Semi-structured interview procedure All twenty-one semi-structured interviews were completed between August and October 2014.

4.3.3.4.1 Semi-structured interview locations. Mountjoy prison is a closed

prison for adult males. It was chosen as a research site as it is the main committal prison for Dublin city and county. Since ethical approval had been granted (see section 4.4), it was the researcher’s responsibility to contact the prison campus governor to seek his approval directly. All relevant approvals, interview guides, and the proposed

recruitment procedure were forwarded to the campus governor. Due to a change in personnel a short delay occurred, however full permission was granted in July 2014.

Prison interviews took place in clinical service rooms located in the main prison. On one occasion an interview room in the circle of the main prison was used because of room availability. One interview took place in an interview room in Mountjoy West (a separate building from Mountjoy’s main prison campus).

Three community service sites were identified by a senior probation officer who oversaw all community service sites in the Dublin area. These three sites were chosen because of the large numbers of CSO participants being received onto these sites. Manual work in a group setting was completed by participants in two of the community sites, while one site was predominantly education based (participants took part in group work and completed group courses such as anger management). Two were located in the West Dublin area and one in Dublin city centre. Community service supervisors were identified by the senior probation officer and their details made available. Each

142

supervisor was contacted to ask if CSO participants meeting the study’s inclusion criteria were currently completing orders on their community service site. Interviews with all CSO participants took place in an interview room in the Probation Service’s headquarters located in Smithfield, Dublin.

4.3.3.4.2 Interviewee selection. In order to identify prospective participants, the

researcher met with the designated prison staff member (n = 1) and community service supervisors (n = 3) to discuss the study’s inclusion criteria. At each meeting staff members consulted their administrative records to identify prospective interviewees.

In the prison setting the staff member accessed the PIMS data base where all prisoners currently held in the prison meeting the study’s inclusion criteria could be identified. Participants to be approached were selected as they appeared on the list generated by the member of prison staff taking into consideration their prospective release dates,

sentence lengths, offence types and ages. This protocol took place on two occasions to facilitate reflection on findings gathered from the first five prison interviews and determine how many more were required in order to reach data saturation.

At community service sites, paper records were consulted by community service supervisors. If the prospective participants were currently on site the supervisor

approached them to ask if they were willing to speak with the researcher. If participants identified by supervisors were not on site, supervisors agreed to approach participants and ask if they were willing to speak to the researcher. The researcher made herself available on a number of days to travel to community service sites to meet with prospective participants.

143

All perspective interview participants were approached and each was provided with an information sheet about the study (see Appendix G). Whether the prospective

participant met the study’s inclusion criteria was again verified. This information sheet was read to all participants at least 24 hours before written consent was sought. It was suggested that all prospective participants should contact the designated member of prison or probation staff if they were interested in taking part in the research, following a 24-hour period of consideration. The liaison staff member then contacted the

researcher to inform her of participants willing to take part. Interviews were then arranged.

4.3.3.4.3 Response rates. In total, 12 prisoners serving short prison sentences

were approached and 11 interviews conducted. One prospective interviewee who was approached subsequently did not meet the study’s inclusion criteria. Fourteen CSO participants were approached and 10 interviews were completed. Two individuals did not wish to take part and two individuals did not turn up for interview.

4.3.3.4.4 Interview procedure. Two pilot interviews were completed to assess

the usefulness of the interview schedule. The second section of the interview schedule which examined whether participants were aware of legislative changes promoting the use of community service, proved difficult for some participants to understand. Extra time was taken to explain this question to all further interview participants.

All interviews began by outlining the study in brief, as well as a synopsis of the information sheet that had previously been read to participants. At this point all

interviewees were given the opportunity to ask questions. Issues around confidentiality were explained again during the consent procedure and all participants were shown the

144

participant ID that would be used instead of their names. Participants’ names were only recorded on the consent form.

Before any questions were asked an outline of what the interview would entail was provided. At this point, participants were reminded that they could withdraw from the study at any time, without having to give a reason. They were told that if they did not want to answer a specific question that it could be skipped over without any problem.

The demographic sheet was administered before the recorder was switched on, which also helped put interviewees at ease and build some rapport.

Issues around social desirability, truthfulness, accurateness and, of course, forgetfulness must be considered when discussing the topics contained in the interview schedule. Although the researcher was impartial and was not affiliated with any of the criminal justice agencies overseeing participants’ sanctions, participants may still have felt under some pressure to provide answers they thought were appropriate (Copes, Jacques, Hochstetler, & Dickinson, 2015; Roberts, Feilzer, & Hough, 2012). Research has shown good levels of validity among offending populations when completing research

(Farrington et al., 2013) and as outlined in Chapter Five many participants’ descriptions of community service and short-term imprisonment were similar, giving validity to interviewee accounts.

According to Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007), the use of qualitative software tools increases rigour within a qualitative study. This is particularly relevant when large data sets are involved. The qualitative software tool NVivo was used during analysis. Strauss and Corbin (2008) claim that researchers who conduct constant comparison analysis often use some type of qualitative software to aid them. As discussed below (see section

145

4.3.3.4), grounded theory methods which include the constant comparison of data were used to generate theory. The compatibility of these methods with quantitative methods make it versatile and appropriate for use in mixed method studies (LaRossa, 2005). NVivo software aided the storage, sorting and coding of qualitative data, and increased the rigour of the qualitative element of this study.

While interview data was being collected and during analysis the researcher’s academic supervisor acted as a peer de-briefer (often referred to as peer auditor). This involved discussions between the researcher who was conducting the interviews and analysing transcripts and the academic supervisor regarding methodological and analytical procedures. This provided an opportunity to examine emerging themes and increases the credibility of the findings (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2011).

4.3.3.5 Constant comparison analysis of qualitative data. The constant