Semi-structured in-depth interviews

Why semi-structured interviews?

I chose semi-structured in-depth interviewing as the only means of data collection. For various reasons, I did not employ triangulation of data (Denzin, 1989), where information is gained from more than one source, in order to cross reference findings. Although triangulation of data can add to the depth, breadth and validity of a research project, as Atkinson and Coffey (2002) point out,

triangulation can also disingenuously hold out the promise of greater scientific validation in the positivist tradition, a scientific validity that can never be truly achieved with qualitative research methods, triangulated or not.

I did not choose to employ focus groups (Bloor et al., 2000) because I considered that sex offenders would find my research topic too difficult to talk about in a group setting, and any emotional distress caused through revelations in a group would be more difficult to manage than in a one-to-one interview setting. I also considered that it would be too daunting for probation officers to discuss vagaries of practice, possibly revealing personal and organisational shortcomings, in front of colleagues and peers. I did consider participant observation, but felt that sitting in or recording interviews between probation officers and sex offenders would be too intrusive, given the extremely sensitive nature of the topic. There was also a strong likelihood that both probation officers and sex offenders would be very conscious of a researcher sitting in on sessions. This self consciousness might cause both sets of respondents to act differently from usual, resulting in high degrees of impression management (Goffman, 1974). Although impression management also occurs in one-to-one interviews, there is arguably more scope in an interview for putting the respondent at ease and dissipating self- consciousness when there is no third party audience present.

I also considered documentary analysis (McCulloch, 2004), researching probation files on sex offenders. However, I suspected that overcoming

confidentiality protocols would be prohibitive, given the extreme sensitivity and emotiveness surrounding the subject. I was also not confident, having compiled records on offenders when I worked as a probation officer, that written records would provide me with the depth of insight into the relational processes in which I was interested. Probation Officer 5 confirmed this reservation in one of the research interviews.

Well, it’s about quantifying what we’ve done. It’s about quantifying what we know, and where we got information. It’s about covering bums mostly.

That’s how it feels to me. It’s bureaucracy. We’re so busy filling in computer screens, we haven’t got time to do what we came here to do (Probation Officer 5).

There has been criticism of the use of interviews for research purposes. Murphy et al.’s (1998) radical critique of research interviews calls into question the validity of this research method. This radical critique is not so much concerned with traditional practical and methodological limitations of interviews, but with more profound questions, as in the ‘relativist position’ outlined above, about whether there is any stable truth to be discovered beyond the interview itself. It has also been argued, from the ‘relativist’ position, that an ‘interview society’ has developed in the Western world, which is obsessed with uncovering personal realities behind public facades, a trend informed by a romantic belief that interviews can capture genuine voices uttering authentic truth (Atkinson and Silverman, 1997). The view of the individual as having psychological depths to be explored, beneath the social surface, is generally rejected by proponents of the

‘relativist’ position, arguing that no data concerning psychological depth or

societal breadth can be gleaned beyond what is socially co-constructed within the confines of a given interaction or social occasion, in this case the social event of the interview itself.

However, Hammersley and Gomm (2005) reject this radical ‘relativist’ position.

They accept that this radical position has encouraged interviewers to reflect on the problematic nature of interviews and to engage in increased methodological caution. However, they maintain that interviews can be a useful source of information, as people do have distinct experiences to which they have unique access, access which can be captured to some extent through the type of interview format used in this research. Hammersley and Gomm (2005. p.6) argue that not to entertain such a useful means of generating research data “distorts the character of social research,” threatening important sources of research material.

The interview schedule

Before conducting the interviews, it was necessary to compile semi-structured interview schedules for both sex offenders and probation officers (see Appendix 6 and 7). Gray (2004, p. 189) states that, “questionnaires reflect the designer’s view of the world”, which can also be said of interview schedules, a generally less structured form of questionnaire. However, Gray points out that a semi­

structured format, as opposed to a structured format, allows for the interview to be more participant- led.

As outlined in Chapter 1, I had a general list of issues I wanted to cover, stimulated by my own experience of working with sex offenders, my time working as a probation officer, and the literature pertaining to these subjects. I built upon this knowledge by roughly following a process for compiling interview schedules suggested by Maykut and Morehouse (1994), including developing the focus of the inquiry, brainstorming and refining categories of inquiry, then deciding on a format. From this process, I developed the interview schedules.

One of the main aims of this study is to explore whether strengths-based approaches are relevant to probation officers supervising sex offenders.

However, I was careful not to include any questions in the interview schedule specifically related to strengths-based approaches, as I wanted to avoid any leading questions about this topic. Rather, I wanted to see if relevant data pertaining to strengths-based approaches would naturally emerge from the probation officers’ and sexual offenders’ accounts.

The counselling-stvle interview

Although I used a pre-prepared semi-structured interview schedule, I utilised the in-depth counselling-style interview (Coyle, 1997). This technique is particularly suited to containing any emotional distress arising from researching such a sensitive area as sex offending, as it tends to follow the agenda of the interviewee, not forcing any disclosures which the interviewee is not psychologically ready to make. Having said this, many of the interviewing techniques of this approach would by used by qualitative research interviewers,

who would not consider their interviewing techniques to constitute a distinct

‘counselling style.’

In using the ‘counselling style’ interview, I also naturally adopted my usual solution-focused approach to interviewing. This approach is characterised by the interviewer adopting a tentative style, making use of Socratic-like questioning.

The approach also includes adopting what Cantwell and Holmes (1995) describe as the ‘one-down position’, a practitioner gently encouraging a person to reflect on matters, but leading from one step behind in the therapeutic conversation.

The phrase also attempts to capture the sense of the practitioner displaying respectful curiosity, rather than assuming the role of expert in all matters.

O’Connell (1998, pp. 101-102) comments that “the one down position can help reduce the chance of unintentional oppressive practice, which is always potentially present”, due to differences in “age, gender, race, class, beliefs, sexual preferences and disability.” The same can obviously be said with regard to the relationship between researcher and research participant.

Conducting a ‘counselling style interview’ involves: building rapport, active listening (i.e. using empathy, prompts, clarification), asking open questions, probing sensitive issues, managing the interview process (i.e. refocusing the interviewee, time keeping, opening and closing the interview). In addition to Coyle’s (1997) recommended use of such skills, the use of these skills in research interviews is also discussed by Gray (2004, pp. 221-237) The types of questions I used in the interviews corresponded to Patton’s (1990) question

typology for qualitative research: experience and behaviour based questions, opinion and value based questions, feeling and sensory based questions, knowledge based questions, and background/demographic questions. Maykut and Morehouse (2004) state that “the primary consideration for qualitative research is that questions be open ended, inviting the interviewee to participate in the conversation” (p.88). I endeavoured to ask open ended questions, generally beginning with “how”, “what”, and “why” (see Appendix 6 and 7), in contrast to closed questions which could be answered easily by one word, or short answers. I augmented these open questions with prompts and clarifications. I also followed Patton’s (1990) recommendation of putting non- controversial questions at the beginning of the schedule, saving potentially more difficult questions for later, when rapport had hopefully been established.

At the beginning of the interview process, each interview provided me with data which stimulated new questions or alterations of existing questions. However, by the time I had completed around 8 interviews, this process had stabilised.

Thereafter, I used the same interview schedules for both groups of respondents.

As is the nature of qualitative research and in-depth interviewing, the use of the interview schedule changed in some respects from interview to interview (Moustakas, 1994). Gray’s (2004, pp. 215-217) description, with regard to the process of semi-structured interviewing, is largely consistent with my experience.

I used most of the questions on the interview schedule with each candidate, but sometimes asking a question was unnecessary, when a candidate pre-empted it with a given answer. The order of questions sometimes changed, depending on

the direction the interview took. As new issues arose, additional questions, which were not anticipated at the start of the interview but were considered relevant, were also asked. As Gray states, “the semi-structured interview allows for probing of views and opinions where it is desirable for respondents to expand on answers” (p. 217). Such flexibility in following the interviewee’s developing narratives in qualitative research interviewing would seem essential, as the researcher cannot always predict the questions which will facilitate the disclosure of relevant data from any given individual.

I am very familiar with conducting interviews in my work life. Holland (2004) discusses the similarities between research interviews and assessment interviews, with both types of interviews being concerned with obtaining and interpreting information. However, there are differences. Whilst discussing various similarities between clinical interviews and qualitative research interviews in the field of social work, Scourfield (2001) makes the point that, unlike most clinicians, researchers are not required to make overt judgments about the worth and validity of information gained in order to make assessments, but to ostensibly understand the information provided. I found that, when interviewing sex offenders, I was in fact making judgments all the time about the validity of what they were saying, and could not simplistically turn off my routine professional habit of appraising, for instance, to what extent an offender was displaying denial, minimisation, and distorted thinking, constructed categories of risk typically employed with sex offenders (see Chapter 3). However, to the best

of my ability, when collecting and analysing the data, I attempted to bracket such clinical assessments, restricting myself to understanding and contextualising the narrative accounts of the respondents. A further difference between a research interview and a clinical one is that, as a researcher, it was not my role to provide therapy or to open up sensitive areas which might cause the interviewee distress, issues I comment upon in the section below, dealing with reflective practice.

Sample interviews

As recommended by May (1993), I conducted sample interviews with 3 therapists known to me who work with sex offenders. This provided the opportunity to test the sequencing of questions, and to test whether the questions were unclear or too complex. Finding sex offenders to take part in sample interviews was not feasible, due to the difficulty of contacting such a marginal group. The three therapists had different roles from the probation officers interviewed in the research study, but there was enough cross-over in terms of them being practitioners working with sex offenders, to ask many of the same questions that I wanted to ask probation officers. Using therapists I knew also had the advantage of not having to go through time consuming protocols involved in obtaining the permission of the Probation Service to interview probation officers.

Moreover, I was concerned about using up the scarce resource of probation officers willing to be interviewed on sample interviews.

Recording the interviews

I informed the respondents before interviewing them, in the introductory letter and then again in the consent form (See Appendix 4 and 5), that I would be making an audio recording of the research interviews. In the interviews, I could discern no obvious signs that respondents were significantly affected by being recorded. However, Flick (1998) points out that there can be an assumption that interviewees will forget they are being recorded, but this cannot necessarily be assumed. Aveline (1997) also comments that it is not possible to know the material being missed because of the presence of a tape recorder.