The Phenomenographic Interview Approach

By adopting a phenomenographic approach to the initial semi-structured interview, the focus was always to seek and reveal the answers to the research question:

• What are the conceptions of being a lecturer in nursing?

The phenomenographic interview is positioned somewhere between being structured to semi- structured. Marton (1986, p.42) stressed that during the phenomenographic interview there should not be too many pre-planned questions, but questions should follow from what the participant says. Careful consideration was given so that questions were focused on seeking out the variation of the phenomenon combined with asking open-ended questions so that the participants could reflect and decide to discuss those aspects that are particularly relevant to them. The intention here is to focus the participant’s awareness of the conceptions of being a lecturer in nursing. A typical phenomenographic approach was to ask the participants a small set of pre-determined questions such as:

1. How would you describe being a lecturer in nursing?

2. What is your experience of being a lecturer in nursing?

Other prompts would be:

3. What do you mean by that?

4. How do you feel about the experience?

5. Are you able to give me examples of that experience?

6. Have you any other thoughts on where you described……?

7. How does your experience influence the way that you teach students? 8. Can you explain why that is?

9. Is there anything else that you would like to say about how you experience being a lecturer in nursing?

These questions allow what Booth (1992, p.59) has noted ‘deliberately approaches the phenomenon from a variety of directions and thus increases the chances of a full exploration’.

Susan Harness 111 During the semi-structured interview, I could interact with the participant so that the issues could be explored. Full attention was focused on how the participant experienced the phenomenon. Following the open-ended questions, clarification was sought by probing each participant further to explain their answers giving real examples if appropriate in order that a shared understanding of how they experience the phenomenon was understood. It was important that I as the researcher, was sensitive to the information being described by the participant and that I encouraged further elaboration on what was being communicated during the interview. At times, the participant came to a silence where it was apparent that they were thinking and reflecting upon their experiences. In this case the silence was encouraged and not interrupted so that they could articulate their thoughts; and I as the researcher could explore and probe deeper to extrapolate their understanding. At other times, the silence was becoming prolonged and I needed to take the cue on returning the conversation back by repeating the last statement or participants began to talk freely of issues that I felt to be outside the focus of the phenomenon. In which case, I needed to return the discussion to the focus of the phenomenon. In these cases, by asking:

• May I return to what you were describing earlier when you said….?

usually helped the participant to reflect on their experience and to reveal their understanding of the of the phenomenon and therefore the focus is maintained.

The phenomenographic interview process allows the participant to feel relaxed and reflect upon aspects that they may have never thought about previously. This dialogic manner of interviewing facilitates openness and depth of feeling from participants which Booth (1997) illustrates by affirming that:

‘the interview is open and means that while the structure might be planned in advance, to approach the phenomenon in question from various interesting

perspectives, the interviewer is prepared to follow unexpected lines of reasoning that can lead to fruitful new reflections’. (p.138)

Susan Harness 112 What was significant here is that by tapping in to the reflections of the participants and how they described their awareness, captured how the participants related to their experience of the phenomenon under investigation. This second order perspective is important as Marton (2000) explains that:

‘the dimensions they choose are an important source of data because they reveal an aspect of the individual’s relevance structure’. (p.138).

An essential part of undertaking a phenomenographic interview is not to manipulate the participant by asking leading questions or by introducing any new topics to the participant. I was careful that I did not expose my ideas or feelings to the participant about the

phenomenon under investigation. The influence of power required constant vigilance and mindful consideration to be alert to the possibility of even thinking or resisting the temptation to add comment or speak of my feelings on the phenomenon itself so as not detract from the phenomenographic technique. I was therefore cautious of my own experiences and

interpretations of the phenomenon and made a real and conscious effort not to verbally or non-verbally agree or disagree with what the participants were discussing ensuring that the experiences were purely from the participants and not my own. This strategy is what Moustakas (1994, p.116) terms as epoché in that any theories or prejudices held by the researcher are set aside and do not influence the true data. Inevitably, there are challenges to this idea as Sandberg (2005, p.60) argues that ‘in reality we always interpret things within a framework of our lived experience and that we are all prisoners of our own past’. The need for researchers to bracket the knowledge that is relevant to the issues being investigated is how Giorgi (1992, p.121) provides some solution to these challenges. It was important that I set aside my own assumptions and ‘bracket out’ as far as possible any of my preconceived ideas or make judgements on any of the responses from the participant. I acknowledge that

bracketing out any power was difficult as it is impossible to totally disengage from my lifeworld as a lecturer in nursing. Nevertheless, conscious efforts were made to have empathetic understanding for the participant in order to listen and therefore set aside any presuppositions about the nature of the phenomenon. During the collection of data, it was crucial that no assumptions were made on the participants’ responses or to pre-arrange responses into a

Susan Harness 113 formation of categories. In addition, I needed to be mindful that awareness of any findings from earlier research and how this knowledge aligned with my own personal beliefs needed to be set aside.

The initial phenomenographic interviews were brought to a natural close when both the participant and myself felt that all aspects of their experiences of the phenomenon had been explored and communicated. A rich set of data was captured from each of the ten

participants. All the interviews took place at the participant’s normal workplace within their university.