Reflections on the data collection process

The experience of keeping a research journal enabled me to record and reflect on methodological and ethical issues during all stages of data collection. Reflexivity cannot dispel ethical tensions in research with people who are homeless, but it can raise awareness of power and exploitation (Cloke et al., 2000). It allowed me to consider the interview process and record immediate or fleeting thoughts, which informed the data analysis. It provided me with a place to record some reflections or queries about the methods of the study or interactions with staff or others in services. I used it to record notes on the environment of the service I was visiting and any assumptions I was aware I was making. As many of the interviews were located in a hostel setting, I became very aware of the social dynamics especially in shared spaces at meal times. For example how

individuals selected where they sat and at what time they joined the queue informed my analysis around communal living. Although I was familiar with the setting as a result of spending time there, I was also conscious of being an outsider during mealtimes. Recruitment provided much opportunity for reflection. Having an incredibly supportive and enthusiastic gatekeeper in the hostel setting resulted in plenty of expressions of interest to participate. A challenge in the study was the practicality of carrying out the interviews. Only a couple of participants met me as planned for the interview or made contact to postpone or cancel the meeting. The vast majority were enthusiastic to take part but were not in the hostel at the planned time or that day did not suit. Regularly I rescheduled a meeting at least twice, even when the interviewees had selected the time and I used text reminders when possible. This challenged me to consider if avoidance was a method to express a wish not to take part (see appendix 27 for example of journal entry). As a result, I would always provide the option of cancelling outright rather than rescheduling but this was never taken up by anyone in the hostel who had consented to the process and taken a camera. If a setting was staffed, I was vigilant to ensure staff did not put undue pressure on service users to take part in the interview process. However, when interviews eventually occurred, individuals enthusiastically shared their photographs and stories. Interviews not taking place was something that challenged me throughout the process. The people who were recruited through the soup run service were the most difficult to engage in the process. Despite multiple attempts, I was unable to meet three participants recruited from one night’s soup run. The process of meeting with those who were in their own tenancies and recruited via the tenancy support teams, was markedly most straightforward, perhaps reflecting a more successful tenancy?

time of the first interview. Of the nine people who I attempted to meet again, I only managed to make contact with two—the only individuals who returned their interview transcripts. When visiting the soup run, I met two others accidentally, and they declined a follow up interview. Three of the group of nine had been moved from the hostel, the site of the first interviews and the remaining two were in private tenancies. The follow up interviews, although limited in number, demonstrated the value of capturing process over time and helped refine categories. One interviewee felt they were in the same unsettled situation despite wanting change to happen. The other described becoming more settled in his flat in the intervening time. The study design to capture longitudinal experiences was too simplistic when considering the living situations of those invited to take part. A longitudinal element would need to have been made much clearer to the participants from the outset. This could have been enhanced by the use of more robust techniques for tracking as well as staying engaged with participants during the study period with intermittent contact.

Reflexive photography added value to the interview process, especially as it enabled people to take photographs of their rooms and possessions. In addition it facilitated the portrayal of time use, which may have been difficult to capture in words alone. Some participants went through their photographs briefly and I felt like I was pushing to encourage reflection on why they took the photographs. For others, they used the opportunity to take photos to represent their experiences in a meaningful way. For example, taking a photograph of a wall in both shade and light to represent the negative and positive aspects of having a tenancy. The printing of the photographs when sitting with interviewees, added time in which rapport was developed but my fear, that it would reduce the recorded interview time, did not come to fruition as interviews ranged between 42 and 139 minutes. There appeared to be no ideal duration of days to have

the camera for photographs pre-interview. The project advisory group had initially suggested two weeks but most participants felt that was too long when agreeing a time with them—a week became the average duration. Some individuals took no photographs but were happy to be interviewed. The use of the visual method had cost and logistical implications. However, on balance, it was worth it for the additional insights, in particular about the possessions that made a place feel like home (see section 6.2.1). I believe the importance of decorating a place and the role of personal possessions would not have been captured so powerfully through words alone.

Another reflection that punctuated my reflective journal was holding the role of researcher as well as an occupational therapist with experience in the area. The years of working with people provided an awareness and realistic acceptance of practical challenges—the need to make the most of any space available for an interview, being patient waiting for people and flexible when interviews did not go ahead, having awareness of some of the language used as well as a level of ease facilitating a project advisory group in the corner of a busy dining room. However to be true to the methodology, although acknowledging my background, I had to ensure I was seeing things as they were described by participants and not as how I may perceive them as an occupational therapist. I drew on the assumptions (section 1.5) I made, used my reflective notes to challenge myself (example in appendix 6), critically reviewed the interview transcripts and received feedback from my supervisors.