The appropriate alignment of ontological and epistemological assumptions, methodology and methods ensures good research practice (Chamberlain, 2004). A qualitative approach was adopted as its concern with meaning and how people make sense of and experience the world around them (Willig, 2010), is well aligned with the focus of this research (see Chapter 1.11) exploration of the participants’ experiences of dementia. It is also well aligned with the constructivist paradigm underpinning of this research (as discussed in section 2.3. and 2.4.). However, it was important to select a qualitative research method which fitted and complemented the underpinnings of this research. The stand out method to use was a type of interview, as this allows participants to discuss their experiences.
Qualitative research interviews have been defined as ‘conversations with a purpose’ (Burgess, 1984, p.102), where there is a ’two-way process where researcher and participant engage in a dialogue to explore the topic’ (Taylor, 2005, p.39). The aim is to explore the ‘insider perspective’ (Taylor, 2005, p.39), whilst focusing on the experiences, life histories, thoughts, and feelings of participants, in their own words (Howitt, 2010). This is complemented by the focus that interviews facilitate on ‘participants’ statements about their experiences, how they portray this experience, and what it means to them’ (Charmaz, 2014, p.58). The flexibility of interviews also encourages a natural flow of conversation, giving respondents the freedom to explore
*Age ranges, rather than the participants’ actual ages, are reported to ensure individual participants are not easily identified through the demographic data. All participant names have been replaced with pseudonyms.
unforeseen avenues of thought, and allowing the exploration of sensitive topics (Coolican, 2009). Through this research, it is recognised that interviews are ‘performed retrospective accounts’ (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2012, p. 350) in response to questions; and that interviewees’ construct their ‘performance’, explaining and justifying their views, experiences, actions and past events from the present. Consequently, interviews provide the researcher with a representation of the participants’ experiences; how they have perceived it and constructed it (Flick, 2015; Murray, 2015).
2.13.1. Selecting an interview type.
After discussions with both PhD supervisors, and much consideration, the decision was taken to use semi-structured interviews. The compatibility of semi- structured interviews with CGT was a further drawing point to the method (see sections 2.13.2 and 2.15. for further discussion). Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data; however, when deciding to use this type of qualitative interview, it was important to critically explore the different types of interviews available, and select the one which best facilitated answering the research questions. There are various types of qualitative interviews; three were considered carefully: structured, unstructured, and semi-structured interviews.
Structured interviews are rigid, as interviewers ask predetermined questions in a specific order. Once the participant responds to a question, the next question is asked without deviating from the prescribed question order and without asking probing questions (Berg & Lune, 2012). They are used when the researcher has a good idea about what they want to find through the interview (Berg & Lune, 2012; Flick, 2006). This made it unsuitable for this research study, which places emphasis on understanding the participant’s experience, following their journey and what they find
important; this would require deviating from the interview schedule questions and order, as well as asking probing questions. It is also poorly aligned with the methodology, where a researcher acknowledges they enter an interview with their own ideas, but which advocates an open mind to all possible avenues (Charmaz, 2014); and the constant comparison method, which may entail introducing new questions into successive interviews as more abstract categories and concepts are generated (Charmaz, 2014).
In contrast, unstructured interviews are flexible as the interviewer has a set of topics to explore in place of an interview schedule; however, questions are not necessarily predetermined (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). The interview is led by the participant. This makes interviews unpredictable. Consequently, interviewers have to adapt to the participant’s responses, generating appropriate questions and follow- up questions within the interview (Berg & Lune, 2012). This requires a skilled and experienced interviewer, who can cover their research topics by developing questions during the interview and reacting to the participant’s responses (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). The flexibility of unstructured interviews, and the central role of the participant and their journey, made it appropriate to use; however, Taylor (2005) states that a researcher needs to consider whether they have the necessary skills for qualitative interviewing. One concern was a lack of experience and necessary skills to carry out unstructured interviews on a possibly sensitive topic, such as experiences of dementia; and whether this inexperience would harm participants, due to insensitively developed questions during the interview, and prevent the research aims and questions being fully explored.
Semi-structured interviews provided a balance between structured and unstructured. They entail asking participants a ‘number of predetermined questions
and special topics’ (Berg & Lune, 2012, p.112), in a consistent and progressive order. However, semi-structured interviews are flexible; the interviewer goes beyond predetermined questions and probes the participant (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). This meant following the participants’ experience and trying to fully explore it before moving to a different question. Consequently, the ordering of the questions changed and new questions were introduced. The combination of having some predetermined questions, which would help to ensure that the research questions were answered, and the flexibility to change and introduce questions to better understand participants’ views and experiences, made semi-structured more suitable than either structured or unstructured interviews. Additionally, it was well aligned with the CGT methodology, as it enabled the introduction of new interview questions to the interview guide, which supported elements of theoretical sampling, specifically, seeking of events and information to illuminate properties of categories (Charmaz, 2014).
2.13.2. Suitability of semi-structured interviews.
When considering whether semi-structured interviews were the most appropriate method of data collection, it was important to remain open to all options, and to critically explore the rationale for their use. To achieve this, three questions were considered:
Does interviewing fit my philosophy of research and epistemological stance? Does interviewing fit my research aims and question?
Will interviews gather the best data to address these aims and questions? (Taylor, 2005, p.40)
Philosophically and epistemologically, semi-structured interviews are appropriate for research studies that seek to ‘access the participants’ understanding of the world and
their experiences’ (Taylor, 2005, p. 40). These underpinnings made it ideal for this research study, where the aim was to explore participants’ views, understanding and experiences of dementia. Turner (1981) suggests that grounded theory is well suited to processing qualitative data such as that gathered through semi-structured interviews. This method’s underpinnings complemented the research study’s methodology. Both focused on the subjective experiences of the individual, as interviews enabled an ‘abstract understanding of studied life’ (Charmaz, 2014, p.342) by providing access to peoples’ experiences of dementia.
Similarly, semi-structured interviews are suited to research aims and questions which focus on ‘how participants understand and construct meanings about the experiences of their daily lives’ (Taylor, 2005, p. 41). This makes it an appropriate method to address this research study’s aims and answer its research questions, which focus on the experience of supporting someone with an intellectual disability and dementia.