Individual Interviews

Conducting individual interviews after the focus groups allowed me to develop greater analytical insights and enabled theoretical sampling Interviews were

undertaken with individuals who I identified as key stakeholders to allow concepts to be considered in greater depth. Interviews were chosen at this stage since they can provide insights that are not available with larger focus groups and are known to be the most suitable approach when seeking rich data illuminating individuals’

experiences and attitudes (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007, p.351). The interview allowed an in-depth look in key areas at how the perceptions of individuals involved with preregistration training impact upon the construction and representation of curriculum knowledge and how these perceptions manifest in behaviour and delivery of training and learning in the pre-registration programme.

Interviews were used to probe for exceptions in agreements or explanations for disagreements. In taking such an approach, each interview I undertook was directed by findings in previous interviews and supported analysis of data whilst also allowing theory building as part of the research process; as highlighted, grounded theory requires study of and interaction with the data by moving through comparative levels of analysis (Charmaz, 2011a, p.361).

86

I focused upon specific points raised to shape the format of the interviews, linking these into previous data analysis. In CGT the ‘lines between what constitutes data collection and what constitutes analysis blur’ (Charmaz, 2014, p.93). Charmaz encourages the use of ‘What’ and ‘How’ questions to bring an analytic edge to the interview but to introduce ‘When’ to allow specific meanings and actions to be elicited (2014, p.94). Such an approach allows the researcher to encourage the participant to define terms and definitions and so elicit implicit meanings and tacit knowledge. Turning the participant’s words into questions assists in ‘drawing out’ specific meanings and interpretations.

I found undertaking this stage of my enquiry to be quite a challenging experience. One of the problems I faced was ensuring that I could interview individuals who allowed theoretical sampling. I found that those who were willing to support this stage were often not those who I needed to enable me to gather further empirical data to allow the checking of hypotheses and to arrive at plausible explanations.

I initially started my interviews with a Training officer with a strong involvement in the BMS programme to allow me to investigate the categories developed in more depth but I also saw them as a ‘good’ starting point to help me to develop effective

interview skills. I constructed a brief interview guide to use to direct the interview but wanted the research participant to lead the discussion once I had asked a few exploratory questions. Having an interview guide also allowed me to be reflexive in my approach; reflecting on the initial guide helped me to be aware of my own interests and assumptions before going into the interview (Charmaz, 2014, p.65). I found that using the guide directed my initial questions providing me with an initial scaffold to support the interview as well as ensuring that I did not omit any important

87

questions. Since the aim of the interview was to let the research participant provide in-depth insight into the specific key areas identified, I asked open questions that invited further discussion.

As with the focus group, interviews were all transcribed and a copy sent to the research participant for comment and to ensure that they were willing for all data to be included in the research enquiry. I continued to gather data until ‘saturation’ was met; gathering data no longer identified new properties in the core categories and I was able to make explicit distinctions about the experiences of the stakeholders and relationship to positioning (Charmaz, 2014, p213). This resulted in a total of twelve interviews which included three training officers, four students pre-placement, three students who had completed their placement and two academics involved in the BMS programme. Findings from each stage of the enquiry are detailed in Chapter Four, data analysis.

As previously outlined ethical guidance requires me to maintain participant anonymity. This was addressed by allocating codes and numbers to indicate the professional role of each participant but not the individual participant – the codes allocated are summarised in table 3.2 which also provides details of the participant groups within this enquiry.

88

Focus group Participants Code

1 – FG1 Large NHS Trust Training manager –

Training officer – FG1TM FG1TO1 FG1T02 FG1TO3

2 – FG2 Academics Academic Manager –

Senior lecturer – FG2AM FG2SL1 FG2SL2 FG2SL3 FG2SL4

3 – FG3 Large NHS Trust Lab Manager –

Training Officer – FG3LM1 FG3LM2 FG3TO1 FG3TO2

4 – FG4 Students – full time and part in

the workplace completing their pre-registration training Part-time students - Full-time students - FG4PT1 FG4PT2 FG4FT1 FG4FT2 FG4FT3

5 – FG5 Small NHS Trust Training manager –

Training officer – FG5TM FG5TO1

FG5T02 Interviews

1 Immunology Training officer I1TO

2 Microbiology and Histology Placement Student (PS) I2PS

3 Biochemistry Placement Student (PS) I3PS

4 Histology/Cytology Placement Student (PS) I4PS

5 Histology Pre-placement (PP) I5PP

6 Cytology Pre-placement (PP) I6PP

7 Microbiology Pre-placement (PP) I7PP

8 Microbiology Pre-placement (PP) I8PP

9 Cytology Training officer I9TO

10 Biochemistry Training officer I10TO

11 Academic Role in supporting placements I11Ac

12 Academic No role in placement

support/delivery

I12Ac Table 3.2 – Participant coding to maintain anonymity

3.9 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented an overview of the methodology and methods employed in my research. I have presented the philosophical and theoretical aspects of grounded theory to establish the relevance of the ontological and epistemological

underpinnings to my enquiry. I discussed how the work of Charmaz (2014) has been extremely influential to me whilst I have also drawn upon the approaches of other grounded theorists to develop my understanding and style.

89

As a scientist I have been more familiar with a quantitative approach to research which is probably why I chose a questionnaire initially as a method of gathering understanding of perceptions and experiences from a broad range of stakeholders. As a method of data gathering, the questionnaire does not fit naturally with the methodological approach chosen for this enquiry. However, I was very aware of research participants’ perceptions of research and data gathering. I feel that by being able to gather quantitative data to present to the scientists as a ‘tool’ for simulating discussion in the focus group sessions the enquiry resonates with their position and encouraged further discussions. It also enabled me to gather perceptions and experiences from a much wider population than focus groups and interview alone would allow. In addition, it offered me what could best be described as a ‘comfort blanket’ as I grappled with straddling the paradigms and coming to terms with my positioning; addressing the positivists view of objectivity and subjectivity and moving to an interpretive paradigm where these are replaced largely by the concept of trustworthiness.

In the following chapter I discuss the processes used to analyse the data gathered from each step of my journey and how this led to the explication of the theoretical categories presented in Chapter Five.

90

Chapter Four – Analysis and coding of empirical data

4.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter I discussed the methodological approach adopted for this enquiry and introduced the methods used for data gathering. In this chapter I

describe how I have drawn upon Charmaz’s (2014) guidance on coding to define this data. She explains that coding is the pivotal link between collecting data and

developing an emergent theory to explain data (Charmaz, 2014, p113). Coding is the process of asking analytical questions of the gathered data, from whichever source they are obtained. The aim of this process is to develop a greater

understanding of the data and to direct subsequent data gathering to gain a more in- depth appreciation of the area being studied. Different terminology is used by

different grounded theorists to describe the stages of coding. As I explain below, I used initial, focused and theoretical coding to define this process as outlined by Charmaz (2014, p.111). In addition I used clustering (Rico, 2000, p.17) as a process to help me to understand and organise the codes developed. Initially I clustered similar codes, I then clustered around processes which allowed me to look for actions, before identifying categories providing contextual insight and theoretical direction to my enquiry.