The method – semi-structured interviews

In accordance with the interpretive approach necessary to yield data suitable for answering the research questions, I made use of a semi-structured approach in interviewing the junior and senior officers, ratings and managers. The questions in such an interview are open-ended and allow the participant to respond in their own words. They are also not supposed to be asked with any particular phrases or in any specific order, which allows the interviewer to adjust the direction and content of the interview depending on what has already been discussed, and based on the understanding of the interviewee (Wilson 1996). Therefore the questions in the semi- structured interviews were mostly asked in a flexible way that allowed further probing into the answer that was given, particularly if it revealed surprising or unexpected information that added something extra to the picture of the seafarers’ experience. The most important aspect of this type of interview was that it allowed the interviewer to “enter into a dialogue with the interviewee” (May 2001, p.123) but the presence of some structure also established the main topics under review.

Such an approach ultimately led to a better understanding of the participant’s views in their own language that showcased their perception of the key topics, which is the aim of the study. The fundamental advantage of using this open-ended approach was to elicit information that may not have fallen within the realms of the interviewer’s expectations but can prove very useful nonetheless.

In this method, it was important to establish a sense of rapport and trust between the interviewer and interviewee, so the interview was conducted as a quasi-conversation which required the flow of information to go both ways. I did this by engaging in small talk before commencing with the interview and making sure that they felt comfortable in the environment in which the interview takes place. It is also vital to listen carefully

70

to what the interviewee is saying and respond appropriately as this builds trust and also lets the interviewee know that his or her opinions are being valued (Kvale 1996). Such an approach also encourages the interviewee to feel relaxed and hopefully, to volunteer relevant information which the interviewer may not know to ask about.

During the interviews, all respondents were first asked about their understanding of ill-treatment. This was done to establish their perception of events that occurred onboard and which could then influence their response to ill-treatment. However, aside from this specific question, I tried to ensure that I did not use terms from the literature throughout the interview, such as ill-treatment or denigration, as the seafarers may not be familiar with the context in which I am using them. Opening these phrases up and using more exact terms such as “shouting” or “spreading rumours” enabled the participant to respond more freely without being hampered by jargon which is not necessarily familiar to seafarers. This was also in response to Fevre et al.’s (2010) criticism (stated earlier), of imposing a standardized definition of ill-treatment on the respondents. Making this choice also negated the need for a filter, which would otherwise have been required to ensure the participant’s familiarity with the terms used (Foddy 1993, p.102).

In addition to this, use of phrases such as “your view” in the questions circumvented the potential for confusion in the level of social generality of the respondent. In this way, they knew that their answer must represent own opinion as opposed to a community one (Foddy 1993, p.82). It is important to provide the participant with a response framework to avoid confusion on their part and mine. The modified battery of questions from the British Workplace Behaviour Survey (Fevre et al. 2012) was a part of this strategy, along with its value in helping to gauge the difference between seafarers’ perceptions of ill-treatment onboard and their actual experiences of it.

However, I did not include the questions about physical violence in my semi- structured interviews. This was done partly to keep the focus of this study narrowed solely on unreasonable treatment, incivility and disrespect, in accordance with the research questions. However, it was also indicated by the result of informal conversations with current and ex-seafarers (including colleagues in my department). They concurred that it was clear that physical violence was decreasing onboard and was certainly much reduced compared to 15 years ago. This was corroborated by reports such as Borch et al. (2012), who found that, in the case of Danish seafarers, maritime-related deaths decreased significantly between a period of 1986 to 2009.

71

During the course of the interview, when asking respondents about their experience of each item on the battery of questions, I tried not to prompt them initially, so they could respond in a way which would further display their perceptions of what is considered ill-treatment in academic literature. However, if they were unsure of what type of acts might constitute a certain type of ill-treatment, I sometimes gave them examples. Although it could be considered to be leading the interviewee by providing them with examples of ill-treatment, such an approach is necessary sometimes. It helps them consider and discuss incidents which they may not perceive to be particularly important or out of the ordinary, or to be something which can and should be addressed in their workplace. It is, in essence, an attempt to make the familiar, strange to them.

To illustrate this, I have included my modified version of the battery of questions from the BWBS. The prompts in brackets were not read out loud to the respondent and were initially for my information. They stemmed primarily from conversations with seafarer and ex-seafarer friends that gave me ideas of ways in which those negative acts could be manifested onboard. This was so that I would be better able to explain a question if necessary, in a context the seafarer would be familiar with. This way of thinking also helped me to generate the appropriate Hindi translation of the standard battery of questions in collaboration with a translation company.

The seafarers were asked whether they have experienced any of the following over their last 3 voyages. This number was chosen because depending on whether the respondent was an officer or a rating, it meant the questions would not go further than five years into the past. A note was made of occasions where they had said yes, and the details of these incidents provided the basis of much of the interview.

1) Someone withholding information which affects your performance (e.g. not specifying the timescale in which a certain task needs to be completed).

2) Pressure from someone else to do work below your level of competence. 3) Having your opinions and views ignored.

4) Someone continually checking up on you or your work where it is not necessary (i.e. giving the impression that they do not trust in their level of competence).

5) Pressure from someone else not to claim something which by right you are entitled to (e.g. being discouraged from using support structures in place for people to attain

72

dignity at work; more tangible breach of contract such as withholding pay or delaying repatriation because replacement crew could not be/were not found).

6) Being given an unmanageable workload or impossible deadlines (this may particularly come up in the context of smaller crews increasing the amount of work to be done in port and/or at sea).

7) Your employer not following proper procedures (e.g. sailing on a substandard vessel; prioritising the transport of the cargo over the health and safety of the crew).

8) Being treated unfairly compared to others in your workplace (e.g. respect and deference being given to others by breaking the hierarchy, according to their nationality or nepotism; credit for a task being given unfairly to someone else). 9) Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work.

10) Gossip and rumours being spread about you or having allegations made against you. 11) Being insulted or having offensive remarks made about you.

12) Being treated in a disrespectful or rude way (e.g. respect not being accorded to their rank; age; number of years at sea/in the industry; intrinsic knowledge).

13) People excluding you from their group.

14) Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job. 15) Persistent criticism of your work or performance which is unfair. 16) Teasing, mocking, sarcasm or jokes which go too far.

17) Being shouted at or someone losing their temper with you.

18) Intimidating behaviour from people at work (e.g. threatening their job if something is not carried out to their satisfaction; threatening to withhold pay, leisure time, etc.).

Standard battery of questions (Adapted from Fevre et al.’s (2010) revision of the NAQ for the BWBS).