Data collection

Smith et al. (2009, p.56) note that ‘IPA is best suited to a data collection approach which will invite participants to offer a rich, detailed, first person account of their experiences’. This study used a semi-structured interview format whereby each TA was interviewed using the semi-structured interview schedule (Appendix 6) as a guiding framework. The choice of semi-structured interviews allowed a degree of structure to the interview where identified issues could be explored and discussed. The qualitative interview is seen as ‘a conversation with a purpose’ (Smith et al, 2009 p.57) where specific topics are discussed but with the aim of allowing participants to tell their own stories in their own words (Smith et al, 2009). However, it also allows the researcher flexibility to pursue ideas and trains of thought expressed by the participants, which is in contrast to other approaches, such as using questionnaires or surveys, where there is less flexibility to explore themes

generated by the participants. The interview schedule is, in essence, a loose agenda allowing the researcher to frame questions in an open way but with the knowledge that things can and do change during the interview (Smith et al, 2009).

Each interview was planned to last between 45 minutes to one hour, which was deemed to be appropriate to gather the richness of data required but also not too long to make it unpleasant or tiring for the participants. This interview timeframe was within the accepted level for an IPA interview (Smith et al, 2009).

The interview schedule consisted of 3 open-ended questions linked to the research questions under exploration and was designed to encourage discussion of the

relationships between the TAs and the pupils with ASD they were supporting. Prompts were included to encourage expansion of themes. However, it was also acknowledged that the interviews might proceed in particular directions and so the schedule was not seen as a strict set of questions to be followed at any cost. Consequently, the 3 questions were a broad framework used to start off the process of encouraging the TAs to articulate their experiences. Open-ended questions were used in order to encourage the participants to respond in detail and this allowed the interviews to proceed more naturally and helped develop richer and more genuine information.

The interviews with the 6 TAs were audiotaped and the TAs had been informed that this would be the case prior to the interviews taking place. Audiotaping was used so that a verbatim transcript could be produced to ensure that the exact words used by the TAs were available to be analysed. To ensure that rich data was collected each participant was encouraged to explore the relationships they had with the pupils they were supporting and were allowed to speak freely and reflectively and to develop their ideas, including their concerns, at length. Initially, participants were encouraged to tell me a little about the

work that they did with the child they were supporting before specifically focusing on the relationships that they had with the child. This enabled the TAs to relax and feel at ease before talking in detail about the specific relationships they had developed. Smith et al (2009) note the importance of establishing a rapport with the participant and making them feel at ease, as this is more likely to yield good data. I sought to ensure that I was

comfortable with using the interview schedule prior to undertaking the interviews so that I did not have to refer directly to it during the interviews. This allowed the interview to be conducted more naturally. I was careful to highlight before the interviews that there were no right or wrong answers and that I was interested only in their experiences. I was conscious of seeking to ensure that the TAs had ample time to respond and that the interviews proceeded as a two-way conversation rather than the TAs feeling that they were being interviewed formally. The TAs had been informed prior to the interviews that they had the right to withdraw at any time.

The interviews took place in quiet rooms in the schools where the conversations could take place in private with no interruptions. After each interview had finished each TA was asked if there were any issues that arose for them during the interview to ensure that they had the opportunity to reflect on the conversation and raise any difficulties that had arisen for them. In particular, they were asked if there was anything during the interviews that they would like removed. Confidentiality and anonymity were also reiterated after the interviews had finished and that audio data would be destroyed once it had been transcribed.

I undertook one interview with a TA as a pilot interview and this was conducted one month prior to the interviews with the research study participants. This was with a TA who worked with a pupil with ASD in a different primary school from the ones where the research participants were based. The TA was identified through work that I had done in

the school on ASD training and she agreed to be interviewed when asked. She was informed that this was a pilot interview and would not be included in the research and that any data would be destroyed. The interview followed the schedule and pattern of the proposed research study interviews with the exception that the interview was not

audiotaped and so the data was not transcribed or analysed. After the interview I

discussed the format with the TA and reflected upon her comments about the questions I had asked. This helped me to shape my interview technique but no changes were required to the structure of the interview schedule or the questions based on her comments. From this pilot interview I judged that my style and approach to interviewing was in keeping with the IPA method. This interview was not included in this study.