3.6 RESEARCH DESIGN
3.6.3 Data collection: interviews
Data collection occurred through a process of face-to-face, one-to-one semi- structured interviews from the four distinct categories of key informants depicted in Table 3. Brinkmann and Kvale (2015:4) claim that “it seems so simple to interview, but it is a fundamental assumption of this book that it is hard to do well”. Although I acknowledged the value of focus groups and have used them in previous research studies, my rationale for interviewing as opposed to focus groups was that I wanted to gain an in-depth
understanding of each participant’s narrative and experience. Interviewing seemed the best method to enable co-construction of knowledge between interviewer (me) and interviewee coupled with the opportunity for gaining the depth and richness of information I was seeking. As I was seeking personal information about placement experiences, I was concerned that participants
may not be so forthcoming in a focus group situation. In addition,
interviewing as a method of data collection offered me flexibility in that I was interacting with one person at a time. My choice seemed to be a sound one as in the event, clinicians and visiting tutors were the hardest to recruit for one-to-one interviews, and aiming for a focus group would have entailed considerable organisation and time.
Cohen and Manion (1994) caution that although interviewing allows for in- depth exploration of issues – more so than other methods - they can also be prone to bias. Such bias can emanate from interviewer characteristics, respondent characteristics and the questions asked. A pilot interview and a reflective journal all played a part towards counteracting bias in addition to enabling me to reflect upon my skills as a researcher.
I decided to conduct a pilot interview for the purposes of testing out my proposed research questions to ensure that they would make sense - both to me and the person being interviewed (Carpenter and Suto, 2008). The pilot also afforded an opportunity for me to practise my interviewing techniques in readiness for starting the data collection phase. I ensured that the
interviewee I selected had a disability as this would mean they should have sufficient insight and knowledge concerning the questions being asked of them. An extract from my reflective journal illustrates the value of a pilot interview:
All interviews took place from April 2015 to October 2015. What can be gleaned from the participant profiles in Table 4 is that the two practice educators I interviewed both worked within the acute hospital setting, therefore their responses in the main tended to focus on this particular environment. In addition, the same was true of the visiting tutors - they tended to focus on their visits within the acute setting. All the students made some reference to the acute setting as did the clinical learning environment leads.
24.2.15: I conduct a pilot interview on a recent graduate of our School, this person has a disability so they meet the inclusion criteria apart from not being a current student. I am so nervous, nervous that the interviewee will think my questions are daft / inappropriate and nervous because the interviewee is now doing their own research which makes me feel a tad inferior. I use the student version questions. Following the interview, the interviewee makes some valuable suggestions for tweaking some of the
questions for example, some were double barreled thus too complicated and wordy and also feedback on my
interviewing technique - for example, I need to allow more time for the interviewee to respond. What is incredible is that the interviewee tells me things I never knew before, this makes me realise that I need to release prior
expectations of what the interview will yield in terms of data otherwise I am guilty of being blatantly biased. I also learn the importance of being an active listener, if I miss something then the nuances of interviewing are lost in that moment - forever.
Attention was given to the setting and conditions of the interview. Up to one hour was allocated for the duration of all interviews and participants were given the choice of being interviewed in a venue of their choosing. Thirteen participants were interviewed on the university campus and two at their place of work. One interview posed a challenge location-wise as it had to be
conducted within a very noisy and busy open plan-space (commonly used to conduct meetings) due to the practice educator being unable to book a private room. All other interviews were conducted in a quiet, private room. Before the interview, the research participants were reminded about the study and then asked to sign a consent form (appendix O).
For the target group of students with a disability, I periodically changed the format of the interview guide in the wake of emerging findings from
preceeding interview notes. My argument for change was threefold:
• this group comprised the highest number of participants recruited (8 in all);; • it was my most relevant group of interviewees in that the participants were
directly experiencing the very phenomenon I wished to research, students with a disability in practice education;;
• following data analysis of the first two interviews with students, on
reflection, because I had so many questions to ask of them, my interview guide was perhaps too overwhelming - not only for me to deliver but also for the recipient too.
Initially, I was concerned that my interview guide was too highly structured (appendix P illustrates the differing versions which cover the four different target groups of interviewees), but Birks and Mills’ (2011:75) advice was reassuring: “you can use an interview guide…but expect that it will evolve as your study progresses”. Braun and Clarke (2013) advise on the importance of structuring the interview questions carefully and where appropriate to include prompts and probes. This combination of highly structured or rather, detailed interview guidelines alongside an expectation that this needs to be used flexibly in response to each participants’ narrative worked well. I recognised I needed to simplify the guide without compromising the
information I needed to gain from the participant. Consequently the interview guide and questions were amended for the third interview with a student. However, challenges were encountered as illustrated in my reflective journal extract below:
As can be seen from the above extract, the interview guide was amended following the third interview for all subsequent interviews with students. None of the interviews was audiotaped and my rationale is illustrated in the following reflective journal extract:
12.10.15: The interview with Sharon [Student] the other day didn’t go well I felt as the questions did not seem to flow:
• Are there consequences for a student with a disability on placement over and above that of a student without a disability?
• In your experience, are there differences in the learning capabilities between students with and without a disability?
• What are the core attributes that you feel are necessary for: - a student with a disability?
- the visiting tutor? - the practice educator?
I can still analyse the data but Sharon seemed to struggle to answer them. Added to that, the student had not yet
experienced a face-to-face visit from the visiting tutor due to the stage of practice education reached so had to base their response on a virtual visit. What was interesting was that Sharon
mentioned the importance of awareness several times. Perhaps the problem lies with the phrasing of the questions? Perhaps a better way to phrase them is by changing the first two questions:
• Can you describe the nature of your disability?
• Does having a disability have an impact in any way on your placement experience?
Birks and Mills (2011:76) postulate that “it is not always necessary to tape interviews”. Indeed, in a study by Devers and Robinson (2002), they did tape some of the interviews however, on one occasion, circumstances meant it was inappropriate to tape (it was a study on after-death communication). Birks and Mills (2011:76), however, caution that where possible interviews should be taped and more so for those new to research. In addition, interviews should be taped as a “back up” and for access to “verbatim quotations that can be used to defend your coding and illustrate your final theory”. As a counter-argument to Birks and Mills (2011), Manion, Cohen and Morrison (2011) postulate that audiotaping may lead to the interviewee being reticent in coming forth with information and feeling hindered by virtue of being recorded. This suggests that not audiotaping potentially means that interviewees may feel more relaxed.
At this point, it could be argued that not recording the interview may lead to the interviewer not remembering the salient features of what was said in the interview. A powerful counter-argument is furnished by Kvale (1996:161) who argues that “the interviewer’s active listening and remembering may
1.3.15: I am reading Glaser’s (1998) ‘Doing Grounded Theory’ and in Chapter 7 entitled ‘Taping’, he
adamantly states that the researcher should not use any form of electronic taping during interviews. I was both excited and persuaded by the concept of no
taping, I felt a sense of - in one word - freedom. Freedom from the shackles of having to wait for my support worker to transcribe the interviews (I cannot enact this skill due to hearing impairment), ploughing through endless transcripts and coding before I can even begin to decide who to sample next. Glaser makes sense on this taping conundrum when you read the entire chapter, his arguments are persuasive. I wonder if this is what brainwashing feels like? I realise that I need to temper my current views with some colleagues. as I have never come across the no taping concept before and most colleagues have reacted with horror.
ideally also work as a selective filter, retaining those very meanings that are essential for the topic and purpose of the study”. Kvale (1996:161) also espouses the interviewer’s immediate memory of the interview in capturing “the visual information of the situation as well as the social atmosphere and personal interaction”. Not taping enabled me to capture and hone in on the spatial, temporal and social dimensions inherent within the interview context (Kvale,1996). In addition to contemporaneous (within 12 hours of interview) typing up of the interview notes I also produced a free-flowing synopsis, using my own words, of each interview. In effect, each interview was captured twice.
Data is not only to be judged as accurate, trustworthy or reliable within a process which produces verbatim words that flow from a participants’ mouth into a recorder and transcribed word-for-word. The disadvantages of
transcribing for me are that I cannot verify the outcome of the transcript nor can I hear the recording.
MacDonald and Sanger (1982) in their paper entitled ‘Just for the Record’ advise the following: “it is only a partial record of the interaction and the communication – the sound component, and even this partial record will be reduced if, as usually happens, subsequent use of the record is based on the transcript-words only”. As a deaf person, I cannot listen to the recordings unless I entrust the whole to a transcriber who has not been present at the interview and will be prone to transcribe only the sound component recorded.
Guest, MacQueen and Namey (2012:96) add weight to the argument for not taping by stating “the benefits of audiotaping are obvious, but just because an interview or focus group is recorded does not necessarily mean a verbatim or useful transcript will result”. Indeed, Manion, Cohen and Morrison (2011:426) question the value of transcripts and state they are “decontextualised, abstracted from time and space, from the dynamics of the situation, from the live form and from the social, interactive, dynamic and fluid dimensions of their source;; they are frozen”. The concept of
(1996) who likens a transcript to a topographical map - it is not, he says, representative of the actual landscape in reality, the translation from paper to actual reality is far removed. According to Kvale (1996), a transcript is an opaque screen between the researcher and what happened during the interview. Freedom from transcripts resonated with my experiences of conducting the interviews, as a researcher and interviewer I expended due diligence and attention to what was being said, knowing that I did not have the safety blanket of a tape recorder. An added benefit of not recording meant that the speed of concurrent data collection and analysis enabled me to recruit participants fairly quickly as I was not having to wait for the
interviews to be transcribed. My reflective journal concludes:
Given that I have espoused interviewing as a method, what of (if any) the downsides to interviewing? In my personal experience, it was time-
consuming conducting 15 separate interviews in total. Brinkmann and Kvale (2015) provide a useful list that constitutes quality criteria in relation to
interviewing. For me, one of the key points which I did not adhere to consistently was the need to follow up with the interviewee the meaning of what they were saying, in other words, to encourage the interviewee to expand or clarify what they said. Potentially, this may have enabled me to acquire a more consistent and robust set of data. Brinkmann and Kvale (2015) list 10 standard criticisms of interviews of which two relate specifically to interviewing and analysis - the insertions in brackets are my responses:
16.2.15: After all this wrangling and torment what is the verdict? To tape or not to tape, I am convinced…in the words of Glaser (1998:107): ‘DO NOT TAPE INTERVIEWS’.
• not trustworthy but biased (methods to counteract bias have been covered in this chapter);;
• not reliable because it rests on leading questions (interview guide initially piloted and consequently monitored and reviewed after each interview. Brinkmann and Kvale (2015) positively encourage the use of leading questions to help verify what the interviewee is saying).
Upon completion of each interview, the typed notes were sent to the research participant to ensure that it was a fair representation of what had been said. All participants apart from one practice educator checked the notes of their respective interview.