The interview process

This section commences with a discussion of the pilot interviews. It then moves to the preparation prior to undertaking the interviews. Details regarding the numbers and length of interviews are presented. This section concludes with an examination of the interview process itself.

The collection of data was assisted by conducting pilot interviews with one respondent who was well known to me so that if mistakes or errors had been made, the interview could have been revisited. These pilot interviews enabled some revision of the interview guide (see appendices 5 & 6 for the initial and final interview guides) and a development of my confidence in the approach to the interview process: all elements suggested by Bryman (2012). These initial interviews with Amy assisted in developing the interviews as ‘a co-operative endeavour’ (research diary: 19.12.15). It also allowed me the opportunity to reflect on the interview process and so remind myself that I needed to ‘allow enough silences and space for the story to breathe’ (my research diary 19.12.15): drawing on Frank (2010) and Squire (2013).

Careful preparation for the interviews was undertaken prior to meeting each respondent. Respondents were sent the consent form (appendix 1) which was signed prior to commencing the first interview. They were also sent a respondent information sheet (appendix 4). Background information about their work setting was researched and practical details of the interviews checked: such as the venue and audio-recording of discussions. Informal introductory conversations at the start of each interview aimed to set the respondent at ease and to develop some initial rapport. After the interviews with the first few respondents it felt that some sharing of information about my self was best done at the end of the interview to be respectful of information shared by respondents and to minimise the impact on what was shared: as noted in research diary (11.4.16).

Interviews were conducted with fifteen cisgendered women youth workers between December 2015 and March 2017. It had been planned to interview only professionally qualified women youth workers as noted in the introductory chapter. It was felt that the responses from the three respondents who were experienced practitioners but not yet professionally qualified were useful and so were included within the data that was analysed. More care was taken later within the data collection to ensure that future respondents were professionally qualified. Each respondent, except the first and last, was interviewed twice; each interview focussing on different themes with respondents. Amy attended 3 interviews and Rosie just one: as noted above. Interviews lasted

87 | P a g e

between one and a half and two hours. It seemed useful to divide the interviews into two visits (not three as had been my initial idea) to allow for some data to be reviewed with respondents at a second meeting whilst keeping the respondents engaged with (Elliot, 2005), and committed to, the research process. Reflections on the suitability and ordering of the questions between interviews with each respondent assisted in maximising the usefulness of the data collected as the research progressed. The challenge of minimising the impact of the interviewer on the respondent within these interviews required a reflective approach before, during and after the interviews, as discussed above. At one stage within the data collection, when I was nervous about not having enough respondents, interviews were undertaken with a respondent who was a family worker not a youth worker. These interviews were not used in the data analysis.

Interview guides (appendices 5 & 6), used flexibly and differently for each respondent, were designed to ensure that questions posed to respondents were clear and simple. Respondents were given time to think and reflect on their response to questions and they were invited to clarify meanings within these discussions (drawing on Bryman, 2012). Interviews were audio-recorded, with permission from respondents. This allowed a focus on the structuring and flow of the conversation, allowing flexibility within the semi-structured interview as discussed above. This flexibility enabled the words or terminology of respondents to be used when probing meanings, so developing a link between the respondent’s ideas and the interview process (drawing on Tomlinson, 2013). Flexibility within the interview process allowed a wandering around topics to follow the respondents’ ideas rather than following a strict order of questions in interviews. The relationship between myself and each respondent was left on a positive note at the end of the interviews. This point was made clear in my research diary (20.4.16) in notes regarding interviews with Beth (with whom I did not have a previous relationship):‘it felt as though we left ... respectful of each other and knowing more about each other. This being reciprocal felt important as we may well meet again: youth work LGBT circles are small’.

The transcribing of interviews allowed for a careful reading and rereading of the interview texts. A transcript of the first interview with each respondent was reviewed prior to the second interview; thus allowing the probing or clarifying of issues discussed at the first interview. I noted in my research diary that initially this process had ‘felt clumsy’ but had always been ‘useful’ (20.4.16).

88 | P a g e

The above discussion concerning intensive semi-structured interviews and the details of the interviews themselves has offered clarity as to how the rich data for this study was gathered. The next section of this chapter focusses on the analysis of the data.