Description of the Semi-Structured Interviews used for Data Generation

Once participants from the volunteer pool had been selected, an interview roster was drawn up so that participants would be interviewed in the School library either one or two days after they returned from the adventure programme. All the interviews were held in an isolated room, closed off from the library traffic to ensure privacy, but with views to the library so that participants did not feel 'trapped'. The library was chosen as an appropriate venue to ensure a sense of familiarity, of being 'on home ground'. Seeing as phenomenographic interviews are often experienced as challenging and uncomfortable by participants (Åkerlind, 2005; Bowden, 2005; Marton & Booth, 1997; Trigwell, 2000), I took a number of steps to develop rapport and ensure the respondents were comfortable and trusted me and the process enough to provide frank responses. In terms of the setting I provided refreshments and encouraged participants to 'have a bite' while we chatted, and positioned the tables and chairs in a 'non-threatening' alignment allowing participants to choose whether they wanted to sit alongside me or at a perpendicular angle along the table. In terms of process, I started each interview with a casual chat explaining the purpose of the interviewees and distanced myself from the school in the sense that it was not one of their teachers or the institution trying to find out how they feel. I ensured privacy, and actively defended this when it seemed that

contextualised the interview as a conversation initiated out of my interest in their experiences. I informed participants that the school had provided me with their description of the adventure programme, but was really interested in what it meant to them and how they experienced it.

Adolescents generally respond well to interest in them, and I was cognisant of the tendency for adolescents to gravitate towards experimenting and exploring their social locations and identifies during conversation (Miller & Glassner, 2004). Research focused discussion would begin with a general question asking what the programme was for the participants, how they would describe it to someone who knew nothing of the programme. Their initial responses were then expounded on and probed. Later during the interview I also asked situated questions in which participants were asked to describe events, experiences, and activities that define what the trek was for them, experiences they found significant. Although I kept the interview schedule, which is available in the appendices, on the laptop in front of me I tried to ensure that I remained engaged with the participants and paid little attention to the computer, which was also used to record the interview using the software programme Audacity. Audacity was used because it is open-source and has a number of functions useful during transcription, such as short-cuts for easy manoeuvring backwards and forwards through sound files, and manipulation of sound files when the recording is not clear. I felt that the laptop created less anxiety than an instrument identified as a recording device, and many of the participants completely forgot the session was being recorded unless it was mentioned again at the end of the interview. The questions were not always asked using exactly the same words, but all the interviews followed the same basic sequence of primary questions, with emphasis placed on follow up questions taken from what respondents had expressed. The interviews varied, some respondents were articulate and had reflected deeply on their experiences, others struggled to relate their feelings and thoughts. This required a certain degree of tact, flexibility and patience on my behalf, and I strived to maintain a comfortable atmosphere while encouraging respondents to delve deeper

discourse about the trek, and was sensitive to when respondents framed their answers in terms of 'they', 'he', 'she', or 'them'; often asking respondents if this was really what 'you felt'. At other times it was clear that participant's approach to the topic was framed in opposition to a 'authoritative discourse' of the programme, even though it had never been expressed by me during the interviews.

The interviews were emotionally and intellectually taxing. It was challenging to attend carefully to the meanings emerging during the discussions, keep track of ideas and themes expressed while listening to new information, and planning careful probes and clarifying questions. I was also very careful not it impose my own ideas or sentiments. I feel that this may have at times been to the detriment of deep expositions of themes I may have held together with participants. I would be cautious of spending too much time on a theme if I knew this was something I personally valued, anxious about how much of the attention to the theme reflected my interest and how much originated from the respondent. Striking a balance of not privileging personally interesting themes, and not discriminating against them was a continual challenge. I continually had to ask myself, and sometimes the respondent, how important an aspect of their description really was to them. By the end of 4 or 5 interviews I would feel drained. At the end of each interview I would ask whether there was something important that I had not asked, or that they felt should be said. Often this resulted in further discussion. And once I felt that the topic had been exhausted I would thank the participant for their responses, remind them once again of their ethical rights, and where necessary would spend some time with respondents to discuss their feelings or debrief them. A few of the respondents were conscious of what would be shared and what wouldn't, and would explicitly state 'OK, you didn't get this from me', or 'don't repeat this to anyone', and almost all of the participants expressed awareness of a strong norm that 'what happens on the programme stays on the programme'. Most of respondents noted that they had enjoyed discussing their experience, even when it had evoked emotional content, only very few were indifferent, and none expressed any

verbatim into a word processing package as soon as the first interview was started. However, the transcriptions took a couple of months to complete. The primary researcher conducted all interviews, transcriptions, and data analysis himself. Although a lot of work, and very time consuming, this did allow a much deeper and more intimate understanding of the nuanced meanings and contextual triggers not captured in spoken language. During transcription emotional cues, and events that would add to a better understanding of communicated meanings were captured.