Supplementing text with field notes

Field notes were written to record my insights and thoughts throughout the project and to add to the collection of data that reflected participants’ experiences of the phenomenon. However, field notes were ‘not documents that were intended to be shared’ (Glesne, 2015, p. 72). Field notes served the purpose of exploring my personal reactions to events as they occurred and to document ‘hunches’ about emerging themes and other aspects of the project I wished to remember. Field notes were either

descriptive or reflective and were recorded as memos using NVivo’s project journal function. Throughout the project, I compiled information to accurately document factual data and my reflections. Observations were captured by writing rich descriptions of each participant, which occurred as soon as possible after each interview and as insights arose when reflecting on the data.

The notes formed an audit trail of the research project and verified what occurred throughout the project. I also recorded my thoughts, ideas, questions and concerns in my field notes. Units of meaning that identified or informed an

understanding of each participant’s experience of preparing for FDR were highlighted in the transcripts. Each transcript was de-identified and numbered sequentially in chronological order of interviews.

In the third stage of analysis, Colaizzi (1978) recommends creating formulated meanings from the data. This was achieved by formulating ‘general statements or meanings for each significant statement extracted from the participants narratives’ (Edward & Welch, 2011, p. 165).

The fourth stage involved grouping the meanings into clusters and themes. Data in this research applied to the preparatory stages of FDR, including engaging and registering with an FRC, the period spent on a waiting list, the initial interview,

education sessions and, for those who sought additional help, counselling and/or legal advice. One parent was interviewed on the day he was scheduled to participate in the joint FDR session, while others had not yet been allocated an appointment for their joint session. Statements that represented a common focus were grouped together as a theme of clusters and categories using NVivo 10. Coding was theory- and data-driven. Three main themes emerged from the data, each revealing how participants created meaning from their experiences.

The experiences of parents, FDR practitioners and lawyers are included

collectively in preference to allocating a chapter each to parents, FDR practitioners and lawyers. However, each chapter includes discussions that relate specifically to each participant group. Presenting the findings in this way provides a contextual background to reveal the meanings participants attributed to their experiences of preparing for FDR. The similarities between each participant group, irrespective of geographical location or participant group, are highlighted. Categories are then further consolidated to create additional themes that were common to participant descriptions of their experiences of FDR.

Table 3.1 outlines the themes and subthemes of the participants’ narratives revealed through thematic analysis.

Table 3.1

Data Chapters and Themes

Chapter Chapter Title Themes

Chapter 4 Help Me Get Through Seeking change

Learning one or two things . . . is good enough Legal advice: costs to start, costs to continue Being heard, being listened to—its Maslow’s

stuff’ Chapter 5 Suspended in

Unfamiliarity _{People say it doesn’t matter, but it does} Are they presenting in a skittish way? I’m booked, I’m booked, I’m booked Chapter 6 Divergent and

Disjointed: Perspectives of Parents, Practitioners and Lawyers Parents’ perspectives Practitioners’ perspectives Lawyers’ perspectives

Tension between practitioner’s and lawyers The fifth stage involved an exhaustive description of the phenomenon by

providing a rich and inclusive interpretation of the lived experience of the phenomenon (Colaizzi, 1978). The main themes are described in detail and are illustrated by the data.

For the sixth stage, I provided an interpretative analysis of symbolic representations (Edward & Welch, 2011). As Colaizzi (1978) suggests, the final validation of data analysis involves returning to participants to ensure that they recognise their experiences in the themes and final statements and to ‘revise the description according to their comments’ (Priest, 2004, p. 5). In this final stage of Colaizzi’s framework, I sought a representative sample from participants to confirm that my analysis of the data accurately reflected their experiences.

Other researchers may conduct research using comparable methods and arrive at similar conclusions; however, my findings are interpretative and were relevant to a certain group of participants at a given point in time. Therefore, dependability criteria

be found in the data. No interpretation of an object can be free of preconceptions because, without a preliminary orientation, it would be impossible to grasp the object at all (Heidegger, 1962). As stated by Mulhall (2013), ‘we would have no sense of what it was we were attempting to interpret’ (p. 84). In keeping with the Heideggerian stance of the researcher being involved, and in contrast to Husserl’s concept of bracketing, I remain transparent about being an experienced practitioner prior to conducting the research project. This was highlighted in Chapter 1.

It was important for my role as researcher to be ‘emic’—to be inside and immersed in the data to seek ‘hidden’ meanings in the experiences of preparing for FDR. As suggested by Padgett (2012), ‘when researchers seek verstehen (deep understanding), they pursue studies that are emic (i.e. focused on the insider point of view, rather than etic [the outsider’s perspective])’ (p. 17). Additionally, to maintain transparency, I chose to acknowledge my assumptions and reflections along with recognising what is known and what was expected to be known at the conclusion of the project. Bazeley and Jackson (2013) suggest that, rather than deny the existence of previous knowledge and assumptions, ‘the researcher should recognize them, record and become aware of how they might be influencing the way the researcher is thinking about the data; thus, controlling the impact of prior knowledge’ (p. 25). Heidegger (1962, as cited in Mulhall, 2013) uses the phrase ‘the fore-structure of interpretation’, which is the connection of interpretation with understanding (p. 87). Heidegger

suggested our preunderstanding, or our ‘fore-structure’ of understanding, is sometimes hidden from us but always forms the background to our meaning of things (Parsons, 2010). According to Reiners (2012), ‘Heidegger believed it was impossible to negate our experiences related to the phenomenon under study, for he believed that personal awareness was intrinsic to phenomenological research’ (p. 2). Even so, the inquirer

needs to be diligent in examining their fore-structure in terms of what emerges from the data as they attempt to drill deeper into interpreting meaning (Gadamer, 1975).

Heidegger suggested that fore-structure consists of three elements: fore-having, fore-sight and fore-conception. Considering my background in the field of mediation and FDR, I bring to the research project my ‘fore-having’ of knowledge. My experience and qualifications as an FDR practitioner provide an understanding of the background context in terms of concrete interpretations of the phenomenon. Parent and lawyer participants did not necessarily know that I practised as an FDR practitioner. However, when arranging interviews at each FRC, FDR practitioners became aware of my background because we shared a common language and were familiar with acronyms specific to the field of FDR.

Heidegger describes ‘fore-sight’ as ‘something that is understood but is still veiled’ (Blattner, 2006, p. 95). While I had some understanding of the phenomenon prior to the research, the meaning that parents, practitioners and lawyers attribute to their experiences of preparing for FDR remained elusive.

My previous involvement and expertise in the field of FDR brought to the study that which Heidegger describes as ‘fore-conception’, a practice that is grounded in the researcher’s ‘conceptualizations of the object of interest’ (Mulhall, 2013, p. 85). My experience as an FDR practitioner potentially enhanced my awareness and provided knowledge and sensitivity to the issues being addressed in the research.

The need to be open to the thoughts and opinions of others and to set aside my own experiences to understand those of the participants was considered throughout the research project. Addressing positionality required me to be constantly aware of the experiences I have accrued as an FDR practitioner and to regularly examine my own theoretical lens. Additionally, I was mindful of the term ‘bridling’ as described by

Dahlberg, Dahlberg and Nystr�m (2008), who ‘warn the researcher to avoid reading and understanding too quickly, too carelessly or too slovenly’ (p. 130).

As Heidegger suggests, a critic evaluating the existence of preconceptions of the researcher will, in fact, bring their own preconceptions to the criticism, which may in turn be open to evaluation. Thus, a circular action becomes manifest. Even though I brought a range of pre-understandings to this research project, the project was

undertaken in anticipation that new possibilities for the effective preparation of parents for FDR would be unveiled.