Interviews 103

Interviews were the primary data collection method for the research project, which seeks to give voice to individual points of view, as well as to explicate more collective or synergetic effects:

If you want to know how people understand their world and their life, why not talk with them… The qualitative research interview attempts to

understand the world from the subjects’ point of view, to unfold the meaning of peoples’ experiences, to uncover their lived world prior to scientific explanations (Kvale, 1996, p. 1).

The interviews were approached as conversations. By accompanying the participants on an extended journey, I developed relationships that allowed for an empathetic interaction to take place. The interviews were a chance to converse and to discuss perceptions of the world. It was not unlike one of those ‘in depth’ conversations with someone that happen spontaneously and all too rarely.

Conducting one-on-one interviews required not only careful planning but also on- the-run decisions. The pilot study (discussed earlier) proved beneficial through the insights it gave to timing, structure and interview tone. The trial and error approach of the pilot study was particularly effective when decisions needed to made on the basis of prior experience rather than purely theoretical understandings.

The interviews prompted participants to recall the meaningful experiences of their Franklin River journey as accurately and descriptively as possible. Their timing played a large part in achieving this. While there are advantages in asking

participants to recall particular events soon after they occur (Borrie, Roggenbuck, and Hull, 1998), in some cases this may compromise the overall experience itself. This is reflected in Dewey’s description (quoted earlier) of an experience: “when the material experienced runs its course to fulfilment… Such an experience is a whole and carries with it its own individualizing quality and self sufficiency. It is an

experience” (1934, p. 151). In other words, given that the purpose was to explore experiences of the Franklin River journey, it seemed imperative that the journey be

allowed to flow through to completion, both in terms of time and the shifting nature of the landscape experience.

However, there is also an imperative to investigate the experiences while they are still as fresh in participants’ minds as possible, so that the process of reflection and social construction is kept to a minimum. Most participants were keen to discuss their experiences on the last day of the trip, which involved a seven hour yacht journey on the Gordon River and Macquarie Harbour. This had the advantages of a private and outdoor setting (often on the roof of the 60ft yacht wheelhouse), a view of a similar landscape to that which had been traversed on the river, a relaxed atmosphere without the pressures of time, and no requirement to meet after the trip (many participants flew out of Tasmania the following day). Borrie et al. suggest that in terms of verbal reporting “material is more likely to be remembered and reported if the context of recall is similar to the context in which it was first experienced and entered into memory” (1998, p. 178).

Thus, the majority of participants (20) were interviewed during the last day of the trip, either on the banks of the Gordon River or on the yacht journey out, while most of the remaining participants (9) were interviewed within two weeks of the

completion of their trips. The exceptions were the participants from the ‘private extras group’ from the 2006/07 season (3) that were interviewed approximately six months after their experience of the river. Where the interviews took place after the trips every effort was made to use natural outdoor settings that were relatively private and placed the participants in as relaxed a mood as possible.

In terms of the structure of the interviews, after trialing a variety of interview styles during the pilot study, a semi-structured or ‘interview guide’ (Patton, 2002) structure was adopted (Appendix 4). This achieved a balance between keeping an open mind and staying focused on the phenomenon in question. As Patton suggests: “it makes sure that the interviewer / evaluator has carefully decided how best to use the limited time available in an interview situation… it keeps the interactions focused while allowing individual perspectives and experiences to emerge” (2002, pp. 333-334).

Participants were asked one or two general questions to relax them and then asked: ‘What did you find most meaningful or personally moving about your journey down the river?’. This question was framed in such terms in order to encourage participants to describe their overall experience from their own point of view. Depending on responses, further questions were asked and notes taken, these to be followed up later in the interview. Specific examples of experiences or events that provided instances of meaningful experiences were sought, and attempts made to delve as deeply as possible into those experiences. Questions like ‘can you think of a particular point on the trip when you felt like that?’ proved to be effective in allowing participants to unlock more detailed descriptions of feelings and emotions connected to an

experience. Many interviews had an ‘hourglass’ form that flowed from the general to the specific and then back to the general. At times participants chose to describe a more generally meaningful experience of the trip that could not be tied to any particular instances.

I recorded interviews on a digital recorder. Notes taken were useful for identifying themes that could be revisited later in the interview, and also seemed to settle the participants and encourage them to extend their responses. The interviews ended with a summary of the key themes as I had heard them, and asking the participant if they ‘had anything else that they would like to add or felt was relevant to the

interview?’. This question often triggered further conversations. Every effort was made to put the participants at ease. In many cases participants indicated that they would not have openly and honestly described their experiences had I not taken the time to participate in the trip:

Overall we need to view the verbal report from the eye of the respondent and the burdens that we are placing upon him or her. The task of reporting should be straightforward and relevant, in such a manner that motivates and

facilitates accuracy (Borrie, et al., 1998, p. 179).

The strategies used during interviews included:

• Using simple, straightforward and open ended questions; • Proceeding from the participants’ ordering of events;

• Encouraging descriptive recall, and in particular the description of feelings and events;

• Following through with questions about events at a specific time or place during the trip; and

• Discussing the things of interest, or meaning, to the participant.

While interviews are used extensively within qualitative research, including

phenomenological research, the accuracy of verbally acquired data has at times been called into question. Focusing on recreational activity research, Borrie et al. (1998) list the problems associated with such data as the generalizing of novel experiences, the unreliability of memory recall, respondent concern to supply the responses thought to be desired by the interviewer, and the production of socially acceptable answers more broadly. While efforts were made to minimize the impact of such factors, researcher-desired responses and socially acceptable answers can be difficult to eliminate from the interview process (Fontana and Frey, 2005).

Every effort was made during the trip to be transparent about the project without signaling my personal views or discussing my own experiences. An effort was also made to make clear, during the interviews, that it was the participants’ unique perceptions of what it was to be on the river that were valued. Nevertheless, in some cases there did appear a desire to deliver what the participant assumed I was after. To an extent this seems unavoidable. What is avoidable, however, is the open disclosure of any anticipated responses on my part, and this was largely achieved.

In terms of the tendency to supply socially acceptable answers, participants were challenged both in their ability to describe what is often ‘hard-to-describe’ and also in their ability to describe their experiences without the filter of reflection and social construction. Meaningful experiences may be ineffable, or held as intensely private. In trying to put those meaningful experiences into words, participants were often searching for words, and in an interview situation, participants will often employ a layer of reflection before responding. As a result, responses can, and probably must, involve the deployment of socially acceptable norms. These are inherent challenges within the study of meaningful experiences and are related to an overall

experience. This added an extra dimension to the ongoing refinement of the interview process.

The interviews were followed up by an email 4 months after the trip which summarized the individual interview and outlined the perceived themes. This was done in order to check with participants that what was said, or interpreted, was accurately portrayed, as well as gaining further insights and post trip perspectives.