Semi-structured Interview and Interview Questions

Using the interview questions outlined in Chapter 8, a semi-structured interview was carried out with one individual, who was recruited through word of mouth, using the means outlined within the Ethics Release checklist (see Appendix A). Smith and Osborn (2008), Smith (1999) and Smith and colleagues (2009) suggest that semi-structured

interviews are the preferred means for collecting data in IPA, due to the fact they are easily managed, and allow a rapport to be developed, giving the participants the space to think, speak and be heard (Smith et al., 2009). Crucially for this project, was the flexibility the semi-structure format provided to allow an interaction between interviewer and

interviewee (Smith et al., 2009), allowing ideas to emerge which were not previously considered, and provided unprompted information that can provide insight into the participant’s sense making (Smith et al., 2009; Smith, 2004).

Semi-structured interviews in particular allow for the clarification of answers through the use of prompts. Furthermore, the way in which the participant speaks and phrases

particular responses, whilst maintaining the freedom to elaborate, can lead to a greater understanding of the participants (Barriball & While, 1994; Smith & Osborn, 2008). A

97

strength of the semi-structured interview format is the freedom provided for the participant to be allowed to take lead and explore the way in which they create and think about their social world (Smith et al., 2009). Since the participant is the expert they can (and are encouraged to) tell their own story (Smith & Osborne, 2008).

Funnelling is a technique favoured for semi-structured interview question design, which favours beginning the interview more generally, and becoming increasingly more specific as the interview goes on. This technique can help limit the influence of preconceived notions of the research area, or where the participant might go with the interview, and allows the researcher to be naturally led by the participant (Smith & Osborne, 2008). In line with this, the funnelling technique also promotes a more organic, and less contrived interview, which also can help in creating trust and support so that the participant feels comfortable during disclosure (Smith & Osborne, 2008).

Like any methodology, there are advantages and disadvantages to conducting a semi- structured interview. On the one hand, semi-structured interviews promote greater exploration and flexibility, allowing pursuit into novel areas and thus often producing richer data (Smith & Osborne, 2008). On the other hand, semi-structured interviews are time-consuming, often taking longer than an hour (Smith & Osborne, 2008; Smith et al., 2009). Further, by sacrificing rigidity, there is a potential to lose control over the direction of the interview (Smith et al., 2009). Despite these limitations, a semi-structured interview appeared to be the more appropriate technique for this phase of the project, based on the significant pros afforded to the researcher using this format outlined within this chapter.

In summary, a semi-structured interview is the preferred means for collecting data in IPA, as it provides a structured, yet flexible platform for the participant to be heard, to tell their story, and for new ideas to emerge which may have not been previously considered by the researchers. This can lead to an in-depth exploration of the participant’s sense making, and

98

allow for the clarification of answers to fully explore the participant’s sense making of self, and experiences.

Designing Interview Questions

Smith and colleagues (2009) suggest that a guideline of six to ten questions, along with prompts, is recommended for a semi-structured interview, which will likely take between 45- 90 minutes. The researcher chose to carry out an extended semi-structured interview, in order to contribute to the existing analysis. With the agreement of the participant, the researcher used an extended interview structure, which amassed to 20 questions (although not all were used), taking approximately 1hr 30 minutes (see Appendix B, C & D for consent form, debrief form and interview questions). As previously stated, the researcher has spent time in the Officer Training Corps, and also took part in the RAF elite combat selection process for six months. Therefore, the researcher has a small but useful understanding of military culture and life. As such the researcher was in a good position to design and carry out a semi-structured interview with an ex -soldier. This has been outlined under section 4.5 and within the ethics release checklist (Appendix A).

Furthermore, as agreed upon in the ethics release checklist, the researcher was able to adapt and modify the interview questions (outlined in Appendix D), based on information found in study one (autobiographies). The structure of the interview was therefore a product of information gathered from study one, rapport building, funnelling, insight based on experiences and research into the military, and evidence-based practise as described throughout section 4.10. The interview questions’ structure was based on what the researcher believed would be the best way to break into the topic of killing in a manner which was both consistent with ethical considerations, would build trust with Jay, and allow him to elaborate or add anything which the researcher did not think to ask. As can been seen in Appendix D, the questions start broad, getting to know Jay and build some context around his experiences, before delving deeper into his sense making of combat,

99

and then finally killing in combat. A breakdown of the stages of the interview is also covered extensively in the second analysis, in order to explain Jay’s answers in light of this

schedule and structure. Within the Ethics form (Appendix E) the author of this thesis outlined how their research into the military informed the structure of the interview:

The author feels it is of paramount importance, when beginning the interview, to establish rapport by gaining a sense of trust with the interviewee. As outlined within the ethics form (appendix G), ethical release checklist (Appendix A) and interview structure (Appendix D) , killing in combat is a sensitive topic, and soldiers are often very aware of how civilians view such a taboo topic. Thus at the beginning of the interview, the author establishes credentials, explains that there is no judgement involved, that I simply want to hear about their experiences so that the author could learn more about what it was like, for them in the military. As further stated in the ethics form (appendix G):

At the beginning of the interview, the researcher will begin by ensuring that the participant fully understands the nature of the research, and is happy to continue. They will be asked if they are happy with the interview being recorded. They will be reminded of the following:

 That they can suspend or withdraw from the interview at any time  That they can withdraw their data after having participated

 That their data will remain confidential and that there will be no identifying characteristics in the research

 That they should not disclose anything confidential that might pertain to legal action be taken against them by the military or appropriate government sectors.  They do not have to discuss the details of their kills.

 The questions formed, and the structure of the interview was also based on the following (Appendix E):

 Knowledge and understanding of the military and sensitive topics- e.g. detailed knowledge about military language and culture, including humour and ways of

100 dealing with death and killing. Time talking to soldiers both in person during military training and selection, and on forums, helped inform the author on how to break the ice with soldiers, when discussing sensitive topics.

 A knowledge of personality traits, which are important to the research themes- Type A personality, are frequently found in combat roles, which help shape the way individuals talk about themselves and their social world. However, this

personality type will not be assumed preceding the interview, and thus not inform a stance taken by the author in carrying out the interview, instead it will serve as a guideline.

 Based on themes and findings explored by other research investigated in the literature -e.g. wording of questions required to extrapolate information successfully, based on previous research.

 General questions that funnel to become more specific. However questions will remain relatively generalised throughout interview, to allow both the flexibility for the interviewee to lead the discussion, as well as the augmentation of questions to remain relevant to the individual discussion. This is standard practice in qualitative data collection and often provides richer, versatile data. The flexible nature of the interview should not affect the ethical issues outlined for this research, as

explained above.

The questions were altered in a way that built on from the knowledge gained in the first study, by exploring if Jay felt the same or differently about certain topics. An example of this is how Jay talked about the warrior self, which varied in a very real, substantial way, which if not for the first analysis, may not have been asked by the researcher. Indeed study two could be said to build upon study one adding depth and meaning to not only killing in combat, but a subtle, nuanced insight into the portrayal of the warrior and protector role, which came from a mix of both of Jay’s natural dialogue in response to broader questions,

101

procedure for the interview to be carried out is included in appendix A, B and C. Throughout the process, the author always held in mind that the interviewer and interviewee are both active participants in the process, as such prompting and phrasing play a significant role in providing rich and valuable data (While & Barriball, 1993). A schedule, which can be found in appendix D was found to be useful for three reasons:

 It allows the interviewer to consider the important topics worth discussing during the interview reflect on these topics, and seek advice from supervisors, and academics consulted.

 It allows practice and planning of how to phrase particular questions, and the effect that could have on how those questions are interpreted or seen as leading. For example use or avoid the term killing?

 To make sure the questions are not seen as judgemental or biased and instead remain totally impartial.