Semi-structured Interviews

Bauman et al. (2013) stated that policy makers rarely interact with young people who are affected by policy design and implementation. Data collected in qualitative research can go some way to ensuring that the voices of participants are heard; in turn, this can inform policy makers of the experiences of young people and accordingly may influence policy creation and development, which is needed in the age group and context considered in this thesis.

As a qualitative method of data collection, the use of interviews allowed participants to provide details of their experiences of cyberbullying. Participants were able to provide details of their lived experiences of cyberbullying, as per the phenomenological framework of this study. These details would not have been easily obtained using questionnaires. Kowalski et al. (2008) recognised that questionnaires are not sufficient to ‘capture the emotional impact’ (p.xii) of cyberbullying. Semi-structured interviews were used because of the flexibility in allowing the interviewer to probe for further information, and to be able to add or modify questions as the interview progresses, while maintaining some consistency (Bell, 2010; Dawson, 2009). Dillman (1999) suggested that interviews give more of an opportunity to see participants as humans rather than data/subjects, placing more value on their experience and knowledge.

It was important to appreciate that the willingness of cybervictims or cyberbullies to discuss their experiences in an interview may be low considering the sensitive nature of this research. Those who experienced cyberbullying may not want to discuss their experiences at all because of the fear or embarrassment associated with exposing their status. For others, though, such an approach may have

137

provided the opportunity to discuss such sensitive issues, thus allowing for their voices to be heard.

An interview schedule was used to facilitate the collection of data, but the questions were asked in a different order where appropriate and additional questions introduced where needed as the interviews progressed. Despite taking more time to collect and analyse the data from each participant, interviews allow more of a natural conversation to take place, allowing new information to arise, and for new questions to be asked (Dawson, 2009). The questions chosen in the interview schedule sought to explicate the lived experiences of the participants’ interactions with cyberbullying and were intended to inform the research questions and help to understand cyberbullying in greater depth. A copy of the interview schedule can be seen in Appendix D.

The interview was not piloted; instead, a copy of the consent form and interview schedule was given to two psychology teachers at my place of work. They commented that the questions were appropriate for the purpose of learning about experiences of cyberbullying, further stating that the consent form contained all the information needed for this purpose.

Procedure

Following the data collection period of the questionnaire, colleges were contacted again at the start of April 2014 with a request to forward an email asking anyone who had experienced cyberbullying as a victim or bully to email me directly if they wanted to be interviewed about their experiences. A follow-up email was sent in mid-April in an effort to increase participation rates (Appendix F).

138

A total of six students responded to the email requests to invite them to be interviewed about their experiences of cyberbullying. Each of the six respondents came from different colleges in England. All those who came forward were victims of cyberbullying; no emails were received from students who had engaged in cyberbullying others. Each transcript was written up as an individual case study using a descriptive phenomenological process.

Participants that emailed the researcher to take part in the research were sent a consent form by email to read, sign and send back. The consent form contained details of the researcher and their supervisor, the interview procedure, the benefits and risks of participating, details of confidentiality and anonymity, the right to withdraw, and what will happen to the findings (Appendix C). Once I had received the sign consent form, I contacted the participants by email to arrange a date and time for a telephone interview.

I called participants at the agreed date and time. After a short introduction, I read a short, standardised script before asking any questions on the interview schedule, informing participants of the purpose of the interview, which was to explore in detail their experiences with cyberbullying (Appendix D). Participants were also informed that, if they did not want to answer a question, they should say ‘pass’. The interviews were conducted by phone for time and cost efficiencies as the participants were geographically spread across England.

The interviews were not audio recorded as I thought that this would be less intrusive and less intimidating for participants. Instead, I wrote down what participants said verbatim. Participants were advised that I would be writing down what they said as they said it and so this might mean that I asked them to pause at

139

various points to ensure I had captured everything they said. This was to ensure I got the full account of what they said. The implication of not recording the interviews and transcribing afterwards was that the interviews were a little disjointed in places where I paused participants in order to write, but this did provide the opportunity for participants to reflect on what they had said. It also meant that as the participants were talking I was pre-occupied with writing at the same time as listening. However, I felt it was important to be sensitive to the experiences of participants and the thought that they might have opened up more about their experiences if the interview was not recorded. In future research where interviews are used to collect data, the choice would be to record the interviews, with the option that participants can choose not to be recorded. In any case, after I had typed up the transcriptions, I emailed these to participants so that they could validate that what I had recorded was a true reflection of what they had said. This was an important feature of the process as phenomenology places emphasis on the descriptions that participants provide in order that their lived experiences can be described, interpreted and analysed accurately. All participants confirmed by reply that the transcripts were a reflection of what they had said in interview.

The interview schedule started with introductory questions in an effort to put the participant as ease, such as their age, where they were from, and what they were studying at college. They were then asked whether they had been a cybervictim as a college student. The main question in the interview that followed was Can you tell me in a much detail what happened? This was followed by the statement I may have some questions afterwards to explore your experiences in more detail. This question allowed the participants to use their own words to talk about their experiences, whilst the interviewer noted everything they said, without imposition

140

or direction. Once the interviewee finished their account, I used follow-up questions on the interview schedule. The purpose of these questions was to provide breadth and depth to the experiences of the participant of their experiences of cyberbullying in greater detail. After all the questions on the interview schedule has been asked, participants were thanked for their time and advised that the researcher would be in touch in order to validate what had been said. The interviews lasted for an average time of 65 minutes.

As well as the six interviewees, a case study of another victim of cyberbullying was included, which was provided from a family known to me, referred to in this research as ‘Sasha’s Story’. This case study was included at the request of the family, who believed it was important that their daughter’s experience of being bullied was captured. I agreed to include it in this research since only six cybervictims came forward for interview and, more importantly, not to forego the opportunity of dismissing the experiences of young people affected by cyberbullying. Sasha’s story was a co-constructed narrative between Sasha and the Mother, and was therefore written and presented in the third person; the interviews were written in the first person as they are direct and individual accounts of the participants.

Demographic Information of Interviewees

The table below provides a summary of the demographics of the six participants who were interviewed about their experiences. ‘Sasha’ is also included as a case study.

Table 24: Demographic information of interview participants

141

Lucy Yes 17 Girl White–German

Laura Yes 17 Girl White–British

Sarah No 17 Girl White–British

Sasha Yes 17 Girl White-British

Katie No 18 Girl White–British

Angela No 18 Girl White–British

David Yes 18 Boy White–British

All seven teenagers were victims of bullying or cyberbullying, but only four were victims of cyberbullying as a college student. The experiences of the interviewees who reported not being cyberbullied at college were used in this study, not least because their experiences of being bullied/cyberbullied at school had an impact on them when at college. This highlights the importance of research on cyberbullying having a broader scope to take into account the wider experiences of victims.

The interviewees were all White; six were born in Britain and one in Germany. All but one were girls. The victims were aged either 17 or 18 years old; no one aged 16 or 19 years old came forward to be interviewed about their experiences. In terms of this information, the students interviewed were not seen to directly reflect the questionnaire sample or the population. However, the purpose of interviews/case studies was not to generalise to the population. Instead, the aim of the phenomenological design of this research placed importance on gathering the lived experiences of those experiencing cyberbullying. Nevertheless, a greater range of students’ voices would have been collected if the demographics were more balanced in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and being a cyberbully.

142