C a s e s t u d y a r e a N o . H o u s i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s
N o . S h a r e d o w n e r s
T o t a l n o .
Cumbria 18 10 28
London 17 15 32
T o t a l n o . 35 25 6 0
As summarised in Table 4.4 above, a total of 60 semi-structured one-to-one
interviews were used to gather in depth information from housing professionals and shared owners about their homes, neighbourhoods and experience of shared
ownership (see Appendix 3 for full details of interviews completed). Semi-structured interviews were chosen because they allow for ‘a certain degree of openness of response’ (Wengraf 2001: 62). Although semi-structured interviews are less controlled than structured or survey interviews, they still require a high level of preparation, as well as more time for analysis and interpretation after the session (Wengraf 2001). With this in mind a set of key questions were developed on which to hang a series of follow up ideas (Valentine 1997). These included ‘descriptive questions’ asking for information on activities and experiences, ‘structural
questions’ focusing on how and when events occurred, and ‘thoughtful questions’
which explore ‘meanings, feelings and opinions’ (Valentine 1997: 119) (see Appendix 4 and 5 for interview guides).
All interviews with housing professionals where carried out face-to–face. Social tenants and shared ownership households were provided with an option to be interviewed over the phone or in person. Around half opted to be interviewed over the phone. Face-to-face interviews are the precedent for in-depth qualitative interviews and typically telephone interviews are used for short or structured interviews (Sturges and Hanrahan 2004). However as Sturges and Hanrahan (2004)
argue there are a number of circumstances where phone interviews may be preferable. Firstly, where sensitive topics are being discussed respondents may prefer ‘the relative anonymity of telephone versus face-face interaction with the research’ (p108) including the personal and financial circumstances touched upon in relation to housing and home. Secondly, to ensure researcher safety, a topic which is ‘seldom discussed in the methodology literature’, when in truth ‘many research settings present some danger to the researcher’ including interviews that take place in people’s homes (p109). This was an issue when interviews were carried out of office-hours and so without the support of housing staff working in the area, or in properties with only one-male occupant. In these circumstances the researcher felt more comfortable carrying out interviews by telephone.
There were some downsides however, firstly without face-to-face contact you lose important visual clues, for example nods and smiles when the researcher wants to
‘avoid directing the narrative with interjections’ but needs to let the participant know that they are still ‘present and listening’ (Holt 2010: 118). Secondly, and most importantly, you lose the richness of context that you get when interviewing people about their homes, in their homes. More often than not, during interviews that took place in people’s properties informants were keen to elaborate on points they brought up during the discussion. For example, if they were particularly proud of an element of their home or neighbourhood, or if there was something wrong that they wanted to point out. As Smith (2001) argues the practice of interviewing may be just as valuable as the text that is produced when they are transcribed, they are also an event and an experience in which the interviewer can engage closely in the lives of their respondents in context through which what is learnt is ‘as much about what is done as about what is said’ (Smith, 2001: 35).
Most interviews were recorded, with permission from the respondent, with an Olympus digital recorder, and were transcribed by the researcher using Express Scribe software. Once transcribed a copy of the transcript was sent to each respondent to provide them with an opportunity to review, change and approve their contribution, along with a letter thanking them for participating in the study.
As a qualitative researcher it is important to recognize the position of the researcher and the impact this may have on informants and research findings.
Reflexive research practice means that the researcher is aware of and makes explicit
the effect of their gender, class and race position on data collection and knowledge production (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005: 18) As Jackson (2001) argues:
‘Identifying the range of positions that participants might take in relation to us as researcher encourages us to see ourselves as part of the analysis rather than as standing somehow ‘outside’ or ‘above’ the project’ (p.205)
When interviewing households, particularly those living in social rented housing, the researcher was aware that as Holt (2010) argues ‘the interview experience may not be dissimilar from other experiences where professionals have come into the participants’ homes and asked a series of questions about their lives’ (2005: 115).
Certainly many of the respondents had been subject to such ‘interviewing’
experiences from social workers and housing officers ‘where their communities, homes and lifestyles were made available for judgment (ibid). To some extent this is difficult to avoid, as Fontana and Frey (2005) argue, we are part of an ‘interview society,’ there is a reliance on interviewing as a source of information and ‘the interview has become a routine and nearly unnoticed part of everyday life’ (p699).
This points to the power dynamics involved in the research process, which often involves ‘those with more economic and cultural capital studying those with less’
(Davies et al. 2002: 261). Steps were made to mitigate against this by ensuring that interviewees felt as comfortable as possible, allowing them to chose the venue and time of the interview, keeping questions open in order to allow them to direct the conversation, giving assurances of anonymity and confidentiality, and by giving them control over the transcript produced at the end of the interview. Spending time in the field also enabled the researcher to gain the trust and establish a rapport (Elwood and Martin, 2000). When carrying out interviews, the interviewer
emphasised different parts of their identity depending on the respondent (Hertz and Imber, 1995). For example, when interviewing households their identity as a student was emphasised, open to learning and valuing participant expertise and viewpoints rather than imposing a professional judgement on their lives. During interviews with younger shared ownership households, and particularly those living in the London case study area, the researcher was able to relate to their position because of a shared experience of high living costs and insecurity associated with living in the Capital. In contrast, when interviewing senior housing staff and other
‘elite’ groups the professional researcher role was emphasised as well as affiliations with Durham University, the Economic and Social Research Council and the sponsor housing association (Harvey, 2010).