Methods of data generation

Three different methods of data generation were evaluated in the pilot study: previously completed exam papers, responses to a written scenario, and the use of semi structured

interviews. Two of these methods were adopted for the main study with some adjustments following lessons learned from the pilot. Although rarely reported upon as a data generation method in phenomenography, Stokes, Magnier & Weaver, (2011) utilised data from exam papers along with survey responses in their phenomenographic study on conceptions of fieldwork in geography. As the participants of this study also undertook assessment via examination in relation to nursing interventions, it was thought that analysis of these papers would yield useful information regarding students’ understandings of recovery. However, as a method of data generation in the pilot study the approach proved unsuccessful. In

phenomenographic studies information is sought on the participants’ own understandings of the concept, in this case recovery. What transpired with the exam papers was that students gave standard responses of an expected nature rather than descriptions of how they actually understood recovery in practice. As Bowden (2005) has identified there is a danger that responses can become more related to theories espoused in the literature rather than the participants’ personal understanding when there is no opportunity to probe further. This proved to be the case and this method of generating data was not adopted in the main study.

Written data has been utilised successfully in phenomenographic studies as an alternative to interviews (e.g. Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas, & Prosser, 1994; Bradbeer et al., 2004). However, a potential drawback is that there is no opportunity to probe more deeply into responses, therefore as a single method for generating data it may be limited. The pilot study sought to evaluate the usefulness of responses to a written scenario as an additional data source (see appendix three). The use of a written scenario proved successful when participants were given the scenario at the beginning of the interview and allowed 15 minutes to write their responses to questions set in relation to the scenario. These responses were then discussed in detail during the interview. Marton and Pong (2005) identified that the referential and structural aspects of phenomenon are best identified when participants are able to discuss concrete

cases rather than providing abstract conceptual responses. The opportunity for follow up significantly improved understanding of participants’ responses as follow up questions encouraged greater discussion and participants were able to elaborate on their written

comments. This proved a valuable addition to the data generated through the interview alone.

The interview is the most commonly used method of data generation in phenomenographic research (Marton, 1988; Green, 2005; Bowden, 2000). The aim of the interview is to reveal the experiences of the participants in relation to the phenomenon of interest. It is the relationship between the participant and the phenomenon which is the focus, rather than the participant or the phenomenon itself (Yates et al., 2012). The focus on variation of experience amongst participants means that individual interviews form the starting point for a collective

understanding of how the phenomenon is experienced.

Interviews generally adopt a semi-structured open ended format with a limited number of set questions, which are followed up to ascertain meaning and provide detail (Trigwell, 2000; Bowden, 2000). Follow up questions are not formed from pre-determined ideas of the interviewer but are dependent on participants’ responses. Hence different interviews may proceed along different paths (Marton, 1986). With a non-dualistic perspective it follows that interviewees will interpret questions in differing ways and therefore questions are not required to be asked in exactly the same way. Ashworth and Lucas (2000) suggested “a

conversational partnership in which the interviewer assists a process of reflection” (p.302) best suits phenomenographic research interviews. They stressed the importance of empathic listening and use of prompts from the interviewer to encourage participants to elaborate and pursue their own line of reflection. Marton (1994) also argued for a shared reflective dialogue, which encourages themes of the interviewee’s experiences to emerge. For this a conducive supportive atmosphere is required to encourage reflection and follow up questions should be

asked to clarify meaning. Åkerlind (2005a) stressed that probing questions should uncover underlying meanings and intentional attitudes, therefore exploring concrete examples of the phenomenon is seen as useful. Åkerlind (200a, 2005b) also promoted the use of ‘why’ questions in phenomenographic research. In order to go beyond how the person behaved or their opinion on something (elicited from ‘what questions’), she argued that establishing why that behaviour or opinion was important to the person is more likely to uncover their

intentional attitude towards the phenomenon. Uljens (1996) argued that ‘why’ questions are unnecessary within phenomenography as there is no intention to uncover causal relationships; however, Åkerlind viewed the ‘why’ question as important in gaining a fuller understanding of the person’s underlying meanings rather than to establish causality. The use of ‘why’ questions can appear interrogative and evoke defensive responses within interview settings (Morrissey & Callaghan, 2011). This may particularly be the case where there is a perceived difference in status such as student nurse and lecturer, therefore generally the word ‘why’ was avoided within the interviews. Questions were used where although linguistically the word ‘why’ was avoided, the question was still aimed at uncovering an underlying meaning. These occasions led to fuller exploration of the interviewees’ understandings.

A semi- structured interview schedule was used with minor adjustments made following the pilot study. Adjustments led to a better flow of questions and aided understanding on behalf of the participants in relation to the question asked. The interview schedule is attached as appendix four. Whilst the schedule provided a focus for the interview, in line with

phenomenographic research the questions asked were largely dependent on interviewee responses, with a focus on follow up questions to elicit meaning. Interviews all took place on campus which proved convenient to the participants and lasted between 35 and 65 minutes. All interviews were conducted by myself, known to all participants as a lecturer at the university where they studied.