Semi-structured interviews 65

The second stage of my data collection strategy consisted of nine semi-

structured interviews. I selected ten students to interview – all having had their placements in the same acute Trust – of which, nine, agreed to be interviewed. Interviewing can be regarded as a craft, requiring skills, training and personal judgment, which can only be learned through practice, as there are no set rules (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). The purpose of the interviews was to try to understand the experiences’ of the students from their point of view and to explore the meaning for them of these experiences. Interviews are, and always have been, one of the main methods of data collection in qualitative research and are a ‘conversation with a purpose’ (Webb and Webb 1932:130),

Hermanowicz (2002) goes on to describe them as an intimate exchange, in which the interviewee reveals their thoughts and experiences, whilst possibly at the same time, discovering things about themselves. It has to be remembered, however, that although there may be a desire for empathy and equality, the partners are not equal, and the researcher defines and controls the interview (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). Also, as we live in an interview society (Silverman

2000) and people are very familiar with the interview format, researchers may not realize just how difficult they are to do well. For me, a particular challenge was to avoid slipping into a therapeutic interview, which aims to change the emotional personal reactions of the participants, particularly when the students discussed events that they had found distressing (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009).

Interviews as a data collection method are congruent with narrative inquiry, but as Mishler (1986) points out, whilst stories are common in everyday

conversation, interviews can suppress them, for example, when the interviewer interrupts that narrative. Elliott (2005) suggests that to avoid this, the

interviewer needs to ask the right open-ended questions in everyday language, that are broad and then the interviewer needs to really listen to the answers, without interruption. The specific wording of interview questions is less important than emotional attentiveness and the level of reciprocity offered (Riessman 2008). It is also better to have repeated conversations, rather than just one interview (Riessman 2008). Furthermore, according to Holstein and Gubrium (1995), unlike in traditional interviews where the interviewees are regarded as passive, there is a need to stimulate the interviewee’s interpretive capacities. The goal is to create detailed accounts, through a conversation, but to allow for this possibility, the investigator must give up control and although this can lead to anxiety, on the part of the researcher, it will also lead to greater equality (Riessman 2008). They should be structured to allow the participants an opportunity to tell their stories according to Kvale and Brinkmann (2009), as interview knowledge is socially constructed and actively created through

interviewee. As the knowledge is contextual and has a temporal dimension, it will not be automatically transferable; hopefully, though, inferences can be made from it, regarding its applicability to other settings (Kvale and Brinkman 2009). Again these aspects of interviewing sit well with narrative inquiry. As these were in-depth interviews they comprised a mixture of structure and

flexibility; although I encouraged the participants to tell their stories, I guided the interviews to ensure that I did elicit the information I was hoping to analyze. My topic guide (see Appendix 3) offered me a reminder of the key objectives of my research; it allowed for a degree of comparability; and was a starting point for my analysis (Ritchie et al 2003). Although narrative methodology begins with no preconceived questions and no particular theory to orientate questions – there is a topic, but the focus is on the participant’s story, this avoids asking the ‘wrong questions’, based on erroneous assumptions. This coupled with a high level of reflexivity, helps to produce research that is more useful, rather than creating grand narratives (Carson and Fairbourn 2002).

A mixture of types of questions, were used, starting with very general ‘what’ questions and then moving on to more probing ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Ritchie and Lewis 2003). As these were narrative interviews, I did try not to impose temporal categories, but rather allow the participants to determine the sequence of events. I tried to use questions that elicit stories such as ‘tell me what happened’ ‘and then what happened’ (Riessman 2008). Furthermore, as I was hoping to develop solutions and to help improve other students’

experiences in placement, I tried to encourage new ideas and explanations from the participants, in the spirit of appreciative inquiry (Kowalski 2008).

The interviews lasted between forty-five minutes and an hour and a half. They took place in my office at the university and I used Quick Time computer

software on my MacBook Pro to record them. Technically this worked well and I managed to obtain nine high quality recordings, which was a relief.

There is a real skill to be being to good interviewer and a good interviewee, so we were learning together and the students often made comments such as ‘am I giving you the information you need’ (Berg 2003). The audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) claim that the interviewer can be seen as either a miner, concerned with knowledge collection, or a traveller, concerned with knowledge construction. I was definitely striving to be a traveller and through asking questions I hoped that new knowledge might emerge through analysis and interpretation, or that a new understanding of taken-for-granted ideas and values might be reached (Thorne 2008).

According to Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) there are particular ethical issues associated with interviews. They rely on the interviewer’s ability to create the opportunity for the participants to talk freely of private events, recorded for later public use. Therefore, there needs to be a balance between the interviewer’s desire for interesting knowledge, with the need to respect the integrity of each interviewee.

3.13  Data  analysis    

The data from the diaries and the interviews was thematically analyzed.

Thematic analysis in narrative inquiry is concerned with ‘what’ is said, or written, with a view to uncovering and categorizing experiences thematically (Riessman 2008). The data is then interpreted in the light of the themes developed by the researcher, which have been influenced by prior and emergent theory, and the purpose of study (Riessman 2008). According to Polkinghorne (1995) narrative analysis can be used to tie together individual experiences, in order to create a context for understanding meaning. Overcash (2004) asserts that nurses are skilled at interpreting the voice of the patient and so the analysis of narrative inquiry relies on skills intrinsic to nursing, which was very reassuring for me. The data resulting from the diaries and the interviews, although rich and voluminous was not systematically organized. It was, therefore, necessary to find a means of sorting the data, identifying themes, coding the data, and then looking for patterns of association, or explanations. Ultimately, it was hoped that some general inferences could be made from the data (Ritchie and Spencer 1994). The data was analyzed using Framework, a data analysis process developed by the national Centre for Social Research (Ritchie and Spencer 1994), designed specifically for qualitative applied research projects. This Framework comprises six stages: