Semi-structured Interviews

Kvale (1996) referred to the research interview as an interpersonal conversation between two partners about a theme of mutual interest, primarily the participants‟ workshop experiences (Devlin and Gray 2007). Baker (1997) and Silverman (2004) concentrate on the process of the interview, reinforcing the need to develop a rapport. Naturally for the interview to be an effective research tool, the participants have to speak openly and authentically. I was aware that the principles underpinning the ERS were equally pertinent to the interviewer-interviewee relationship. Baker perceives the interview as an investigation of interiors, the respondents‟ “state of mind” and as I see it, their “internal context”. The asking of pertinent questions is a central part of the data collection, they are not neutral invitations as they shape how

75

the respondent should speak and Silverman (2004, p162) captures the essence of the whole interview process in the following statement; ―from thought through

language to themes‖.35

5.13.1 Limitations of interviews and the associated analysis

Reflecting the interpretive phenomenological approach it is integral to the research process that the analysis of the generated data should accommodate the same underpinnings. Interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) involves the researcher making sense of the participants‟ experiences, through their own personal lens. Therefore, not unlike CAR, it can be criticised on the grounds of researcher bias (Smith & Osborne, 2008). Pringle et al (2011) point out that adopting a deep interpretation of the participants' contributions could be seen to be pulling away from the initial meaning, yet Smith et al (2009) encourage researchers to move beyond the immediacy of the apparent content. This reinforces the importance of rigour associated with validity and authenticity.

The actions associated with promoting validity and authenticity within CAR and the workshop programme were equally pertinent to IPA. The same ethical stance was taken and the importance of confidentiality was maintained, with understanding evidenced through signed consent letters. Similarly to the workshop programme, the role of reflection was integral and authenticating their contributions at the time of the interviews was facilitated through paraphrasing and summarising. Afterwards the findings from two of the six interviews were returned to the participants to enable authentication of the extrapolated data (Smith & Osborn 2008).

Having already identified issues pertaining to bracketing, my previous experiences as the researcher did have a bearing upon the analysis, yet I was still open to the perceptions and meanings of the participants‟ contributions. As Smith et al (2009) remind the researcher, IPA is about the identification of key themes anchored in the direct quotes from the participants‟ narratives. Within these, rich quotes and creative metaphors can enhance the analysis; these can become titled themes rooting the findings in their own words. And as Brocki & Wearden (2006, p89) comment “IPA

should go beyond a standard thematic analysis‖.

35 _{The practical application of the semi-structured interview approach is developed within the research} design chapter.

76

5.14 Summary

Action research is grounded in social interactions (Lewin 1946) and these are created through collaborative and democratic approaches, achieved though equitable dialectical relationships. Utilising the “second person approach” I have decided upon a CAR and have recognised its emancipatory potential. The creation of an ERS enabling the values and principles underpinning the ISS to be established was integral to the study, promoting collaboration and cooperation between the research participants and myself. The key elements of reflection and reflexivity permeated the research study being facilitated through individual and collective reflective engagement, grounded within the internal context and its interconnectedness with the other identified contexts.

The emancipatory nature of the study empowered the participants to be open and assertive with one another, based upon a foundation of mutual respect. There was a duality to this empowerment, as it played an integral role in relation to the research process and was a key outcome as well. This was achieved by actively listening to the voices of the participants, encouraging them to share their lived experiences, not only in relation to incivility but their actual experiences of participating in the research project.

It was the participants‟ lived experience of their time in the workshops that I wanted to capture, especially having carefully worked to make them ERS. Interpretive phenomenology was the chosen method and offered up the opportunity of looking beyond their “illusionary realities”, bound by the notion of “situated freedom”. I have developed a discourse around the importance of the internal context and how this related to the notion of Habermasian lifeworld. A rationale for the adoption of IPA as a complementary approach to CAR was also provided. Both approaches are complementary and this triangulated approach adds rigour to the research design and as Cohen and Manion (2000, p254) say "attempt to map out, or explain more

fully, the richness and complexity of human behavior by studying it from more than one standpoint." The chapter which follows will elaborate more specifically upon this,

presenting the design for the workshop programme, leading to the semi-structured interviews.

77

6. RESEARCH DESIGN

6.1 Introduction

This chapter explains how the methodological underpinnings and method were applied in a practical way. It identifies the recruitment process, where the ethical issues were articulated, focussing upon potential power differentials, especially in relation to student assessment. The structure and delivery of the workshop programme and interviews are discussed and a rationale is given for the use of hybrid data analysis and reflective frameworks to engage with the generated data.

6.2 Sample

The target “population” were nursing students and lecturers taken from the pre- registration nursing population at a local University (Parahoo 2006). The programme of nursing is “recognised by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) as meeting the requirements of the Standards of Competency for Pre-registration Nursing Education (2010), thus enabling registration with the NMC following successful completion”. The course is structured around a 50-50 split between academic and professional practice. The specific fields of nursing include adult, mental health, learning disability and children.36

6.2.1 Recruitment of lecturers

The portal of entry was through local pre-registration “communication meetings”. I facilitated these meetings which involved the sharing of good practice and here the intentions of the study were presented, requesting volunteers. These lecturers teach regularly on the pre-registration/undergraduate nursing curriculum, in large lecture theatres, smaller classrooms and group seminars. At this early stage the collaborative nature of the study and the underpinning foundation of confidentiality and anonymity were reinforced.

This form of purposive sampling was a pragmatic approach; I needed to involve lecturers in the project and coordinating the communication meetings, offered up the opportunity of targeting potential participants. Denscombe (2007) simply says that a

36 _{It had been my intention to obtain a representative sample from across all the fields for both groups. I} attained this for the lecturer group, initially recruiting eleven lecturers (see later). As for the students, despite targeting all fields, there were no representatives from adult nursing in the first student workshop of eight participants.

78

purposive sample is appropriate for qualitative research when participants are selected for their specific characteristics (Coyne 1997). The homogenous nature of the sample reflects the fact that the focus of my research would be meaningful to this group of lecturers (Smith et al 2009) and it was a convenient representative sample (Barbour 2001). The response from the lecturers was a positive one and eleven participants were recruited37_.

6.2.2 Recruitment of students

Students were approached via their respective guidance tutors (GTs). These tutors are responsible for guidance and pastoral support, maintaining this role for the whole duration of their three year course. Having gained permission from the GTs emails were sent to fourteen student cohorts from the representative fields (first and second years)38_.

The initial recruitment was problematic, as there was a very disappointing response to the initial email, with only one volunteer39_{. Consequently I approached individual}

group tutors, informing them in more detail about the project, asking them to:  Share this information with their students

 And/or I would meet with the student group, giving a short presentation, leaving my contact details.

This twofold approach increased the number of students willing to participate and eight volunteers attended the first workshop. Of the eight, three were mental health, three learning disability and the remaining two were from the child field. There were no representatives from the adult branch, despite volunteers coming forward. It was difficult to determine a reason for this, especially as the adult intakes are three times greater than the others.

37 _{Of the eleven, there were four each from the fields of mental health and adult nursing respectively. Of} the remaining three, two were from child and one from learning disability. It is important to make it clear that I did not set out to make direct comparisons of the different fields of nursing, unless this was made explicit in their contributions.

38 _{The rationale for not including third years reflected the fact that they would have left the university} once the whole programme had been rolled out. Studying the respective timetables of these groups, workshop dates were planned when the students were in university having returned from practice. 39 _{Upon reflection sending these out over the Christmas holiday period was probably not a sensible time} and a technical problem with the email system exacerbated the issue. So of the fourteen cohorts (each cohort had approx twenty to twenty-five students) there was an undeterminable number of students who may never have received the actual invitation.

79

Having used convenience sampling (Coyne 1997; Denscombe 2007) which recognised the homogeneity of lecturers and students as individual groups, I had to acknowledge the heterogeneous element and the workshop programme had been structured to accommodate these differences. Involving five workshops, the first grounded the participants in their respective homogenous groups and second were shaped and informed by the feedback from the heterogonous workshops. In practical terms the students‟ contributions were being fed into the lecturers‟ workshops and this was accordingly reciprocated by the lecturers. The final joint workshop brought the two groups together, where the ongoing promotion of ERS and the agreement of ground rules endeavoured to minimise the heterogenic effect. Here they became a collaborative homogenous group, unique to the study. It had not been my intention of making comparisons between fields of nursing or the differing genders. The age of the participants was not recorded and experience of teaching (in years) came through in the discussions. My main objective had been to bring the two groups together and capture what emerged from this process.