Post-module individual interviews

The fourth data source for evaluating the IETP module was interviews. Approximately four - five months after submission of their final assignment, each of the students took part in one individual semi-structured interview. I considered this time delay to be minimally necessary in order to allow each student time to integrate, or not, their learning from the module into their professional practice.

The purpose of an interview guide is to ensure that the interviewer has carefully considered how to best use the limited time available by employing a systematic and comprehensive approach to the topic under study. The guide guarantees that the same broad subjects are broached with each interviewee, while at the same time allowing the interviewer the freedom to explore and probe through follow up questions in order to further elucidate particular lines of inquiry (Patton, 2002). There are specific techniques involved in interviewing and these can be varied to meet particular situations. As emphasised by Denzin and Lincoln (2005), the use of language is important as specific words can be employed to create a “sharedness of meanings” so that both the

74

interviewer and the interviewee understand “the contextual nature of specific referents” (p. 713). As suggested by Stringer (2007), I attempted to formulate questions which encouraged the students to discuss events and phenomena in their own manner, while also asking about specific issues regarding the IETP module. Through integrating all of these concerns, the interview guide reflected my study‟s constructivist epistemology. The content of the interview guide was compiled from issues identified as potentially relevant in the action research and qualitative evaluation methods literature. The same literature informed the strategies and tactics employed to engage the students during the interviews. Patton (2002), in discussing interviews designed to evaluate an educational programme, recommends that the following areas be addressed (p. 345):

a) What has the student done in the programme?

b) What knowledge, skills and activities have been achieved?

c) How has the student been affected in their feelings about self, attitudes towards work, aspirations and interpersonal skills?

d) What aspects of the programme have had the greatest impact? e) What problems has the student experienced?

f) What are the student‟s plans for the future?

g) What does the student think of the programme (strengths, weaknesses, things liked, disliked, things that should be changed)?

While I agreed in general with Patton‟s suggestions I felt that some of his questions might be interpreted as too focused, not broad enough to allow open-ended comments. At the same time, I knew I needed to be mindful of my own knowledge and

expectations and to find a way of encouraging the students to explore the different issues without my own implied judgments being embedded in the questions. For

example, from reading the EBP literature I had concluded that it was important that both change and leadership theories be integrated into the module. The students might not be of the same opinion, so I did not want any question to convey my bias. Rather, I tried to construct questions which were neutral, which dealt with one issue at a time and which supported the establishment of a positive and open rapport.

As suggested in the literature (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Hinojosa, Kramer & Crist, 2010; Patton, 2002; Stringer, 2007), I decided that the interview should commence with

75

general information about what I was aiming for and why that information was important. The interview guide then addressed the broad areas suggested by Patton (2002) above, regarding the general impact of the module and its strengths and weaknesses. The guide also included specific questions about the learning activities, group interactions, assessments and the collaborative action research process. Students were asked how their general professional behaviour might have changed since the module. One suggestion of Patton (2002) was the idea of having a „role play‟ question where the interviewee is asked to simulate some aspect of an experience. I used this strategy to encourage the interviewee to describe the enablers and barriers to their workplace EBP culture. This indirect approach allowed the interviewee to disassociate her/himself somewhat from the question so that it would appear less judgemental. The interviewee was not being directly asked to report on his/ her engagement, or not, in EBP activities in the workplace; rather they were asked what „advice‟ they would give to a (fictitious) newly-hired colleague.

During the interview I was mindful of how the interviewee was responding to questions and I occasionally provided process feedback on how the interview was progressing which I felt would be helpful for maintaining the flow of our interactions.16 Prompts were used to facilitate the interviewee in revealing more details of the phenomena and/ or feeling they were describing. If the interviewee digressed into what appeared to be longwinded tangential remarks, due to time constraints I would listen attentively to assess the relevance and quality of the responses. If necessary I would re-phrase a question so as to encourage a more focused answer. I ended the interview by giving the interviewee an opportunity to have the final say. A copy of the interview guide can be found in Appendix 15.

The seven individual interviews took place between May and June 2010. Each interview lasted 60 to 90 minutes and they were audio-taped. The participants were able to select the time and place for the interviews; everyone chose their own work setting. Verbatim written transcripts were made from the audio-tapes by an Irish professional transcriber as I sometimes have difficulty understanding Irish accents. Each transcript was sent to

16 _{Patton (2002) refers to such feedback as “support and recognition responses” (p. 375) which is}

intended to let the interviewee know that the purpose of the interview is being fulfilled. It may include statements like: “It‟s really helpful to get such a clear statement of what X was like, that‟s just the kind of

thing we‟re trying to get at”; or, “We‟re halfway through the interview now and from my point of view, it‟s going very well. You‟ve been telling me some really important things. How‟s it going for you?”

76

the interviewee for member-checking to assure accuracy (omissions and errors). Finally, I re-formatted each transcript to anonymise the data by substituting the pseudonyms chosen by participants when they signed the research consent form.

In summary, each of the three stages of my study employed different and multiple data generation methods. Stage one, the preparatory designing of the Implementing

Evidence in Therapy Practice (IETP) module which was not part of the PAR process,

involved reviewing the literature and what I had learned from the preliminary collaboration with Sunnyview. During the IETP module, stage two, non-participant observer (NPO) notes including results from the nominal group technique (NGT)

discussions and researcher field notes (RFN) were generated. Stage three, evaluating the IETP module, included: 1) student self-assessment EBP KSAB questionnaires; 2) university module evaluation forms; 3) group discussion about module and; 4) individual interviews. Seven participants were recruited to the study. Each completed the pre- and post- KSAB questionnaire. All seven participants completed the IETP module and all its requirements (attendance, assessments and module evaluation) by January 2010. One student, however, twice failed the final assessment, and hence failed the module in August 2010. Nonetheless, this student participated in all of the PAR activities. Seven individual interviews took place between May and June 2010.

Now that the reader is familiar with the multiple data generation sources of the study, I will discuss how I ensured rigour through triangulation and the process of data

handling.