Data Collection Process

Conducting data collection using the constructivist grounded theory approach allowed

me to understand the participants’ experiences from an angle that was “within”. As

suggested by Charmaz, “seeing research participants” and their “lives from the inside often gives a researcher otherwise unobtainable views” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 14). The

data collected using this approach could reveal the participants’ views, feelings,

intentions and actions as well as the contexts and structures of their lives in a wider social context, which was instrumental to the study. Charmaz believes people “construct data” and therefore the data collection process in the constructivist grounded theory

approach must involve the gathering of “rich data” (Charamz, 2006, p. 10) from the participants. To also acknowledge the interactive process highlighted by Charmaz (2006,

2012), an “in-depth” interview data collection method was used for the study. This allowed for great flexibility, continuity of thought, a high level of quality information (Minichiello et al., 1990) and an interaction between the researcher and participants. This approach was considered the best means of securing the personal and private

concerns of respondents by Chenitz and Swanson (1986). Also known as “intensive interviewing” (Sarantakos, 2005, p. 282), this method has long been a useful data- gathering method in various types of qualitative research and is also believed to be a suitable method for studies with an interpretive nature (Charmaz, 2006). In-depth interviews normally last between 30 and 120 minutes (Boyce & Neale, 2006). Given the complexity of the subject that I was discussing with my participants, I felt it was appropriate to set aside at least 45 to 60 minutes for each interview, and the length of interview was pre-communicated to all participants so they could arrange their schedules accordingly.

A total of 6 interviews were conducted using City University rooms and 6 interviews were conducted outside the university. I would travel to meet the participant in their suggested public locations, such as a community library or local café. It was important

for me to be able to meet the participants’ individual needs, as I believed it

demonstrated sincerity, commitment and respect on my part. Each interview began with a participant briefing, detailing the nature of the study and structure of the interview. An

interview opening is “how it started” (Hermanns, 1995, p. 183): an opportunity to build rapport and also invite the participants to tell their stories. Confidentiality was addressed and a consent form was also signed by each participant at the beginning of the interview.

86

After obtaining basic information from each participant (age, year of entry to the UK and year of treatment), I started the interview with open-ended questions (How did you seek help for mental health issues? What was your expectation before you enrolled for the mental health treatment? What were your experiences during the treatment? How might culture affect the mental health issues you experienced?). The interviews were semi-structured, which means there were some pre-planned questions I wanted to ask. However, depending on the flow of each interview and the different experiences shared by each participant, I did not insist upon asking specific questions in a specific order. The flow of the conversation with each participant determined the order of questions. In certain situations, the questions asked were changed slightly due to an individual

participant’s gender, age and circumstances.

Some guiding principles were used for each interview. I understood that it was necessary to create an environment that was comfortable for each participant so they would be willing to share their experiences with me, especially about a sensitive subject such as mental health, a concept referred to as “toning” or “atmosphering” (Martin & Gynnild, 2011). As the in-depth interviews were specifically semi-structured to encourage the flow of the conversation with each participant, it was important for me to be equipped with empathetic interview skills that enabled me to conduct the interviews in a respectful and non-judgmental way, a skill considered to be essential in conducting interviews in constructivist grounded theory (Allen, 2011). The in-depth interview method also allows dialogue and elaboration (Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell, & Alexander, 1990) to occur in this process. Talking about mental health related issues can be difficult and emotional at times, so to be respectful and empathetic for each participant it was important that I did not force a specific topic on them. Instead I let the participant lead the conversation as they wished. Because of its flexibility, the in-depth interview method also enabled me to gain clarification on what the participants were saying (if required) during the interview process and return to an earlier point if needed, which proved to be immensely important during the data collection stage. The explorative aspects of an in-depth interview were consistent with Charmaz’s suggestions of using the techniques of constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). I hoped that with my open-ended questions I would be able to encourage unanticipated statements and stories to emerge which would yield richer data (Charmaz, 2006). Self- reflective skills are essential when conducting interviews; keen interest and

87

interpersonal understanding were expressed throughout the research process, as it was important for the participants to feel validated during the interview. The researcher also needs to be mindful that the questions are used to explore, not to interrogate (Charmaz, 1991). It was my belief that the role of the interviewer was not a passive one, nor was my role as an interviewer to simply extract data. I saw myself as part of this co- investigative process, as suggested by Kvale and Brinkmann (2009).

Interviewer and interviewee should be seen as communicating within the bounds of social interaction, as suggest by Alvesson (2003). However, it is important for the researcher to be aware of the power dynamic during the interview, as research is often set up and conducted within power relationships (Wiles, Charles, Crow, & Heath, 2006).

From the participants’ point of view, I was a stranger seeking information that was

highly personal, private and related to a culturally stigmatised subject. If interviews had been conducted without sensitivity, the experience could have been unpleasant or even hurtful. As mentioned previously in Chapter 2, Chinese culture is heavily influenced by Confucian ideology, which emphasises social hierarchy and highly values education. As a Chinese doctoral student interviewing Chinese immigrant mental health service users, I was aware that the situation might create a power imbalance as the participants might see me as somewhat superior. To address the possible issue of a power dynamic, I made an extra effort to appear open and empathetic throughout the interview process. I would also meet with participants at their local community libraries or cafes to give them a greater sense of familiarity with their environment. In addition, all the skills that I acquired during my time as a trainee counselling psychologist were used during interviews; skills like empathy, active listening and non-verbal communication cues were employed to reduce the effects of any perceived skew in the power dynamic throughout the data collection. During the interview process all the participants were informed that they did not need to answer any questions that made them feel uncomfortable. However, despite the effort in addressing the power dynamic issue during interviews, it would still be naive of me to think that the power imbalance between a researcher and a participant could be totally eliminated, as Law (2004)

suggested: “what is presented does not necessarily speak for itself- it has to be

interpreted. This act of interpretation places the power of representation in the hands of the researcher- a power about which the researcher must be aware of and reflect on” (p. 94). I understood that ultimately I had the power as I was the person that would be

88

writing the account of participants, a power that I treated with the utmost respect and sensitivity.

Most previous research has suggested that Chinese immigrants are generally reluctant to discuss personal experiences and issues with strangers, especially mental health issues, as it is a highly stigmatised subject (Leong & Lau, 2001; Lee, Lee, Kaplan & Perez- Stable, 2014; Papadopoulos, 2009). This subject is something I could relate to. Even after three years of professional training, as a first generation Chinese immigrant I still find it difficult to express my feelings. Therefore, I paid particular attention to building rapport and trust during the interview process. As Charmaz (2006) pointed out, the trust between the researcher and the participant is pivotal to the study. I found that I was able to listen and observe with sensitivity and often found the interaction between myself and the participants engaging and encouraging. It was very important for me to understand the participants’ definitions of terms and situations as I attempted to fully comprehend their assumptions, implicit meanings, and tacit rules (Charmaz, 2012). According to Charmaz (2012), the constructivist grounded theory method works best when the researcher engages in data collection as well as data analysis. I saw the interviews as opportunities to explore the nuances of meaning while gaining first-hand experience as a researcher.