Gathering The Data

The aim of the research was to provide opportunities for the research

participants to tell their stories. Therefore, I did not have standard questions that I asked apart from always beginning with "tell me about the events leading up to [your spouse] getting sick and needing out-oJ-town

hospitalisation". After an early presentation at Massey University Doctoral School, it was suggested that I also determine what sustained the spouses during this time of out-of-town hospitalisation. At that point I had met with four of the research participants, and found it was implied in their stories. However, knowing what kept people going during this period of time was pivotal to understanding the experience of non-local hospitalisation. Consequently I included a question around that subject for subsequent interviews.

When retrospective data is gathered, the participants need to be re-focus sed on the experience at that time (Kahn, 2000). How did I do this? I began by asking participants to recall the events leading up to their spouse's illness in

general, and then focus on finding o�t that their spouse was to be hospitalised in the non-local centre. From this beginning reflection, the research

participants were then able to tell me what it was like for them. Once they moved past the "I have nothing to say, because I got on with it" stage, they revealed the moments of hope, despair, boredom, and carrying on with life that they encountered during this time.

I initially questioned whether there would be problems interviewing people who had a long period of time between the non-local hospitalisations and the recollection. However, I had mentioned my intention to research this with a friend, whom I knew had been through this experience some many years earlier. The moment we started discussing it, I could see that she had

transferred herself back to that time. This happened frequently throughout the interviews, and as Zoe said during the second interview "That was what [I was doing] . . . going right badi'. The "going right back" (p. 1 2) also connected with other people during presentations about this research.

When conducting research using hermeneutic phenomenology, it is essential that the researcher does not view participants in terms of individual

characteristics that can be seen as variables, but as people who illustrate what it is like to be themselves (Steeves, 2000). The key words here are 'being themselves' . When I first began the research, I went back to see the

participants for a second time. On the second visit I would take the transcript, which the research participant would read and we would use this as a trigger for further discussion. However, it seemed that I had gleaned the majority of information during the first visit, and the second one produced little additional information. I had experienced this during the first visit with Andrea and Eric. Every time I asked Andrea a question she would supply the answer, and then say, "what else do you want to know?" Consequently, I made the

decision that if I felt I had as much information as I was going to get, I would not revisit.

The decision whether or not to go back and see the participants was difficult to resolve. I had read Elizabeth Smythe' s ( 1 998) PhD thesis Being Safe in

Childbirth where she expressed sentiments that she had felt as a research participant when the researcher came back to see her, and she felt she had nothing left to say. On the other hand Jo Walton ( 1 995) made several visits to her research participants when she undertook her PhD thesis Living with Schizophrenia. Was I doing an injustice to my research participants by only visiting some of them once? I don't think so. As I have identified, there was general surprise that there was interest in how they coped with the out-of-town hospitalisation as their focus was on the spouse who required treatment. Therefore, a second visit to them would only exacerbate their surprise, and could lead to frustration that their story was not heard in the first place. On the other hand there was benefit in going back to some places, particularly if both the spouse and the research participant were there for the initial

interview. During the second meeting, and without the spouse, the research participants were able to express their reality of the experiences, without

feeling that they were being disloyal.

When I reflected upon the subject of Jo Walton's PhD thesis, she wanted to explore living with a condition (in this case Schizophrenia), whilst Elizabeth Smythe's PhD wanted to explore a single phenomenon (safety in childbirth) that occurred in the continuum of living. I felt that I too was exploring a phenomenon that occurred within living. Although it transpired that the spouse was also 'living with' this condition, the point of interest was the experiences of having a spouse hospitalised in a non-local tertiary centre, a single phenomenon.

All interviews bar one were conducted at the research participants' homes. The Massey University Human Ethics Committee had expressed concern about my personal safety when I was conducting these interviews, and had suggested that I develop safety strategies. Consequently my husband always drove me to the place of interview, and sat in the car. After a few interviews,

I became quite blase about my safety, and did not think that I needed being accompanied to individual people's homes. This false sense of security remained until one day when I knocked on the door of one house and, in

what you want". On that occasion I was very grateful that at least someone, sitting outside in the car, knew where I was. Of course, my husband always had the dilemma of never knowing whether the interview was progressing, or whether I was in need of his help, while he sat unaware, outside.

In the meantime each research participant made me feel very welcome, and in instances when they became aware that my husband was sitting in the car

. outside, wanted to welcome him in to the house too. I declined this invitation on my husband's behalf, in order to maintain the research participants' anonymity and confidentiality.

I was always cautious about where they would want me to place the audiotape machine, so sought permission before I invariably placed it on the dining room table. This was the place that the interview participants wanted to share not only a cup of tea or coffee, but also their stories.

In addition to recording each interview via audiotape, during the first few interviews I made field notes. I stopped making these after the first three interviews, as it appeared to stop the flow of conversation, although my contribution to most conversations was facilitative communication as the research participants told their stories. Interviews lasted any length from 35 minutes to approximately three hours; most lasted about an hour and a half to two hours.

Each tape was then transcribed. Although I had originally intended to arrange for the tapes to be transcribed, I chose to transcribe them myself. Despite the fact that it was time-consuming, I found this very valuable as I engaged in the dialogue, heard the nuances, and could visualise the interview. In all, I gathered over 1 50 pages of data from the interviews.