interviewing skills (Creswell, 2007; Magnusson & Marecek, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The purpose of these interviews was also for me to gain a better understanding of the environment and certain contextual issues (see Levers, 2006) such as language and the suitability of my sampling criteria. Prior to the pilot interviews, I decided to set up a meeting with my supervisor to discuss the structure of the interview as well as my proposed interview questions. My nervousness about conducting the interviews and particularly the pilot interviews is evident in the following extract from my diary dated 16 March 2016:

Met with my supervisor today re prep for the initial interviews. Feeling nervous. Doubting my own ability as to whether I will be able to ask the “right” questions and evoke the “right” responses from the participants.

However, during this meeting my confidence grew, and I knew I was eager not to delay this process any longer. Being satisfied with the interview guide and questions, I

proceeded to schedule a date for the pilot interviews.45 _{Creswell (2007) advises that}

pilot cases should be selected based on convenience, access and geographic proximity. Based on the essential selection criteria, which I identified in Chapter 2 (see section 2.8.2), as well as guidance provided by Creswell (2007), I obtained a list of

participants who fitted my selection criteria from the gatekeeper of the NPO.46 _Using

geographic proximity (Creswell, 2007) as the main criterion, I selected two participants from the closest hospital on the list. I telephoned these prospective participants, explained the purpose of my research and requested their participation. To my relief both agreed. After the telephonic conversation, I sent both participants an SMS confirming the time, date and venue of the interview. As part of my preparations and taking into consideration Unisa’s ethical guidelines, I revised and where necessary amended the participant information sheet and consent form, which I had already drafted as part of my application for ethical clearance at the university.

45 _{The pilot interviews were conducted on 19 April 2016.}

46 _{As part of the ethical application process, permission was obtained from the NPO prior to conducting}

Given Legard et al.’s (2003) and Silverman’s (2010) recommendations, I decided to

tape-record47 _{the interviews. To ensure that I was comfortable with the equipment and}

that it worked (Legard et al., 2003; Yin, 2016), I practised a recording at home with one of my husband’s colleagues. Once all the logistical and technical arrangements had been taken care of, I took cognisance of my role in this process and the fact that I was the primary research instrument (Creswell, 2007; Lichtman, 2010; Merriam, 2002). This suggests that to a large extent the success of the interview depended on my personal and professional qualities (Legard et al., 2003). Although my anxiety is evident from the diary extract provided in the previous paragraph, I took comfort from my background and experience. I am a registered IO psychologist and, prior to joining the academic world, I gained interviewing, training, and facilitation and presentation experience in the corporate sector. Given that the role of the interviewer is “indispensable” (Babbie & Mouton, 2006, p. 249), however, I did not take this experience for granted and continued to prepare myself for the interviews by consulting the relevant literature (e.g. Dahlberg et al., 2008; Van Manen, 2016).

Following the pilot interviews, I experienced feelings of both relief and uncertainty. Relief set in as I finally had the data collection process going. Although extracts from my diary indicate that I was prepared and had enough time to settle down before the interviews started, I was still unsure as to whether the information I had obtained was adequate. In addition, not even the best planning could prepare me for the environmental interruptions (Guest, Namey, & Mitchell, 2013) I encountered. External

noise could at times be heard from inside the venue.48 _{These interruptions seemed to}

affect me more than they did the participants and luckily could not be heard on the recordings. I did, however, acknowledge that I could not use such a venue again. My initial nervousness was lessened by the first participant who put me at ease with her clam nature and the second interview went a lot better because I had started to feel more confident. The purpose of these interviews was also to enable me to gauge contextual issues (Levers, 2006) such as language, as I had been concerned mainly

47 _{The participants were informed via the participant information sheet and consent form that the}

interviews would be tape-recorded. I also explained this to each participant verbally prior to each interview.

48 _{The venue was organised for me by the gatekeeper of the NPO. It is a space that is used as an}

office but is also a coffee/tea area for the volunteers. I was also given the use of the conference room, which is a separate space with its own door. This venue was chosen, as it was the most convenient for the participants.

about the African languages. I had not even considered Afrikaans, which turned out to be the second participant’s home language. Still feeling unsure about the data I had gathered, I wanted to discuss the transcriptions with my supervisor, but only after I had obtained a feel for the data myself. The meeting with my supervisor was only scheduled for the beginning of June as I had experienced delays with the transcriber. After my initial overview and my supervisor having perused the data, we both agreed that the interview guide and my approach to the interviews elicited sufficiently rich and relevant data and that I could continue with the rest of my interviews.