Research Interviews and Observation

Location of Interviews

Historically, attendance has cited as a practical issue within learning disability research. Many participants are dependent on others for transportation which results in

participants not being able to attend sessions due to lack of transportation (Gates and Waight, 2007). There were further confounding issues surrounding participants’ ability to arrive at the research location on time due to their disability, such as poor

timekeeping skills (Gates and Waight, 2007). To limit these issues the interviews took place at the location of their choice. Interviews took place in a private room in the participant’s home other than one first interview with Provider 1 which took place in a local office. For health and safety reasons I was not alone with participants for any of the pre-meetings. All participants except two (Kerry and Dean) lived in group

environments where there were always staff present in the buildings. A staff member met with Kerry, Dean and I for our initial meeting but I then met them both together in Kerry’s flat. I was unable to meet Dean alone and I was advised by the Manager that their risk management plan advised against me seeing him alone. It was unclear why this was. I was informed that it was fine to visit Dean while he was with Kerry and he was no risk to Kerry.

Provider 1

79

this group interviewed on two occasions with the exception of one participant whose contact was lost after the first interview and another who did not attend as planned. No staff members were present for the interviews. This support was offered but the

participants declined. It was initially offered to help participants feel more comfortable in interviews or to assist in helping participants to understand a question. No participant in this group felt the need to have staff present in the interview, believing they could cope without staff assistance. One couple stated that they would not have liked staff present as it would have been embarrassing to discuss such personal issues in front of them.

Staff presence in the interviews could have had a positive effect for the reasons outlined above. However, I felt that staff presence could have had a more detrimental effect. It could have affected the topics participants felt comfortable discussing or were willing to discuss, such as the influence of paid staff on their relationships or others with whom staff have relationships such as families or housemates. Four couples were interviewed in this group and interviewing two individuals had benefits while also posing some challenges. It was beneficial as it allowed me to observe how the couples interacted within the interviews, including communication, affection and how they dealt with discussing sensitive issues or conflict. This contributed to my understanding their relationships in conjunction with their narratives obtained in the interviews. Some participants could have dominated the interview as they were able to talk at length and their partners required prompting to be included fully within the interview. Therefore, there was a need for skilled facilitation within the interview process to ensure both parties contributed equally.

Provider 2

Interviews in this group were shorter due to the needs of the participants and interviews lasted between 45 minutes to one hour. Based on my observations from pre-interviews, participants in this group had lower verbal and comprehension abilities and appeared to have shorter concentration spans. Both participants in this group were interviewed on three occasions.

A key worker was present during one of the interviews with a female participant (the male participant declined this support). This was during the second interview as I had found the initial interview challenging in terms of ensuring that the participant

understood my questions so I wanted the staff present to ensure my participant understood the questions: she could be available to re-phrase any questions. The female participant was asked if she was happy for her key worker to be present, to which she agreed. I did not invite the staff member to subsequent interviews as I felt

80

her presence was not conducive to the interview process due to the way she

interrupted and posed unnecessary questions to the participant. One participant had a severe stammer which required a modified interview style with a more patient approach that allowed the individual sufficient time to respond alongside writing detailed notes in case the audio recording was unclear.

Reflective diary

A diary was kept throughout the research interview process. This was to record close observations and other reflections. I allowed myself time before following interviews to capture these and note similarities with other participants’ stories; common elements; the main themes of the interview; what the most important thing was that I heard or felt in the interview and how what I heard about participants in the interview related to what I already knew about them. All these items were written about as soon as possible so they were fresh in my mind and not confused between different participants. I also recorded any physical sensations I felt at the time and any observations that I saw in the interviews, such as physically feeling anxious or tearful when hearing stories of abuse and rejection experienced by some participants. Van Manen’s (1990)

methodology placed significant emphasis on the importance of the researcher within the research and how their own understandings and experience guides their

interpretations, and therefore it was important to record my own thoughts and feelings in the reflective dairy as they would be important when conducting my analysis. This is explained in more detail in Section 3.8.

Close Observation

A modified version of ‘close observation’ (Van Manen, 1990) was utilised to supplement interviews by collecting additional experiential data relevant to the phenomenon and to add depth to participants’ stories. Van Manen (1990) advocated this could be achieved via engagement with the participants’ ‘life world’. Van Manen’s ‘close observation’ was modified for my research in regards to the level of engagement with participants’ ‘life world’. My engagement levels were lower than those employed by Van Manen. I spent an average of ten minutes in participants’ homes pre/ post interviews. During this time I was typically sat waiting for participants to begin the interview, sometimes speaking with them and their staff (not regarding the interview topic) or observing what was happening around me. I used this time to gain a more holistic view of participants, understanding where and how they lived, how participants interacted with others (including their housemates and staff) and their environment. This contributed to a deeper understanding of an individual or couple. Additional information staff disclosed in arranging the interviews, either by telephone or email, was included as data. All

81

information was noted in my reflective diary as soon as possible after the interaction or interview had taken place.

Staff members or housemates were not asked to provide individual consent to being observed as my contact with them was minimal and no individual, other than the participants, was discussed in the findings. The focus of the observations was to witness how participants interacted with others such as their partner, housemates, staff and their environment. Consent to this was implied and covered within the agreement provided by the provider organizations to allow access and for them to act as

gatekeepers. With the exception of one staff member being present in one interview (merely to assist me if I felt the participant did not understand my question), staff were not included in interviews. Staff were not asked to provide any ‘pre-interview’

information. Staff input related purely to observational elements, which included my observations when I met them during my visits to the properties or what they disclosed to me during our interactions together either when I was arranging interviews or visiting the house to interview participants. What they shared and how they interacted with participants assisted me in understanding the relationship they had and attitudes they held regarding the participants. Staff were not interviewed as their views were not relevant to the study aims. Figure 2 depicts how the different data collection sources interacted and contributed to the overall process of data collection.

82

Figure 2: Data Collection

In document Experience of Partner Selection and Relationships for People with Learning Disabilities (Page 86-90)