Constructing the interview schedule 107

Interviews provide an opportunity for participants to talk about a particular aspect of their life or experience (Willing, 2008); they are described as a µFRQYHUVDWLRQ ZLWK D SXUSRVH¶ 6PLWKet al., 2009). IPA researchers usually use an interview schedule to facilitate the discussion of relevant topics (Smith

et al., 2009). However, in contrast to the controlled, structured and predictable

nature of questions used in a structured interview, semi-structured interview schedules are more open-ended and non-directive, and used to guide rather than direct the conversation (Smith and Osborn, 2015). IPA informed the structure and type of questions used in this research, and was integral to my WKLQNLQJDQGUHIOHFWLRQVDERXWWKHUHVHDUFKHU¶VUROHLQWKHLQWHUYLHZSURFHVV

In relation to conducting IPA research, Smith et al. (2009) have proposed the following advantages of constructing an interview schedule. These are:

x in case the interview becomes difficult;

x to help researchers to think about the broad range of issues they would like to cover;

x to enable the researcher to be more engaged and responsive, and to FRQFHQWUDWHPRUHWKRURXJKO\RQWKHSDUWLFLSDQWV¶VWRULHV

x to place topics in the most appropriate sequence (e.g. leaving more sensitive topics until later in the interview);

x to consider probes and prompts specific to individual questions, to support participants who may struggle with less structured questioning;

x to think about ways of phrasing questions and consider the language used (e.g. in relation to my study, the appropriateness for the age range of the children); and

x to ensure questions are framed in an open form.

Whilst providing the researcher with a guide, the strategy is to encourage the person to speak about the topic with as little prompting as possible from the interviewer (Smith and Osborn, 2015). However, the researcher should ensure that the interview schedule does not become prescriptive, and thus restricting. Brocki & Wearden (2006) warn that if themes elicited are greatly similar to the topic areas to be covered, researchers are in effect structuring the analysis before the data collection begins. In a systematic literature review of published papers employing IPA, Brocki & Wearden (2006) found that whilst all the papers reviewed expressed a desire to provide an interview schedule, few described the process or provided copies of that schedule. They argue that this makes it difficult for the reader to judge the quality of the interview and any influence on the data obtained.

In semi-structured interviews, questions are open-ended and of a non- directive style. In this way, the interview schedule is used to facilitate SDUWLFLSDQWVWRµWHOOWKHLUVWRU\¶LQWKHLURZQZD\ However, as discussed, it is important to acknowledge that it is the researcher whose questions guide the interview (Willig, 2009).

The questions selected to provide a structure for the interviews were based on a review of the literature presented in Chapter 3. The questions were clustered around themes considered relevant from previous qualitative studies H[DPLQLQJFKLOGUHQ¶VDQGSDUHQWV¶H[SHULHQFHVRI$'+'7KHPHVLGHQWLILHGLQ the literature review are detailed in Table 5.1, with example questions from the interviews:

Themes Identified Study Example Questions Meaning and

identity

Kruegar & Kendall (2001); Kendall et al. (2003);

2¶/HDU\ Gallichan & Curle (2008);

Davies (2009)

x Has the diagnosis affected how you think about yourself? x Has ADHD ever got in the

way of something you wanted to do?

Beliefs about ADHD

Cooper & Shea (1998);

Kendall et al. (2003); Travell (2005)

x What do you think ADHD is? x Where does it come from?

Problems associated with ADHD and their consequences

Cooper & Shea (1998);

Travell (2005); 2¶/HDU\ Gallichan & Curle (2008);

Davies (2009)

x Do you think ADHD gets in the way of you doing well at school?

x Do you think ADHD gets in the way of you and your friends? Process of diagnosis (including participation and voice) Kendall et al. (2003); Travell (2005); Gallichan & Curle (2008);

Davies (2009)

x Who noticed ADHD? x Did you think there was a

problem?

Interventions and support for ADHD

Cooper & Shea (1998);

Travell (2005); Gallichan & Curle (2008);

Davies (2009)

x Have you found any ways to handle ADHD that you think might help others?

x Do you get support from other people to handle ADHD? Unique

skills/positive aspects

Davies (2009); Grant (2009)

x Have you ever done anything that other people were

Although pharmacological treatment was alluded to within the discussion DERXW WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV¶ H[SHULHQFHV RI GLDJQRVLV DQG SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH RI course able to talk freely about this aspect, I steered away from a range of questioning about medication, as this has been a dominant theme in research on ADHD (see Chapter 3, section 3.1.0).

A child interview was piloted to enable me to try out questions and change language terms and phrasing. Due to the difficulties recruiting participants (discussed in section 5.3), this interview formed part of the main study. The full interview structure used to guide the interviews is given in Appendix 8 and 9. There were no structural changes made to the interview schedule following the pilot interview; however, on reflection on the process, I believe the questions were delivered in a rigid way (one after another), rather than being used as a guide (as recommended by Smith et al., 2009). This experience ZDV µKHOG LQ PLQG¶ GXULQJ VXEVHTXHQW LQWHUYLHZV, to ensure the participants had the freedom to tell their stories.

Interview questions were constructed using terminology associated with a narrative therapy approach: µH[WHUQDOLVLQJ¶ODQJXDJHZDVHPSOR\HGWRVLWXDWH ADHD outside the person who has been given the diagnosis (e.g. how long has ADHD been in your life?). µ([WHUQDOLVLQJ¶ RU VHSDUDWLQJ SHRSOH IURP problems, is one of the most widely known constructs from narrative therapy DQG LV FRQVLGHUHG KHOSIXO LQ FUHDWLQJ GLVWDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH SHUVRQ¶V LGHQWLW\ and the problem, to make space for them to reflect on their experiences and consider who and how they would like to be (White and Epston, 1990). By

incorporating this language style, I was not intending to reject underlying structures associated with ADHD but rather, to ensure my questioning did not contribute to a belief that the problems the children were experiencing were µFKDUDFWHULVWLFRIWKHLULGHQWLW\¶7XUQVand Kimmes, 2014).

Willig (2008) suggests that interview schedules should include a relatively small number of open-ended questions and start with more general questions, to allow a rapport to be established. Smith et al. (2009) advise approximately 6±10 open questions, with prompts to elicit further information. The interview schedule for this study contained 5±6 key areas (five on the parentV¶ and six RQ WKH FKLOGUHQ¶V VFKHGXOHs), with 1±2 key questions in each, and further questions as probes and prompts.

Heffron and Gil-Rodriguez (2011) argue that good quality IPA requires a more open-ended interview with µa careful balance between guiding and being led¶ (p. 757). They recommend that interview schedules should be short, with broad general questions that set the parameters of the topic; they caution against interview schedules that are too long, overly extensive and detailed, which, they suggest, can be seen in research conducted by those less familiar with IPA (ibid, 2011). On reflection, it could be argued that the interview schedules used in this empirical study were long and detailed, and therefore risked leading rather than guiding the interviews, as described in my appraisal of the pilot study. However, I believe that this was not the case for the main study and detail my rationale below:

x participants talked at length and provided a detailed account of their experiences;

x questions were adapted to incorporate the language and terms used by the participants; and

x the schedule was delivered in a flexible way: not all questions were asked in all interviews, and questions were not asked in a set order.