One – to – one interviews

In qualitative research, interviews are the most common method used to collect data about the beliefs, perceptions and experiences of populations (Nunkoosing 2005; Parahoo 2006; Holloway and Wheeler 2010; Streubert and Carpenter 2011). Whilst interviews can be conducted in various ways, online or telephone for example, face-to-face interviews were selected for this study. Online and telephone options were not considered due to known difficulties, which included superficial discussion and exploration and less co-operation (Parahoo 2006).

Interview types range from structured with a high degree of control through the use of standardised, predetermined questions, through to semi-structured and unstructured which offer more flexibility (Denzin and Lincoln 2003; Holloway and Wheeler 2010). Structured interviews rarely find their way into qualitative research because their rigidity, which essentially makes them a questionnaire, hinders the flow of rich data (Denzin and Lincoln 2003; Parahoo 2006). Semi and unstructured are preferred, although unstructured whilst generating the richest data, tend to generate the greatest amount of ‘dross’ (Holloway and Wheeler 2010), particularly when used by an inexperienced researcher.

Semi-structured are the most widely interview used. They offer a balance of flexibility and structure, which help keep the inexperienced interviewer focused and make sure they gather the information needed (Polit and Beck 2008). The semi-structured interview was utilised within this study, mainly because I was conscious of my relative inexperience with regard to interviewing. I was guided by the literature when planning my interviews, which advised that a semi- structured approach should start with an opening question, usually general and unthreatening in nature but within a flexible framework. This approach permitted some divergence and free flow of conversation from the participant.

An additional measure was to compile an interview guide, which had additional questions related to the line of inquiry. The literature advised that this should be referred to in order to keep the interview focused on the topic under study. This approach also saved time and reduced the ‘dross’ (Holloway and Wheeler 2010) whilst maintaining a degree of flexibility (Parahoo 2006).

One – to – one interview was the main data collection method utilised within this study. Each student was interviewed four times from the end of their first clinical placement in Year two until course completion two years later. Interviews occurred in the students’ clinical placement area (Practicum) (refer to Table 3.3 for an outline of the interview schedule).

Arrangements for each interview were as previously discussed, and related to accessing students and clinical areas and checking technical equipment. The success of any study can be dependant on how the researchers present themselves and the literature considered the issue of the relationship between researcher and participants (Ribbens 1989; Denzin and Lincoln 2003; Dearnley 2005; Nunkoosing 2005; Parahoo 2006). Ritchie and Lewis (2003) pointed out that as interviewees can come from all walks of life, one of the most crucial skills the interviewer can possess is the ability to put people at ease and create a trusting relationship. Denzin and Lincoln (2003) reiterated this and advised a friendly, civil, non-judgemental demeanour in order to build rapport and trust.

The researcher should be mindful of the interviewer effect, as participants may, unwittingly or otherwise, change their responses to either show themselves in a better light or give a response that they think will please the researcher (Parahoo 2006). Taking time to develop a trusting relationship with the participants may minimise this (Holloway and Wheeler 2010). This process can be initiated by the use of non-threatening ‘chit chat’ and general questions designed to relax the participants and put them at ease (Casey 2006). I was able to foster and develop a trusting relationship with my study participants over the course of the study.

I was conscious of the fact that my participants were also students within my HEI and Ribbens (1989) and Nunkoosing (2005) both discussed how researchers must be watchful about abusing the power they have as a researcher. McCann and Clarke (2003) discussed this specifically with regards to academic staff using their own undergraduate students as research participants. Although I was a lecturer within the same HEI as the students in my study, the inclusion criterion stipulated that they must not be from my campus, or known to me academically or personally. I was therefore unknown to the students as a lecturer and known only as a researcher.

Eleven students participated in the one – to –one interviews up to the point just prior to the fourth one, when two students dropped out. Nine participated in the final interview. Interviews were all prepared for in the manner described and on average each interview lasted 44 minutes, although times across all the interviews ranged from 22 minutes to 75 minutes. During the course of the interviews I employed my interview schedule as I explored the students’ experiences of simulation and the impact it had on their development.

This was a longitudinal study and one of the unique features was that it afforded the opportunity to look at the progressive nature of the student experience from entry into the branch to registration – a period of two years. To facilitate this I had questions, which although often reworded from one interview to another, were repeated throughout the interview process. Van Manen (1990) stated that in phenomenological research the researcher should not expect a definitive answer to each question from one interview, rather the same question should be asked repeatedly in order to probe the consciousness of the participant. This approach was adopted because it was believed that asking the students the same questions over the period of data collection would help to show if there was a progressive development of clinical skill proficiency in the three domains outlined in the research questions.

One of the main influences in qualitative research is the researcher; their lack of expertise can affect data collection (Polit and Beck 2008; Gerrish and Lacey 2010). After listening to recordings of the first interviews conducted in order to transcribe them, I noted that my voice had too much of a presence than I believe it should have. I spent time reflecting on this and reviewed my interview technique. Advice is available within the literature regarding this and on review, whilst I was using many of the techniques on offer, such as sensitivity; tone of voice and body language I felt I was perhaps not giving the student’s enough time to reply and speaking too soon, which is a common feature of novice researchers (Ritchie and Lewis 2003; Polit and Beck 2008). Being aware of this helped and I worked to ensure that I tempered my comments.

Whilst researching this aspect I also recalled that I had undertaken training in counselling techniques years before and in subsequent interviews was able to use the techniques learned. The end of the interviews generally occurred quite naturally when all topics on the interview guide had been addressed. The end of the interview was also occasionally signposted by phrases such as “Finally….” or “Do you have anything more you would like to add?”