Interview based data.

A number of reservations attend reliance upon interviews and the role of the practitioner/researcher. Hammersley maintains that, “Since only the

practitioner has access to the commitments and practical theories which inform praxis, only the practitioner can study praxis.” Objections about self perception of praxis are, says Hammersley, illusory since they imply that “there is some medium in which praxis can be described and analysed in ways which are entirely unrelated to the values and interests of those doing the observing.” (1993, 182-183) Hammersley and Atkinson (2007, 108-109) suggest that in the apparently spontaneous, semi-structured interviews such as I conducted “the dividing line between participant observation and

interviewing is hard to discern.” Over the course of thirty two interviews the mixture and order changed from sit-down interviews with virtually no lead- in to participant involvement in situations. Although the latter configuration was rare, I nevertheless found myself visiting (but not interviewing)

48

a prisoner where a senior officer was unsure of procedure and practice; as a full time chaplain I had been a staff trainer in self-harm awareness. On another occasion I was present and involved when a prison officer was attacked.

I tried to arrange a walk around each prison before the interview took place so that I could get at least a feel for each chaplain’s approach to prisoners and staff and theirs to the chaplain (see also 3.1.7). It was also intended to give me a snapshot of the context in which each chaplain’s ministry was

conducted. I do not pretend that this provides “access to some cognitive and attitudinal base from which a person’s behaviour in ‘natural’ settings is derived in an unmediated way,” (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, 108-109) but it may be valid as what Glaser and Strauss term “a slice of data” on the basis that, “different kinds of data give the analyst different views or vantage points from which to understand a category and to develop its properties”. (Denzin 1970, 108) The importance of contextualising interviews in terms of research aims and circumstances has been emphasised, with the proviso that a different research strategy might produce a different set of data

(Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, 103). As with the interviews themselves, so with the walkabouts; the data gathered were those gathered in that place and at that time by this researcher, a necessary but not disqualifying

circumscription identified by Silverman: “observation is held to be only appropriate at a preliminary or ‘exploratory’ stage of research.” (Silverman 2005, 111) The question recurs in the discussion below about choice of location. For a variety of reasons it was not always possible for the

walkabout to precede the interview and in two cases there was no walkabout at all. But when it did take place a point of interest was the chaplain’s

selection of areas to visit and any associated reflections or memories. The chaplain may have something in common with Hall’s outreach worker in following an habitual path and seeking specific individuals (Hall 2009, 578- 579). In a few cases I simply joined the chaplain in the normal course of their duties; this was always the most useful form of walkabout since it seemed to get closest to the chaplain’s normal routine, given that it was not ‘normal’ to

49

have a visitor in tow whose presence and identity begged explanation. In two cases the walk did not happen; in one instance the establishment was under inspection and the Governor was said to be wary of a researcher’s presence. In the other instance it seemed that the chaplain himself, having agreed to the interview, regarded my presence as a nuisance and I saw only the areas between the gate and the chapel.

It is important to establish a status for my data and to be clear about their reliability and, therefore, their validity. In an intersubjective dialogue situation where knowledge and status appear to be shared and where there is a history of prior acquaintance, the origins of the data have to be

interrogated to acknowledge the element of co-construction. Walford, questioning the validity of interview data, assumes this phenomenon, We know that interviewers and interviewees co-construct the interview, and that the replies to questions are produced for that particular occasion and circumstance…….They will always have subjective perceptions that will be related to their own past experiences and current conditions. (2007, 147)

It is precisely the revelations of “subjective perceptions of events and opinions” which I have been searching out, acknowledging that they “will change over time, and according to circumstance” and that “they may be at some considerable distance from ‘reality’ as others might see it.” (2007, 147) This may, indeed, reflect the standing of at least some chaplains in relation to the institutions which they serve, both prison and church.

The prompts and the steers which characterise the semi-structured format arose from my original interview agenda despite my declared intention that respondents should, as far as possible, determine the course of the interview. Strategic intervention became necessary when digression set in. Freeman et al (2007, 25) implicitly disagree with Walford and energetically dispute the necessity to establish standards of evidence; they recognise that all

qualitative data are potentially corrupted:

Data are produced from social interactions and are therefore constructions or interpretations. There are no ‘pure’, ‘raw’ data, uncontaminated by human thought and action, and the significance of

50

data depends on how material fits into the architecture of

corroborating data…Neither research participants nor researchers can be neutral, because, as emphasised earlier, they are always positioned culturally, historically and theoretically. (2007,27)

It is more appropriate, then, to speak of contextualisation than implied subversion or corruption of data. The context here is of a self-contained and self-defining group of professionals, frequently known to each other and working in an almost totally closed situation to which outsiders can be temporarily admitted on locally defined terms and conditions. Hammersley and Atkinson suggest that, while people’s own self reports must be

scrutinised, “there is no reason to dismiss them as of no value at all, or even to treat them as of value only as displays of perspectives or discourse strategies.” (2007,109). Silverman (2005, 157), shows a case for trusting respondents’ accounts, based on the establishment of rapport and

“understanding the interviewees’ experiences and guaranteed

confidentiality.” Within these parameters, the semi-structured interview can also be regarded as performative in itself. Two sets of questions and prompts are included as Appendix 3; the resultant transcripts are in Appendix 4. Together these exemplify the extent to which to which both participants constructed the sessions.

My own known-about experience and practitioner’s desire to listen to other practitioners’ accounts may have initiated rapport from which dialogue could develop; a few respondents commented in feedback emails on the

opportunity to reflect upon their practice. Becky, a pseudonym, made six points similar to Clarke’s findings (Clarke 2010, 414); they were made variously and separately by other respondents. (I discuss the use of pseudonyms in 3.1.8):

 “Why did I take part in your research? I thought I'd answer before being influenced by reading what others thought.

 Having done some research myself I know that it can be an invaluable process both to the researcher and also to the participant.

 There aren't a great many opportunities to think about what we do, and I am strongly in favour of being a reflective practitioner, so I thought this might enable me to be one.

51

 I also think the role of a prison chaplain is prophetic, and how can you be prophetic unless you talk about what you do?

 I think research contributes to greater understanding - if it is done well, with integrity and honesty, and I wanted to support that process.

 In this era of secularism, and budget cuts, the position of chaplains in any institution can be marginalized and may be threatened by finance, so to remind others of the value added contribution which we can make is timely.

 Being a chaplain, particularly as coordinator, can at times be quite lonely; I valued the opportunity to talk about what I do with a knowledgeable and sympathetic listener.”