The structure of the sessions, the interviews and the “recovery table”

Initially I had asked for permission to only observe, as I was hoping to glean data via the participant observation route. However, I was unable to secure a role of tea lady due to the complexities and constraints of the conditions of my permission as detailed above. I was, however, much luckier and was able to capture a steady sample of both male female donors, due to the busy nature of the sessions, with the combination of the self-completed questionnaires and interviews as well as observation. I decided to use a basic open-ended questionnaire for two reasons; the first was to facilitate as much data as possible, and the second to allow the respondents a chance to write down their stories in their own words, although the donors were able to respond orally as well. A third reason was that while one person was filling out the questionnaire it allowed me to access one-to-one discussion with other donors and also to make field notes and observations.

The questionnaires comprised open-ended questions and allowed space for written answers. They simply asked about why the donors were giving blood. It is acknowledged that this type of data collection favours those people who are literate. The interviews were designed to be short – as short as five minutes in actuality – due to the time constraints felt by the donors. The interviews were also designed to allow an as flexible as possible approach to capture the widest scope of comments. The constraints on permission meant that any other topics were raised by the donors themselves.

Interviews were conducted face to face but with the respondents writing down their own thoughts and commenting back to me. This seemed to be the most expedient way given

104 the constraints in the pace and changing nature of the recovery table residents. The interviews were a dialogue between me and one donor at a time. I was assisting in their completing the questions as well as taking notes of my own to add detail to the process.

Details such as body language and language use were noted as a further layer to analyse at a later stage.

The NHSBT granted permission to access donors in the blood donating sessions, but limited me to sitting at the recovery table. It is described next, and I argue that, this was the pivotal point in the whole giving and receiving exchange process. It is here at the

“table” that the gift giver receives the thanks and the reciprocal gift. The ritual is visible and witnessed, and thus allows the gift giver to return to normal society. This is a literal table and seating area provided for the donors to recover from their labour. In my field site, this table was in the bottom right of the hall in front of the stage and visible to everyone. The rationale was to keep me in one place, but according to one of the staff donor helpers, as I talked to her walking to “my table”, it was: to stop you causing accidents or getting in the way; we have so many donors here and tubes it is easy to cause a mistake.

It was true that the space was small and, as I found out later, it became chaotic quite quickly. If I had been allowed to walk around I would have been a danger. The field was a labyrinth of people carrying tubing and apparatus to and from each bedside, shaking the collection bags and placing labels and colours on different bottles. The staff each knew what their role and function was, and after seeing the pace of their work I can now see why they were hesitant to have me attached to them; I would have slowed them down and distracted them from their routine. Therefore, despite feeling that the

105 table area would not be adequate as a field, it turned out to be the best place to talk to the donors, which was the main focus of this particular research. The “table” then, after some time of negotiation and initiation, became my field.

The structure of the sessions was the same each time I attended. I arrived with a photocopied set of questionnaires, put on my badge, and sat and waited. Those donors who wished to take part were given a blue dot envelope if they were male and a red dot if female. The questionnaires were pre-numbered to allow collating of my notes with the correct respondent during thematic analysis. I informed the donors of my research project, both verbally and by directing them to the file containing my details and the letter giving permission to attend the sessions. I had no strict process for how I could use the sessions; I wanted to see what unfolded, so I sat and waited.

The epicentre of the research was the “recovery table”. This was a ten-seat trestle table covered by a plastic blue table cloth. The table was situated at the bottom end of the hall in front of the stage; it was always in the same place pitched slightly to the right. A selection of plastic orange and blue chairs was set haphazardly at angles, just as the last occupants had left it. The table had a basket of biscuits on it, different types: ginger nuts, custard creams, bourbons and digestives. To the left of the table was the tea urn, a large hissing silver edifice. The tea lady kept it filled up at all times. At the side of the urn were packets of tea bags and jars of instant coffee, plastic cups and cup frames into which the tea or coffee cup was slotted.

The table was the place to where all those who came to donate were directed after they had finished donating. Sometimes donors were reluctant to add even more time onto the burden of donation, and the tea lady had to get a sanction from the person in charge to

106 have let them leave without recovering at the table. The table was at times brimming with donors and at others it was occupied by just one or two donors. One aspect of the table which was of note is that the donors never acknowledged each other, even when they had acknowledged me. This lack of camaraderie was broken sometimes as a result of my presence when a comment by one donor had provoked a response from another:

the donors were not in the action of giving in a communal sense at the sessions.