Qualitative methods

Qualitative methods provide the major instruments for this research. Interviews and focus group complemented the researcher’s personal and primary interest in authentic local knowledge of Christian and pastoral narrative practitioners. Research into narrative therapy in a Christian context was not part of my previous professional experience and therefore it was anticipated that qualitative methods could provide much broader knowledge of “the lived reality of human experience” and thus take “most seriously the authenticity and reality of ideographic truth.”70

a) Interview

Miller and Glassner argue that “in-depth interview accounts provide a meaningful opportunity to study and theorize about the social world,” rejecting the objectivist-constructivist division that interview narratives are exclusively true only in the specific context in which they are “invented” through interaction between interviewer and interviewee.71 _{I agree that analysis}

of interview data supports the possibility of learning about the social world and social phenomena, or in this research, Christian and pastoral care and counselling phenomena. Carolyn Baker, according to Silverman, suggests that “interviewer and interviewee actively construct some version of the world appropriate to what we take to be self-evident about the person to whom we are speaking and the context of the question.”72 _{Silverman proposes two}

versions of interview data. Positivism gives ‘facts’ about some behaviour, attitudes or the world and interactionism engages authentic experiences of “subjects who actively construct

69 _{James R. Morrow, Dale P. Mood, James G. Disch and Minsoo Kang, Measurement and Evaluation in Human}

Performance, 5th _{ed., (South Australia: Human Kinetics, 2016), 20.}

70 _{Swinton and Mowat, Practical Theology, 44.}

71 _{Jody Miller and Barry Glassner, “The ‘Inside’ and the ‘Outside’: Finding Realities in Interviews,” in Qualitative}

Research: Issues of Theory, Method and Practice, 3rd _{ed., ed. David Silverman (London: SAGE Publications,}

2011), 131-148. Quote: 131.

72 _{David Silverman, Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction (London:}

their social world.”73 _{This research relies more on Interactionism and looks for authentic}

insights about each narrative practitioner’s experiences.

Denzin notes three arguments for open-ended interviews: interviewees can respond in a unique way according to how they define their world; no pre-defined sequence of questions will suit all interviewees; interviewees are given space to raise issues not previously determined by the schedule.74 _{Miller and Glassner state that interactionist research “starts}

from a belief that people create and maintain meaningful worlds,”75 _{shaping meaning through}

language so that “interview subjects construct not just narratives, but social worlds.”76 _This

approach values specific methods and integration but also appreciates the context and milieu of interviews take place and to which the results of this research are primarily addressed. Miller and Glassner address the issue of power and mutual benefit, noting that in-depth interviewing is particularly empowering “from the points of view of research participants,” another narrative principle.77

A semi-structured interview, bridging into an open-ended format, sought to capture broader themes through direct contact with participants and their emerging data.78 _However,

Hammersley and Atkinson warn that there is no ‘pure’ data and that the non-directive character of this kind of interview is still “in itself a form of social control which shapes what people say” because it mediates the reasoning of both interviewer and interviewee.79 _Possible

limitations of interactionism were considered: the different interactional roles of interviewer and interviewee; ‘self-presentation’ in the interview especially in the early stages; the possibility of fabrication; the difficulty of reaching into private experiences; and the influence of the interview context.80 _{Such interviews scope}

a new area of research, to find out what the basic issues are, how people conceptualize the topic, what terminology people use, and what their level of understanding is. The flexibility of the unstructured interview, if properly used, helps us to bring out the affective and value-laden aspects of respondents’

73 _{Silverman, Interpreting, 91.} 74 _{Silverman, Interpreting, 95.}

75 _{Miller and Glassner, The ‘Inside’, 134.} 76 _{Miller and Glassner, The ‘Inside’, 132.} 77 _{Miller and Glassner, The ‘Inside’, 137.}

78 _{Lioness Ayress, “Semi-Structured Interview” in Lisa M. Given, ed., The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative} Research Methods (Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2008).

79 _{Silverman, Interpreting, 95.}

responses to determine the personal significance of their attitudes. … and social context of beliefs and feelings.81

While these elements guide developing questions regarding the integration of postmodern narrative ideas and Christian faith, values and spirituality, how ‘real’ is this kind of research and how truly does it represent the phenomenon researched? Does the interview data speak reliably enough of people’s experiences as meaning and validly represent collective phenomena expressed as “narrated structures”?82 _{Silverman’s third rule of qualitative}

research notes that “a phenomenon always escapes. … The phenomenon that always escapes is the ‘essential’ reality pursued in such work. The phenomenon that can be made to reappear is the practical activity of participants in establishing a phenomenon-in-context.83

Data from this research are not “naturally-occurring” data84 _{but are generated through pre-}

thought and semi-structured conversations within a specific setting folowing Silverman’s sixth rule, that is, we need to understand “the cultural forms through which ‘truths’ are accomplished.”85 _{Silverman cites two sources. Firstly, Wittgenstein suggests that “in analyzing}

another’s activities, we are always describing what is appropriate to a communal ‘language- game’” and therefore “there is no direct route to what we might choose to call ‘inner experience’.” Secondly, Mills describes the “vocabularies of motive” or “motive talk” that lie behind people’s expressions, reminding us that “for sociological purposes, nothing lies behind people’s accounts.”86

Interviewees were drawn representatively from a body of Christian and pastoral counsellors. Sampling primarily used the non-probability method in that participants were selected deliberately. Because this method relies on available subjects it is also called “availability

81 _{Charles M. Judd, Eliot R. Smith and Louise H. Kidder, Research Methods in Social Relations: International} Edition, 6th ed. (Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1991), 261.

82 _{Silverman, Interpreting, 144-170. Silverman compares “structure“ and “meaning” in the context of validity}

and reliability.

83 _{Silverman, Interpreting, 203.} 84 _{Silverman, Interpreting, 208.} 85 _{Silverman, Interpreting, 208.} 86 _{Silverman, Interpreting, 209.}

sampling, accidental sampling or convenience sampling.”87 _{Purposeful sampling}88 _was

recognised in the arbitrary choice of interest group representatives where “participants are selected as indicated by the initial analysis of interviews.”89 _{Snowball sampling “using people}

whom the original [interviewee] introduces” to the researcher was used to identify some interviewees after initial contact with a peer or via recommendation.90

Categorizing and coding was largely informed by John Saldana’s insistence on “meticulous attention to language and deep reflection on the emergent patterns and meanings of human experience.”91 _{The practice of “initial and thorough readings of … data while writing analytic}

memos or jotting in the margins tentative ideas for codes, topics, and noticeable patterns or themes” was constant.92 _{More detailed, illustrated explication of this complex process}

features in the Data Analysis chapter.

b) Focus group

Morgan describes three basic uses of focus groups:

 “self-contained” method where the focus group is the principal source of data;

 “supplementary” source that complements some primary method;

 “multi-method” use where the focus group is combined with other primary methods that determine its use.93

A multi-method approach aligns with this research where “focus groups typically add to the data gathered through other qualitative methods, such as participant observation and individual interviews.”94 _{Focus groups complement interviews because of their “ability to}

observe interaction on the topic,” providing direct evidence about participants’ similarities

87 _{Allen Rubin and Earl R. Babbie, Research Methods for Social Work, 7}th _{ed. (Belmont: Brooks/Cole, 2011), 355.}

Also Bernard C. Beins and Maureen A. McCarthy, Research Methods and Statistics (Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 2012) 99-100.

88 _{Or “judgmental sampling.” Rubin, Research, 357, and Beins, Research, 100.}

89 _{Janice M. Morse, “Sampling in Grounded Theory,” in The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, ed. Anthony}

Bryant and Kathy Charmaz (Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2007), 229-244.

90 _{Berg, Qualitative Research, 95.}

91 _{Johnny Saldana, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (London: SAGE Publications, 2009), 10.} 92 _{Saldana, The Coding, 18.}

93 _{David L. Morgan, Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, 2}nd _{ed. (Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 1997), 2.} 94 _{Morgan, Focus Groups, 3.}

and differences in contrast to later analyses of interviewees separate statements.95 _Individual

interviews enable an interviewer to have more control and thus elicit a greater amount of personal information while focus groups require greater attention by the moderator and provide less detail and depth from each participant.96 _{However, the shared control factor can}

empower participants to give directions which might be “especially useful in exploratory research”97 _{as seen in this research.}

Group questions about how to organize training and education in narrative practices offered more freedom for diverse answers, allowed participants to have more influence on the outcome and group interaction generated a mutual interpersonal motivation for the topic. A focus group can draw on “knowledge, ideas, story-telling, self-presentation, and linguistic exchanges within a given cultural context” thus creating a natural partner for narrative approaches.98 _{The value of focus groups is emphasized by Fern’s belief that “two eight-person}

focus groups would produce as many ideas as 10 individual interviews” and considering the amount of time necessary to conduct and analyse 10 interviews, focus groups are clearly more efficient.99 _{Morgan also notes that focus groups “expand our options when it comes to}

matching our research questions to qualitative methods,”100 _{a helpful factor when the focus}

shifted to explore methods of education.

A predictable critique focuses on the researcher’s interest and influence in the moderator’s role and questioning process. This problem is hardly unique to focus groups and emerges with other methods such as observation and individual interviews.101 _{This factor was addressed by}

using mixed methods, (“the combination of strengths of one approach makes up for the weaknesses of the other approach”) and triangulation of data source, method of collection and method of analysis.102 _{When interpreting focus group data Morgan highlights the}

importance of “distinguishing between what participants find interesting and what they find

95 _{Morgan, Focus Groups, 10.} 96 _{Morgan, Focus Groups, 10.} 97 _{Morgan, Focus Groups, 11.}

98 _{Rosaline S. Barbour and Jenny S. Kitzinger, Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice,} (London: SAGE Publications, 1998), 5.

99 _{Morgan, Focus Groups, 14.} 100 _{Morgan, Focus Groups, 17.} 101 _{Morgan, Focus Groups, 14.}

102 _{John W. Creswell and Vicki L. Clarke, Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research, 2}nd_{. ed., (Los}

important” and that the topic that was mentioned the most times and with most enthusiasm and energy should receive the most emphasis in the report.103 _{For interview and focus group}

work, content analysis was used to produce “a relatively systematic and comprehensive summary or overview of the data set as a whole.”104