The interview process

A pilot interview was carried out, which helped to create a checklist of things to remember to do/say in the research interviews, for example telling participants that I may glance at the recorder from time to time to make sure that it was still recording.

This pilot interview helped me to think about how to stay close to the participant’s experience, for example, I realised that sometimes it was helpful to note down points I wished to probe further as a reminder, rather than to interrupt the flow of the interview. It also helped me to adjust to adopting a researcher role rather than my usual therapist role.

At the start of each interview, I went through the PIS and consent form, and asked participants if they had any questions or concerns. Participants were invited to sign the consent form, and asked to select a pseudonym. It was explained that the interviews would be audio recorded, transcribed, and that participants would have the opportunity to amend their transcript. The process of ongoing informed consent was explained and the ongoing consent form was given to participants (see Appendix 8). Participants were given two self-addressed envelopes to return transcripts and consent forms. In addition, details of six local therapists were given to participants, as well as the sources of support information sheet (see Appendix 9). It was explained that the interview would not explore why participants had sought therapy.

This was consistent with the ethical approach adopted in stage one (see section

3.4.2.2.1). I also explained that I was adopting a ‘researcher’ role to acknowledge the boundary between counselling and researching and the research agenda. I explained that participants could stop the process at any time. Finally, I explained that I might make some brief notes during the interview.

I attempted to get as close to participants’ experience as possible by engaging in active listening and probing responses where appropriate. I was sensitive to participants’ non-verbal behaviour and vocal tone as well as silences to try and evaluate whether the process was having a negative impact on participants. As far as possible, I attempted to “implement IPA’s inductive epistemology to the fullest extent” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 70), by using the interview topic guide flexibly. The extent to which bracketing can be fully achieved is questioned by hermeneutic phenomenological philosophers (Heidegger, 1953/2010). While researchers working in a hermeneutical phenomenological tradition may attempt to bracket prior understandings, the extent to which this is possible is restricted because pre-conceptions may only come into awareness when encountering new stimuli. This means that “reflective practices, and a cyclical approach to bracketing, are required”

(Smith et al., 2009, p. 35). Following Smith et al. (2009), I engaged in reflexivity and bracketing in a continuous and cyclical manner during the interviews. This involved moving through a hermeneutic circle:

I start where I am at one point on the circle, caught up in my concerns, influenced by my preconceptions, shaped by my experience and expertise. In moving from this position, I attempt to either bracket, or at least acknowledge my preconceptions, before I go round to an encounter with a research participant at the other side of the circle….However, I am also irretrievably changed because of the encounter with the new, my participant and his/her account (Smith et al., 2009, p. 35).

The awareness of my situatedness necessitated an ongoing reflexive approach in the interviews. I was conscious at times of feeling surprised by participants’ accounts which alerted me to the fact that I had fore-structures, and I did my best to put these thoughts to one side. At other times I was aware that my personal experiences were very different, and again I attempted to bracket these off to avoid imposing my experiences on participants’ accounts (see Appendix 10, examples 3 and 4).

At the end of the interviews, I carried out a debriefing, checked how participants were feeling, reminded them about the sources of further support, and thanked them for their involvement. Participants were positive about their involvement in the research and the importance of the topic. Section 3.8.2 includes some reflexive comments about the interviews.

After each interview, I made some notes about the process and my impressions. The interviews were transcribed immediately to maximise the potential for recall.

Transcripts were anonymised, for example names of places, therapists and unusual job titles were changed. Each interview was transcribed and reviewed before the next interview was carried out. In line with IPA’s requirement for a semantic record of the interview (Smith et al., 2009), transcripts recorded all speech turns. Pauses, laughter, and explanatory information were noted in brackets, and three dots were used to indicate omitted information.

The use of member checks is not generally associated with IPA given its interpretative nature (Larkin & Thompson, 2012). However, some IPA researchers have used member checks. Ballinger (2012) used member checks in her study as

“rejecting a member check entirely felt problematic given the public nature of the role” (p. 141), and Rizq and Target (2008) also used member checks to provide validity for the transcription and preliminary analysis. It could be argued that the practice of member checking is sensible and desirable; it can be seen as empowering participants (Holloway & Wheeler, 2003) and allowing them to continue to co-create research; it can be viewed as a way of minimising the possibility of misunderstandings occurring (Goldblatt, Karnieli-Miller, & Neumann, 2011); and it can be seen as a means of providing validity (Willig, 2013) or establishing quality (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Alternatively it could be argued that this practice is consistent with a realist lens which fails to recognise the interpretative voice of the researcher (Braun & Clarke, 2013). There are ethical considerations involved in carrying out member checks, and it carries some risks. It is possible that participants may not wish to contribute to the research process any further, even if they have agreed to do so in the consent process. Further, being exposed to the research material may create distress as research stories are relived (Goldblatt et al., 2011).

This potential distress would take place outside the containing and supportive environment of the research interview. In addition, the participants’ thinking may

have moved on since their participation in the research, and any data subsequently received may not reflect their changed perspectives (Corden & Sainsbury, 2006).

I made the decision that I would return the transcripts to participants to allow them to make any changes they wished, to ensure the data had been anonymised to their preferences, and gain clarity if I had difficulty understanding participants’ words.

This decision was based on reasoning that “the adequate protection of personally-sensitive information about identifiable individuals is a major ethical concern for anyone conducting research about counselling and psychotherapy” (Bond, 2004, p.

7). The discussion about the rationale for the member check of the transcription formed part of the consent process at the start of the interviews as well as part of the ongoing consent process. I decided that I would not use member checks for the analysis as this would involve my interpretation and I recognised that many interpretations of the same data could be possible (Braun & Clarke, 2013). It was hoped that any risks from carrying out a member check of the transcript would be mitigated by the fact that the participants were also therapists (see section 3.3), and that the participants could choose whether to read the transcripts and engage in the ongoing consent process (see Appendix 10, example 6 for reflection on participants’

feedback).

Participants were also asked to sign and return the ongoing consent forms if they agreed that their contributions could continue to be used in the research. All consent forms were promptly returned by participants. At this stage, a thank you email was sent to potential interviewees who had not been selected for interview. As outlined in the consent form, two weeks before starting the analysis of the data, an email was sent to participants reminding them of the endpoint for withdrawal. No participants withdrew from the study.