Ethnographic conversations – or interviews – were the second key data collection method adopted for the study. In his work Being Ethnographic, Madden (2010) states that interviewing is “one of the most important ways of knowing others, for both ethnographers and many other types of data
collectors” (p. 67). Interviews allow the researcher to explore in depth the subjective meaning assigned by participants to their experiences, and to work flexibly with the themes that have been identified in the data (see also
Travers, 2006).
Madden (2010) identifies the role of both interviews and conversations during ethnographic data collection. He describes conversations as natural
behaviours that stem from proper socialisation, and interviews as focused
104
methods for information gathering. According to Madden, both approaches are typically integrated into ethnographic research. Conversation occurs as part of the ordinary engagement with participants during participant observation, with more in-depth exploration made possible through the ethnographic interview. As such, both types of engagement are part of the same inseparable dynamic: being with and talking to (Madden, 2010), the key task being to balance the tension between the “’naturalness’ of good
conversation and the ‘instrumentality’ embedded in the ethnographic endeavour” (p. 65).
In the current study, both approaches were viewed as being equally valuable and were embedded in the study. First, there was dialogue that occurred during general field work activities as part of the ordinary interactions between people present in the settings. Conversations with participants typically took place during most aspects of field work including support activities, meal breaks, travelling between support locations, night shifts, and before, during and after collective staff activities. They occurred individually and sometimes as impromptu group discussions, events O’Reilly (2005) refers to as “opportunistic discussion groups” (p. 131). Conversations during field work were typically supplemented with real-life, real-time examples of knowing-in-action, and often provided a far richer – and I suggest, more candid – portrayal of knowledge than those provided during isolated conversations in closed rooms.
Second, I undertook in-depth discussions with participants in private
locations. These discussions were pre-arranged and held during quarantined periods of time (ranging from 45 minutes to two-and-a-half hours) in locations that were selected by participants.73 The intention was to: provide
opportunities for participants to talk privately with me about aspects of
73 All of the frontline managers involved with the study provided their consent for private conversations to be held during work time. Permission was granted on the proviso that there was minimal interruption to the usual support routines. Many of the interviews occurred in designated office spaces in residences during late evenings, early mornings, or when service users were at work.
105
knowledge that were not easily explored via observation; delve more deeply into specific aspects of the research question; expand on specific instances of knowledge use in support; and engage participants in concentrated and in-depth discussion about the findings. Participants determined the degree to which they engaged in these discussions, with total contributions from individual coaches ranging from 45 minutes to nine hours. These
conversations began approximately two months after the commencement of participant observation and continued in all three locations until the
completion of field work.
I employed an informal approach to conducting these in-depth ethnographic conversations, such as that described in O’Reilly (2005). I found very early on that asking a lot of “nosy questions” (Madden, 2010, p. 67) did not go down well. Further, during the first three months of participant observation, I engaged in naturally flowing interactions with participants that were conversational in orientation. Stepping into a more interrogative role – complete with digital recorder, closed door, and visible set of questions – seemed to derail unfettered flow of thought and typically resulted in either rejection of questions and approach (perhaps in order to reassert our usual relationship) or stilted, depthless responses. Reciprocal exchange – without the recorder and informed only by a memorised list of points of interest – resulted in considerably richer contributions from participants. I thus decided not to continue recording in-depth conversations, instead relying on extensive note taking.
I also engaged in what I have termed ‘contextual conversations’. These conversations took place with individuals who worked for the organisations involved in the study and with other contributors, for instance family members, who specifically asked to talk with me. Organisational personnel who talked with me worked in key systems throughout the organisations including quality systems management; policy development; research planning; professional development; administration; professional support;
and executive, senior and frontline management. These individuals did not
106
provide data per se – they did, however, provide essential background information that informed later discussions in the thesis about the broader context of service provision.
The inclusion of conversation, both as part of ordinary engagement and focused, in-depth discussion, was, therefore, a vital aspect of the data collection strategy. This method allowed me to delve more deeply into
participants’ experiences, and share my understandings and interpretations of their knowledge with them. As Patton (2002) suggests, “if participant
observation means “walk a mile in my shoes,” in-depth interviewing means
“walk a mile in my head”” (pp. 416-417), and I found that both methods were crucial to constructing the fullest possible naturalistic account of support worker knowledge.