Reflections

In this chapter I have attempted to explain the whole fieldwork process. This started with me explaining the design of the research and preparation for the field work process. This section particularly focused on my choice of ethnographic approach, the sampling procedure and issues with accessing the teams. Next I described the process of collecting primary and secondary data and the methods I used. I have also discussed the benefits and drawbacks of those methods and what type of data was collected using these particular methods. Under this section I also explained how I piloted the interview guide and the data recording techniques I used. This led to an account of the subsequent data analysis process where I explain my choice of grounded theory approach to analyse the data and the use of NVivo.

When considering the fieldwork process as a whole I consider it has been successful. I have found many advantages in adopting an Ethnographic approach and managed to collect a sufficient amount of data for my research. Despite the initial problems in meeting the team leaders and gaining access to the teams, the rest of the process developed satisfactorily. In general, both of the teams were supportive and some staff members have been especially supportive. They volunteered to find more participants for the interviews and organised home visits on my behalf. This helping hand was much appreciated, considering the amount of work they are expected to complete on a daily basis. This support also helped to understand the relationships between team members in the microsystem. There

136

were some occasions where interviews and meetings were cancelled without prior notice; however the reasons for those cancellations were usually obvious. It is well understood that the teams are dealing with mentally ill service users and the priority should always be given to those service users rather than any other commitment.

In general, the interviews progressed very well and there were few cancellations. Some staff members volunteered to spend more time after the interviews and some even offered me two appointments to discuss my questions. These interviews have been very fruitful in clarifying some unclear issues relating to policies and team functioning. I was often offered the opportunity to accompany staff on home visits, which helped me to understand the professional relationship between the service users and care coordinators. The shared car rides to and from the home visits provided an opportunity to discuss personal views regarding my research topics and general issues with the research. I often used these instances to ask for the help of the staff member to reach another staff member who had been difficult to contact. One of the limitations of the research was the low number of service users I interviewed. In the research proposal I planned to interview 10 service users from both teams, but as the research progressed this initial plan changed due to a number of obstacles. Firstly there were the ethical constraints that my sample of service users should include only people who were able to consent to participation and the interviews should be conducted only in the teams‟ premises. When I discussed these limitations with the staff members they promised to talk to their clients and during the home visits I also had the opportunity to explain this to the service users. However the problem I found here was something unexpected; AMHPs, MHSWs, CPNs and OTs in the teams are all called care coordinators and the service users know and refer them as their care coordinators rather than by these job titles. So the issue of interviewing them with regard to social work professionals‟ role became difficult. With respect to this issue, the best possible solution to emerge was to contact the service users who already knew that their care coordinator was an AMHP or a MHSW. In this case we identified only a very small number of such service users and among them only a handful of were capable of consenting for themselves. Finally, I eventually completed only two interviews with the service users. This issue is further discussed as a limitation of this research in the final chapter.

137

The inclusion of different professionals and service users in the interview sample helped me to understand and explain the contribution of mental health social work, from a range of different perspectives. This I considered as a major aspect of understanding the social work contribution in the microsystem, as AMHPs and MHSWs are an important and obligatory part of this integrated system. I am confident that these interviews provided an opportunity to clarify and develop a thorough understanding of the ethnographic data gained through observing the functioning of the teams.

Researching two teams rather than one allowed me to compare different ways of practising, using the same model of care, by social work professionals and their colleagues. If I had studied only one team, I may have ended up with a limited understanding of the model. The governing policies, team managers and team structures are almost same with the two CMHTs, however even with these similarities I found some differences in the way the teams operated on a day to day basis.

In concluding I must say that the whole research process has been a challenge for me. Coming from a different country with a very different cultural, religious and economic back ground and with no prior experience of research in this kind of an environment, the only strengths I had to overcome all these issues were my ambition and determination. In reaching my target I satisfactorily faced most of these challenges and obstacles and managed to complete the data collection process almost on time, with an enormous amount of data in hand to subsequently proceed into the data analysis process.

In the next two chapters I present my findings from the research. In chapter 5, I will discuss the emerging key themes and sub themes related to the microsystem in the theoretical and conceptual framework.

138