Aim of the FSDI Study
The aim of this study was to design and conduct a series of at least 30 Functional Self-‐ Discrimination Interviews (FSDI) and analyse which aspects of the interview yielded transcript/data suited to analysis using the Functional Self-‐Discrimination Measure (FSDM). The specific research questions being tested were as follows:
• For the interviewer: Which questions yield rich and accurate data for analysis
with the FSDM; What does the interviewee say that appears to lead to different types of questions in the interview?
• For the interviewer: Are the capabilities of Listening (questions & reflection),
Collaboration & Engagement, and Empathy effective processes for conducting an FSDI?
• For the interviewee and to further validate the FSDM: To what extent do
different forms of self-‐discrimination and rule-‐following influence wellbeing and the ability to behave effectively in important situations as indicated by statements made by the interviewee in the interview?
Method
To assess what constitutes an effective FSDI and further validate the FSDM as a
functional assessment of self-‐discrimination predicting wellbeing, I conducted a set of interviews then coded the interview transcripts using the FSDM. I then correlated code frequencies with a set of subjective measures as was done in the previous two studies discussed in Chapters 3 & 4. I also conducted a subjective analysis of the type of interview questions that yield statements suited to an analysis using the FSDM. Further, to evaluate my capabilities as an interviewer I had an independent MI qualified coder code a random subset of the interview transcripts for proficiency in Listening, Collaboration & Engagement, and Empathy. I present this work below in four sections. First, in this section I discuss information about the interviews, subjective measures and analytical software. In the Coding and Qualitative Analysis section I provide a subjective and thematic analysis of the FSDI interview technique
with examples and explanations of questions asked and the resulting interviewee responses. In the Quantitative Analysis section I provide the results from the FSDM and MI capability analyses. I conclude the chapter with a brief Discussion section.
Interviews
Ten volunteers were interviewed either three or four times, depending on their availability, resulting in a total of 37 interview transcripts. Participants were university academics also undertaking PhD studies or professionals working at a university, in the public sector or privately. All had achieved a tertiary qualification. There were an equal number of five males and females. Seven of the ten participants had been formally trained in mindfulness (Table 5.1 below).
Men Women Age M (SD) Mindfulness training Academics 1 3 40.8 (5.4) 4 Professionals 4 2 46.5 (11.8) 3
Table 5.1: Demographic characteristics of the interviewees (n=10).
The 37 interviews were recorded and transcribed. Each interview was approximately 60 minutes in duration and for each interviewee, interviews were conducted 3-‐5 days apart. The interviews were in two parts taking approximately 45 minutes for the FSDI, followed by 15 minutes of shared reflection on the interview itself.
The FSDI part of the interview involved inviting the interviewee to speak openly about a pattern of incidents that had been positively or negatively emotionally charged and may have left them feeling conflicted, confused or surprised about their response. The series of three or four interviews were designed to give interviewees an opportunity to talk about a range of both positive and negative incidents. Specific topics included foci on when the interviewee: felt most alive; felt a sense of
conviction; felt conflicted; experienced a major failure; or, made their toughest decision. Questions probed for related events that made up the context in which the
incident occurred; the meaning behind their chosen response; the consequences of taking a particular response; and, how the interviewee evaluated themselves and the situation both retrospectively and prospectively. Refer to the Appendix 1: Functional Self-‐Discrimination Interview Protocol for details of the interview structure.
Following the formal FSDI part of each interview, both interviewee and I, as the interviewer, together reflected on the experience of being interviewed. Participants were asked if and when they felt listened too, understood and which questions and responses from me during the interview were the most effective. After the FSDI and reflection was over I took a memo to capture the key points from the reflection.
The resulting interviews were transcribed and analysed for both interviewee and interviewer performance. The interviewee statements were analysed for self-‐ discrimination statements as had been done in the previous two studies using the FSDM with the inclusion of two additional codes (discussed below) that captured stated values or aversive emotions. My interview questions and statements were analysed to see which types tended to produce more code-‐able transcript using the FSDM. To evaluate the quality of my Listening, Collaboration & Engagement, and Empathy as an interviewer, a subset of the interview transcripts were independently coded using the Motivational Interviewing Integrity Measure (Moyers et al. 2014; Moyers et al. 2010). Denise Ernst, one of the authors of the Motivational Interviewing Integrity Measure, conducted this evaluation.
Subjective Measures
In addition to conducting the FSDI interviews, sets of subjective measures were taken as was done in the previous studies. Within one week prior to the interviews
commencing, a measure of psychological flexibility, Acceptance and Action
Questionnaire – II (Bond et al. 2011), was administered. This was used as a means to further validated the FSDM, in particular the FLEX measure, as a measure of
psychological flexibility. To test if the FSDM predicted wellbeing, the same set of hedonic and eudemonic wellbeing measures administered in the previous two studies were administered six months after the interviews. Hedonic wellbeing was
measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (Watson et al. 1988) and psychological distress symptoms were measured using the Depression, Anxiety, Stress scale (Antony et al. 1998). Eudemonic forms of wellbeing were measured using two scales, the Psychological Well-‐Being Scale (Ryff & Keyes 1995) and the
Satisfaction with Life scale (Diener et al. 1985). Details of these measures are discussed in Chapter 3.
The subjective measures were correlated with the frequency of FSDM codes. Then a series of regression analyses were conducted to assess how well measures of self-‐ discrimination predicted hedonic (affective) and eudemonic (meaning and
satisfaction in life) wellbeing.
Analytical Software
I coded the interview transcripts using the software NVivo published by QSR International. SPSS was used for the correlation and regression analyses of code frequencies with the set of subjective measures taken.