Data Collection

Data was collected through individual, in-depth interviews with students, an accepted strategy within Glaserian Grounded Theory (Artinian et al., 2009). The interviews were recorded using a digital recorder. Recording allows a researcher freedom from writing notes during an interview or relying upon memory of the interview discussions, both less accurate

than audio records. Using a digital recorder enabled me to focus on the participants’ responses to questions and securely store their audio data for the purposes of an audit trail (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009).

To structure the interviews I used interview guides (appendix 7) that allowed flexibility in the questions asked within the broad context of exploring participants’ experiences, as discussed in more depth later in this chapter. I phrased the interview questions in such a way that they were unambiguous and did not lead the participants’ responses, a requirement of robust interviewing (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). I also demonstrated active listening that showed attentiveness to their responses, picking up points they made and reflecting them back to clarify or probe further. Observing the participant’s body language also provided me with rich data and directed further questioning, and as audio recording did not pick up this non-verbal data, I made brief field notes after each interview to capture this information, and these notes fed into memos. I used the skill of summarising the participant responses, verbally repeating what I understood the participant to have said, and so provided the participant with opportunity to elaborate, explain, or clarify a point. Summarising understanding was particularly helpful when the participant had made a statement that I had not fully understood, a technique recommended for effective interviewing (Gray, 2004). It was also very important to close the interview well so the participant left the interview with a positive sense of achievement (RCN, 2009a). I achieved this by thanking them for their time and the very valuable points they had made that would help my research.

Just prior to the interview, each participant was asked if they had understood the request for participation in the research, had read the accompanying leaflet, and were happy to sign the consent form. All participants were happy to proceed and none withdrew from the interview before it reached a natural end. Each student was interviewed once and no student was excluded who volunteered; an advantage of the gradual nature of theoretical sampling over time.

I introduced myself by name to each participant at the start of the interview and reminded them I had been a student nurse many years previously, was currently a qualified nurse and postgraduate student, and that this study was intended towards a PhD. I maintained a non- judgemental approach throughout explaining the purpose of the research as exploring their experiences, so the process was overt and non-threatening. The relationship between me and each participant maximised the equality between us, respecting them in their position as student nurse and in return asking for respect as a research student seeking truth. This enabled a relationship between us to develop that minimised any power differential as much as is possible within any human relationship (Mason, 2002).

Data collection visits were scheduled according to when the student cohorts were in study blocks and therefore accessing the main University campus rather than widely dispersed around the region’s practice placements. Interviewing the students while on placement was not considered viable as the students would have little control over the demands upon them in terms of care provision on the day of the interview, and so forward planning was more likely to be compromised. The time of each interview fitted in with gaps in the students’ timetables and so minimised any inconvenience to them in relation to attending.

At the start of the research, it was not known how many visits would be required. It transpired that data collection was completed through five separate visits to the University where recruitment took place (table 2).

The careful timing of separate data collection visits enabled opportunity for researcher reflection and the constant comparison so central to data analysis in Grounded Theory (Glaser, 1992). My use of separate visits over a long time-frame (taking nearly 18 months in total) was a practical decision to facilitate the development of theory from data analysis following each interview and visit, and the planning for the theoretical sampling required, alongside the practicalities of managing research at the same time as full-time employment.

Visit One

Early Spring 2009 - one student participant interviewed (transcription and initial analysis using memos achieved during 3 day exploratory visit)

Visit Two

Early Summer 2009 - three student participants interviewed (initial analysis using memos and comparison to previous data achieved between each interview during the 2 day visit, followed by full transcription and further analysis)

Evolving Research Focus and Extension to Include Nurse teachers and NHS Survey Data_____ Visit Three

Late Summer 2009 - four student participants interviewed and one teacher participant interviewed (initial analysis using memos and comparison to previous data done immediately after each interview, with the first two students and first teacher interviews fully transcribed during the week-long visit, and subsequent data and analysis continuing over a period of several months)

Visit Four

Autumn 2009 - five student participants interviewed and four teacher participants interviewed (initial analysis using memos and comparison to previous data done immediately after each interview with the first three student interviews fully transcribed and initial analysis completed during the week-long visit, followed by full in depth analysis of the transcripts over a period of several months)

Visit Five

Summer 2010 - six student participants interviewed (initial analysis using memos and comparison to previous data done immediately after each interview, followed by full in depth analysis alongside all previous student interviews - data saturation reached and initial early plans for a further data collection visit six was cancelled)

Table 2: Data Collection Visits Schedule

The value of this long timeframe was realised between visits when reflection, constant comparisons of data, discussions with PhD Supervisors, memoing, and identification of further theoretical sampling were enabled. This careful process of analysis over time also enabled consideration for the theoretical sampling and direction of the next participant interviews, where probing of responses might be of value in exploring theoretical concepts emerging from the students’ experiences. However, some factors during the data collection were less within my immediate control, such as the number of participants recruited during each visit. My recruitment was dependent upon volunteers responding to my invitations and the theoretical sampling decisions I had made previously. This meant that I would need to be open to planning many visits to ensure sufficient data was collected over time.

The inclusion of nurse teacher interviews to the dataset following the second data collection visit meant that recruitment and interviewing of nurse teacher participants was managed alongside student participants from the third visit onward. The recruitment of nurse teachers is discussed later in this chapter and care was taken with interview timing to ensure no individual teacher or student ever crossed paths, so further maintaining their respective anonymity. The teacher interviews took place during the third and fourth visits only and five nurse teachers in total were recruited. They were offered the same opportunity to receive their transcripts for member-checking and all took up the opportunity although none replied with any concerns or requested any clarifications or amendments.

Glaserian Grounded Theory recommends interview guides are only used loosely, so that it is the participants’ free-flowing descriptions of experiences that create the data and not the researcher’s area of interest (Glaser, 1992). Within the first two data collection visits where the focus had been upon a general exploration of students’ socialisation experiences and I had not yet gained confidence in my interviewing skill, I used a fairly detailed interview guide (appendix 7a). Reflection following the early interview experiences and coding of the first four transcripts, demonstrated that the first version of a student interview guide had been too directive and complex. On reflection, the complexity of the guide had been a distraction, resulting in some opportunities for probing and clarification of these student’s experiences being missed. The interview guide developed for the first two data collection visits was therefore revised to create a second version (appendix 7b) that was less detailed and more appropriate for loosely guiding an exploration of socialisation in compassionate practice. The simplification of the general question foci made the second version of the student interview guide more flexible and enabled more depth in the data collected and probing of participants’ responses. This approach was appropriate within Glaserian Grounded Theory as it enabled the research to remain open to the students’ concerns and still pick up unexplored areas of interest within the research focus (Artinian et al., 2009). This second version of the interview guide served only as a reminder of outline questions should the

researcher need a visual prompt during the interview and so adhered to Glaserian Grounded Theory (Artinian et al., 2009). A third version of an interview guide was also developed for the nurse teacher interviews (appendix 7c).

The actual questions used in each interview varied in how they were worded and the order they were asked, and were dependent upon the participants’ responses and ensuing discourse. No two interviews followed exactly the same format. I was also careful to use everyday language so questions could be understood. The style of questioning allowed the participant to think and answer, having some control over the direction of the discussion, but without losing the researcher’s opportunity to explore new areas of interest (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009).

The student interviews lasted between 45 minutes to 90 minutes and all took place in a room that was private, quiet and free from distractions, yet within easy access for students moving between lectures.

The nurse teacher interviews followed a similar process as the student interviews. They were recruited through letters of invitation and information leaflets (appendix 5b) sent to purposefully selected individuals within the faculty, identified as nurse teachers within the professional preparation programmes for adult nursing. In that way, these participants would have knowledge of the students’ programme. Nurse teacher interviews took place in the same private, quiet and distraction-free environment as the student interviews.