Interview Setting

The organisational context provided an interesting setting for conducting empirical research. Interviews were predominantly conducted within two locations, offering

employees working within the community or across different sites, a choice of two venues. The Trust Headquarters resembled a standard office building on a business park and offered limited insight into the primary work of the organisation. Conversely, the second location was the main hospital of Baycastle Trust. Additionally, a small number of interviews were conducted within two community-based locations, one of which was within the grounds of a former asylum referenced in a number of interviews. This range of venues, in addition to time spent waiting within a combination of open plan office spaces and service user waiting areas, provided a useful and insightful immersion within the organisation, both past and present. Interviews were predominantly conducted within meeting rooms or offices although a number occurred within more unusual settings, including a ‘dummy’ training ward complete with mannequin patients, within which the interview was conducted at a ‘patient’ bedside and again served as a reminder of the specialised context within which careering occurs.

Correspondingly, at the onset I had not appreciated the significance of the extended settings within which interviews would be conducted but offers interesting reflection in retrospect. As my research focused upon engagement with employees in a meeting room setting, I had perhaps a little naïvely not considered my possible engagement with service-users of the Trust. However, two particular situations arising during my time in the organisation initially caused surprise, and then embarrassment, as I felt inadequately prepared for handling each of these instances. The first arose on my first visit to the hospital, waiting in the main reception area for a scheduled interview. A young adolescent male who was a patient on an acute ward was wandering around this area and chatting to people as they passed. Because of my formal dress and laptop bag he assumed I was a solicitor. I awkwardly explained that I wasn’t, and that I was waiting to speak to a member of staff, to which he responded by asking if I was looking to have someone sectioned. I found this conversation uncomfortable as I was unsure how to describe my presence. I also felt he was perhaps testing my reaction by recounting a different mental health condition for each letter of the alphabet which he had allegedly been diagnosed with and describing his physical restraint by ward staff the week prior. Over the course of the interview period, I encountered this young man several more times, and gradually became more at ease in conversing but felt embarrassed at my initial discomfort. A second notable instance arose upon entering a secure assessment unit to undertake an interview. Whilst a staff member located the

participant I was scheduled to meet, a young adolescent male service-user entered the room, and without speaking, walked over and embraced me. A member of nursing staff who followed made light of this, suggesting that I possibly looked like I needed a hug. Nonetheless, I found this a difficult and somewhat intimidating situation because I felt unprepared and uneasy about how to handle such scenarios. Whilst such experiences gave me some clarity on the complexities of the research authorisation process (Section 5.4.7), they also demonstrated my personal lack of knowledge of the healthcare context within which the organisation specialised. On reflection, whilst I recognise my lack of awareness, I also consider the organisation, and gatekeepers, as potentially accountable for ensuring external researchers are prepared for similar situations, particularly in the interests of service-users. However, the gatekeeper had extensive experience within both mental health and learning disability care and resultantly, I would suggest, did not recognise the significance of such experiences to external visitors. In terms of my personal development as a researcher these experiences highlighted the importance of recognising and appreciating the research context outside of the immediate research focus and incorporating this into the planning stages of research design.

In addition to being allocated appropriate space within which to conduct interviews I was also provided with desk space from which to work between interviews in an open plan office environment at Trust Headquarters. This proved useful, not only in providing a greater appreciation and understanding of the work undertaken within the organisation, but also in recruiting further participants, as employees became familiar with my presence and consequently expressed an interest in participating. My continued presence also facilitated additional dialogue, for example a time after conducting their interviews, two interviewees approached me to discuss new positions that they had secured. Significantly, this was not conveyed as a factual update but as a consequence of having entrusted me with their narrative and a high level of personal detail, therefore recognising that I understood the personal significance of these changes within the context of their wider story.