The Interview Process

As Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) note, interviewing is a craft, and like any craft, is learnt and refined by doing. My interview ‘travels’ were therefore more akin to journeys towards a creative mutual understanding as opposed to conquests of data accomplishment. To achieve this creative mutual understanding Kvale and Brinkmann (2009), along with several other authors including: Dale (1996, 2000); Giorgi (2009); Moustakas (1994); (Ravn, 2016b);

Smith and Sparkes (2016); and Sparkes and Smith (2014) outline several ‘tips’ that can help facilitate an effective interview. These ‘tips’ helped to structure and facilitate the interview and are highlighted in the following sections relating to the period before, during and after the interview.

104 3.8.3.1 Prior to the Interview

Before undertaking an interview one of the key components is the development of the interview guide or script. Smith and Sparkes (2016, pp. 110-111) outline eleven issues worthy of consideration including using the literature to draft a list of open-ended questions, the refinement of this list, and the use of a ‘grand-tour’ opening question to begin the interview (e.g. can you tell me about your life as a swimmer) and a ‘closing tour’

at the end that invites participants to fill in gaps (e.g. is there anything else you would like to add that we haven’t explored). This process was undertaken with input from my supervisory team to help critique and refine the interview guide.

With regards to the main body of questions, commensurate with a phenomenologically-sensitive approach, the interview had to be primarily descriptive, focusing more on the

‘how’ and the ‘what’ as opposed to the ‘why’ (Giorgi, 2009; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).

Questions were often supplemented with examples drawn from the periods of observation, utilising the same words, metaphors and sayings used during the practice. As Ravn (2016b) argues, this makes the interview more personal as it gives each participant the opportunity to link descriptions to actual lived experience, which in turn encourages participants to share their lived experience in greater detail, generating still richer and possibly more varied descriptions (Ravn & Hansen, 2013).

With a guide formulated and in keeping with Moustakas’ (1994) advice, prior to starting the interviews, I asked the coaches if I could have five minutes during their weekly briefing with the swimmers to once again outline the nature of the project and ask for interviewees.

During this briefing, I presented the group with a research summary that outlined the potential structure of the interview to help prepare them for the subject matter. This allowed each participant to dwell and ponder on these points before being interviewed.

Englander (2012) notes how this can aid in gaining richer descriptions within the interview without having to ask too many questions. Additionally, participants were encouraged to view this research as a collaboration of efforts (Moustakas, 1994) in seeking knowledge and insight into the embodied experiences of competitive swimming.

105 The next step was arranging a suitable time and place where each participant could feel comfortable, relaxed, and unselfconscious (Moustakas, 1994); a place that typically was of their choosing and was usually a meeting room or an office at the swimming pool where they trained. Prior to each interview the recording equipment was checked and any previous transcripts read and analysed to formulate new topics or questions (Smith &

Sparkes, 2016).

3.8.3.2 During the Interview

Dale (1996, 2000) and Smith and Sparkes (2016) outline that one of the most critical steps in any interview is to build rapport with the participant. Having spent time with the swimmers at the field site, prior to interview, initial rapport had begun to be established.

However, efforts were still made to ensure that each participant was comfortable and ready to proceed. Once settled, the participant was again briefed of the purpose of the research, the structure of the interview, and encouraged to give full, detailed, and comprehensive descriptions of the experiences being reflected upon. Additionally, each participant was asked if they had any questions before the interview began (Kvale &

Brinkmann, 2009). The interview then began with the grand tour question, asking each participant to describe their personal swimming journey, with subsequent general questions relating to, for example, their current training schedule and practices, and their embodied and sensory experiences of swimming.

Smith and Sparkes (2016) highlight the need to be an active listener by being attentive, curious and responsive to the participant. This is a position supported by Ravn (2016b), who argues that part of being an active listener is the ability to open yourself to the space of possibilities by being aware that the experiences of the participants might be very different to what was observed or what the researcher had previously experienced. As a result, I set a slow and relaxed pace, reminding each participant that they could take as much time as he or she wished to contemplate each question and to give their answers.

Pauses, silences and moments of reflection thus became a normal part of the process, something that is common place in phenomenological interviewing (Moustakas, 1994). As the conversion developed, additional “curiosity-driven questions/explorations” including description (what was it like being there?), elaboration (tell me more about that?) and

106 clarification (I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that. Can you help me understand what you mean?) were used to generate deeper understanding (Smith & Sparkes, 2016, p.

112).

As each interview drew to a close, the participant was asked if they had anything else they felt was pertinent to report but had not yet been discussed. With the interview concluded, each participant was thanked for their time and asked for their comments on how they felt the interview went. They were also each given my email address in case they wished to contact me in relation to the project or any follow-up questions.

3.8.3.3 After the Interview

Once each participant had left, and following Smith and Sparkes (2016) recommendation, I began to make reflexive notes recalling as much information about the interview as possible in answer to questions such as: What kind of relationship did I feel I developed with the participant? How did I feel and respond to their stories? How did they react to and answer the questions? Where they relaxed or nervous? Do any of the questions need changing and what things could I do better as the interviewer? These notes thus became not only a reflexive record of each interview but could also be harnessed to aid with analysis and document my development as an interviewer and the interview process as a whole.

The next step in the interview process was to begin transcription. Of the initial 19 interviews conducted during immersion one, I transcribed 11 personally with the remaining eight being outsourced to a transcription service. On reflection, however, and for future projects, although time-consuming, transcribing each interview personally would be my preferred choice. This allows an initial immersion in the data that is missed when interviews are transcribed by others. Additionally, upon checking the outsourced transcriptions, they were found to contain inaccuracies, often missing key terms and context, with one transcription needing to be completely redone due to the degree of error in it.