R ESEARCH QUALITY

This resea h offe ed a i te p etatio of the pa ti ipa ts e pe ie e of o ki g ith prisoners. By quantitative research standards, the sample was extremely small but it was appropriate given the depth of the analysis conducted (Smith et al., 2009; Yardley, 2000). Claims of replicability are not made as these experiences were unique to the individuals. As has been noted however, there are similarities in experience to those documented

elsewhere and it is possible that other therapists working with prisoners share some similar experiences with the participants. As referred to in the methodology chapter, I have

attempted to ensure the quality of this research by attending to recommendations set out by experienced qualitative researchers - Yardley (2000) and Smith et al. (2009). Yardley (2000, p. outli es ualities that good ualitati e esea h should possess, a d I shall now outline how I have endeavoured to encompass them.

I endeavoured to remain sensitive to context throughout the research process. For

example, in the Introduction chapter, I endeavoured to provide the reader with a review of literature that was relevant to the research topic and put the findings in context of what is already known on the subject. I attempted to bracket off my existing knowledge of the topic when analysing the transcripts (Smith et al., 2009) and I did not make references to theory and research in the analysis chapter itself. This was in order to retain sensitivity to the data (Yardley, 2000) and to prevent the participants a ou ts ei g shaped o ske ed by such knowledge (Smith et al., 2009). Further demonstration of my sensitivity to context comes from deep consideration of the exact meaning of words when constructing themes from the data. For example, I took great care to understand the difference between the

o ds th eat a d da ge he des i i g a d la elli g pa ti ipa ts e pe ie es of thei clients, aware that the words convey slightly different meanings and could alter the context of the results and deviate fro the pa ti ipa ts e pe ie es. Fi all , the e pe ie es of the participants were analysed with reflection upon the context of the prison culture and the wider social and political discourse surrounding crime and punishment. Related to this, reflective of my epistemological standpoint outlined in the Methodology chapter, the experiences of the participants were analysed in the context of the prison culture and the wider social and political discourse surrounding prisoners and their treatment.

119

My commitment to the topic is demonstrated in my engagement with the subject first- hand through my personal experience as a trainee counselling psychologist working with prisoners and offenders in the community, and also as a researcher of the topic for the last three years during which many months were spent immersed in the data. A couple of the interview transcripts were read by the research supervisor who considered the data generated to be of adequate depth to ensure rigour in terms of completeness of data collection (Yardley, 2000). Rigorous analysis of the data was conducted and I discussed my analytic process with peers in a research group in order to ensure it was of a high standard. The group was also used to explore emergent themes with reference to some anonymised examples of the data; this was to ensure I had remained grounded in the data rather than being overly influenced by pre-existing knowledge or being too descriptive, as outlined by Smith et al. (2009). I have enclosed a portion of annotated analysed transcript to enable the reader to see an example of my analytic working of a transcript (see Appendix F). I have attempted to be transparent throughout this research report by providing detailed

accounts of my methods and the research process, as well as outlining my personal views and influences in the reflexivity sections (Yardley, 2000).

I have previously explored how I hope this research will impact and benefit the discipline of counselling psychology and indeed, therapists from other disciplines who work with

prisoners or people with a criminal history. Additionally, I hope it might inform those within the wider therapeutic community and beyond of the significant satisfactions to be gained from working with prisoners. In considering the role this research might play in wider so iet , it is pe haps ele a t that pa ti ipa ts t pi all took up a sta e the o side ed to e o t a to that of ide so iet s sta e to a ds p iso e s: the o se ed that where the pu li alled p iso e s o ste s , the alled the t au atised hu a s o victims. This reminds us that our work as therapists is not just shaped by the processes within the therapeutic dyad but that our actions and choices in work may be influenced by societal factors.

There are inevitably some limitations to the present research. Despite constructing the i te ie s hedule a efull to fa ilitate pa ti ipa ts ope espo di g A ske & K ight, 1999) it is possible that certain factors such as my age, gender and experience may have affe ted i te ie ees espo ses. I pa ti ula , I a a a e that t ai ee status a ha e resulted in qualified or more experienced practitioners feeling less comfortable about disclosing vulnerabilities. Whilst the findings i lude sig ifi a t e plo atio of pa ti ipa ts

120

vulnerable experiences, it is not possible to ascertain what might have been discussed had I been qualified. Relatedly, it is possible that my trainee status had the opposite effect and engendered greater disclosure.

The use of semi-st u tu ed i te ie s, hilst o st ai i g pa ti ipa ts espo ses less tha a uestio ai e A ske & K ight, , e e theless a ha e shaped pa ti ipa ts responses. I constructed the interview questions around aspects of the topic I had p e iousl ide tified a d this ight ha e li ited pa ti ipa ts dis losu e a out thei experience. To manage this potential limitation of the method, I asked participants at the end of the interview if they had anything further they would like to discuss about their e pe ie e. A u st u tu ed i te ie te h i ue ould possi l ha e at hed IPA s inductive epistemology more fully (Smith et al., 2009), as the participant could have led the interaction and introduced dimensions of their experience unaddressed by the interview s hedule. I had take “ ith et al. s ad i e ho e e , ot to atte pt u st u tu ed i te ie s as a newcomer to IPA.

I also considered whether the fact that participants came from different stages of training and disciplines, might have affected the coherence of the findings. This sample came about following o side atio of pa ti ipa ts a ilit to p o ide a ou ts hi h add essed the research aim (Smith et al., 2009), in addition to practical restrictions on time and availability. Whilst it might have been neater to have had a homogeneous group of counselling psychologists, the mix of professional disciplines does not appear to have

esulted i a kedl diffe e t e pe ie es. I fu the efle t he e upo “uss a s observatio that pe haps sheds light o this: it is the person of the therapist that

o stitutes his o he p i a tool o igi al autho s e phasis u de li ed, 2007, p.3). The fi di gs the efo e efle t peoples e pe ie e as the apists o ki g ith p iso e s, rather tha the apists e pe ie e of o ki g i a pa ti ula odalit .