The researcher spent a total of seven months (July 2003 to January 2004) collecting data. The researcher collected qualitative data by conducting semi-structured interviews with nurses about their ideas, their opinions, and their experiences and through participant observation, observing nurses as they worked. Interviews can provide information about people’s attitudes, their values, and what they think they do (Patton, 1990). Observing can provide information about what people actually do (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2003).
3.9.1 The semi-structured interview as a method of data collection
In this research, semi-structured interviews using open-ended questions were one of two methods used to collect data. According to Marton and Both (1997), the semi-structured interview is the favored method of data collection in phenomenological research. Furthermore, interviewing has been widely used in nursing research and is considered a sound method for studying nurses’ insights and experiences (Davis, 1984; Windsor, 1987; French, 1989; Nelms, 1990; Beck, 1993; Sheilds, 1995; Baillie, 1995). Patton (1990, p. 45) noted that:
We interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly observe. The issue is not whether observational data is more desirable, valid, or meaningful than self-report data. The fact of the matter is that we cannot observe everything. We cannot observe feelings, thoughts and intentions. We cannot observe behaviors that took place at some previous point in time. We cannot observe situations that preclude the presence of an observer. We cannot observe how people have organized the world and the meanings they attach to what goes on in the world. We have to ask people questions about those things
Patton (1990) also noted that two important issues arise with respect to interviewing as a phenomenological research method. Firstly, the participant’s motivation for taking part in the
research may positively or negatively influence the interview and the data generated. Secondly, the researcher’s ability to understand and correctly interpret the participant’s responses has a significant impact on the researcher’s ability to decide further lines of questioning, in turn effecting the quality of the data produced.
Johnson (2000) described the interview, including its analysis, as an engaged conversation between two people. In the interview, the researcher puts him or herself in the participant’s situation to try and understand that person’s point of view (Gadamer, 1989). The researcher needs to listen and pay constant attention to the participants as they are responding, repeatedly
attempting to understand the meaning of what is being said and how the person has shaped his or her perspective. In this way, interviewing is more than ‘collecting data’. Interviewing allows the researcher and the participant to connect in a profound way, reducing the distance between them. The distance is further reduced as the researcher analyses the text, effectively carrying out a conversation with the text of the interview. To be able to understand the perspective of the participant as clearly as possible, it is important for the researcher to be open and inquisitive in both the process of interviewing as well as analysis (Gadamer, 1989).
3.9.2 Participant observation as a method of data collection
In this research, the researcher also collected data using the technique of participant
observation, observing the atmosphere, surroundings and behaviors of the participants and how these related to the process of self-directed learning while working on wards. According to Patton (1990), observational data are appealing as they give the researcher the means to gather “live” data from “live” situations. Patton (1990) goes on to suggest that observational data allows the researcher to both enter into and comprehend the situation being described.
Morrison (1993) elaborates, stating that observation enables the researcher to gather data on the following settings:
• the physical setting (i.e. the physical environment and its organization)
• the human setting (i.e. the organization of people, the characteristics of the groups or individuals being observed, such as gender or class)
• the interactional setting (i.e. the interactions that are taking place: formal, informal, planned, unplanned, verbal, non-verbal etc.)
• the programme setting (i.e. the resources and their organization, pedagogic styles, curricula and their organization)
In participant observation studies, the researcher takes part in the situation or setting that he or she is observing. The researcher works together with those in the observation situation,
assuming as natural a role as possible and engaging in the activities of the setting as a member of the group. Whilst the researcher is engaging in activities, he or she records information. The role of participant observer necessitates seeking permission to participate in activities whilst taking on a relaxed role as observer in the setting.
As Creswell (2002) notes, one of the disadvantages of participant observation is the difficulty of taking notes while engaging in activities within the observation situation. Some researchers wait to write down observations until after they have left the research site which may impact the quality of the data produced. However, Creswell also notes that observation has the important advantages of providing the opportunity to record information as it happens in a setting, to study actual behavior, and to study individuals who have difficulty putting their ideas into words.