Creating a schedule for semi-structured interviews

As stated in the previous chapter, the preferred method of data collection in IPA is semi- structured interviews, with the use of open ended expansive questions designed to facilitate an interaction which allows the participant to talk about their experience. While semi- structured interviews were chosen for this particular study, any method of data collection which provides a rich and detailed first person account of experiences could be used within IPA (Smith, J. A. et al., 2009). For example, IPA studies often use unstructured interviews which are participant led and do not follow a standard set of questions (Clare, Rowlands, Bruce, Surr & Downs, 2008). While unstructured interviews are often used for an exploratory study such as this, the researcher had never conducted a qualitative interview before and it was felt that they would benefit from some structure to the interviews to

ensure that they fully captured the patients’ experience. Furthermore, the literature review

had highlighted specific areas relating to the nature and experience of future disorientation which this research aimed to explore in relation to the conceptual framework. It was felt that a semi-structured approach would allow for appropriate prompts to be included in the interview schedule allowing for a fuller exploration of future disorientation. Recently IPA researchers have utilised computer-mediated data collection methods such as e-mail correspondence (Murray, 2004). While this has benefits such as giving the participant time to think about their responses to questions, and instant transcription, it has the potential of excluding patients who are not computer literate. Furthermore, the researcher has no control over how long it takes for participants to respond and they are not on hand to clarify questions that participants may have which may result in data which is poor in quality. While utilising an electronic method of data collection would have allowed for a larger sample to be recruited due to the reduced time it would have taken to transcribe and analyse the interviews, it was felt that this method would have excluded participants who

67

did not have access to a computer or who did not feel comfortable corresponding by e- mail. Furthermore, as we wanted to keep our sample size within the IPA recommended size of between six and ten participants then it was felt that this method would not have benefitted the analysis process for this particular research.

The need for an open and expensive interview schedule which allows the participant to talk about their experience was taken into consideration when designing the interview schedule for this current research. The interview schedule can be seen in Appendix H. It is important to note that the interview schedule should be flexible, and often the asking of additional questions will be necessary to gain more in-depth information about an area that the participant has discussed.

With this in mind, a semi-structured interview schedule was prepared for this study. It includes eight open questions designed to get the participant talking about the impact cancer has had on their lives, and any possible implications for their ability to plan for the future. As part of the preparation for the interview schedule some questionnaires designed to measure psychological well-being in people living with and beyond cancer were consulted, such as the Impact of Cancer Scale (Zebrack B.J., Ganz, Bernaards, Peterson, & Abraham, 2006), and the Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. These can be seen in Appendix F and Appendix G. This helped inform the interview schedule and get participants talking about their general feelings of well-being. Questions ranged from

‘Please could you talk about your cancer journey?’ to ‘Has finishing treatment had an

impact on your psychological well-being?’ The interview schedule also included sub questions which it was hoped that the participant would cover in their answers, and if not then the researcher could prompt these with further questions. This is in line with the recommended number of questions for an IPA interview of between six and ten questions, with possible prompts. This usually results in an interview of between 45 and 90 minutes

68

for adult participants. While the interview schedule for each participant was the same, often as each interview progressed, a participant would discuss something interesting which prompted further inquiry and led to additional questions being asked. Therefore, no two interviews were exactly the same.

The second interview schedule followed approximately the same lines as the first interview as the goal of this stage of data collection was to see if there were any observable

differences in patient’s experiences over time. However, the second interview also gave

the opportunity to probe a little deeper into some issues which had been discussed with particular participants. Therefore, the second interview schedules were tailored to each individual participant. The analysis of the first interviews often highlighted areas which were perhaps not discussed in as much detail as would have been liked. The second interview presented an opportunity to discuss these topics in more detail. This allowed for

a deeper understanding of patients’ experiences to be gained than would have been

possible if they had only been interviewed on one occasion, while also allowing

participant’s experience of future disorientation to be tracked over time.