The Research Instrument – The Interview Process

As McLeod (1994:79) notes, interviews are a widely used qualitative data-collection technique and are a flexible way of gathering detailed and personal research data. Lofland (in McLeod, 1994:79-80) describes an interview process whereby the researcher creates a list of potential questions, structures or arranges them into groups according to pre-determined themes to be explored, and determines an effective order in which to ask the questions. This semi-structured interview is viewed as effective whereby the researcher is comfortable and can anticipate in advance the areas where inquiry will occur. It is not an unstructured or open-ended interview process, but has defined start, middle and end points (McLeod, 1994:79-80). This is the interview method and structure adopted for this research.

The interview questions were carefully considered, crafted and categorised. They consist of both “open” and “closed” questions and delve into some deeply personal areas of life. The interviews were to thoroughly explore deeply personal issues, objectively obtain information required for the research, be a positive experience for the respondents and interviewer alike, and ensure that a high level of interviewer skill and competence is utilised to conduct the interviews successfully (McLeod, 1994:79-86; Sarantakos, 1993:189-196).

The study also used the technique of Conversational Analysis as described by Holloway (1997:36). Not only did the interviewer focus upon the spoken word, but

also on the non-verbal behaviour, facial expressions, gestures and other body language, and in particular, the emotions resident behind the unspoken words.

All seven respondents were eager to participate and were keen to have someone to talk to so that they could share their experiences in a personally deeper manner. For most respondents the interviews also proved to be a cathartic experience where they could express their feelings and emotions in a safe environment. All respondents requested various degrees of anonymity.

Respondents were asked to answer the interview questions in an interview of 60-90 minute’s duration. Each respondent was asked to agree in writing to the tape-recording of the interview. A range of questions were asked as per the Interview Schedule³². Each respondent was given a copy of the interview questions prior to the commencement of the interview and asked if they were happy to proceed; all agreed.

Each respondent was advised that he was free to decline to answer any particular question and that he may elect to suspend, discontinue or terminate the interview at any stage of the proceedings. Respondents were also advised that if they were to become uncomfortable during the interview then the interviewer will ask the respondent if he wishes to continue with the interview or not. The interviews were not intended to become de-facto counselling sessions.

The interviews were held at a variety of venues, being either the respondent’s home, the interviewer’s home or at a neutral venue as mutually determined and agreed. All of the fathers interviewed were dumpees³³in that their wives chose to leave them.

The seven interviews averaged one and a half hours in duration producing an overwhelming amount of data, some of which has been filtered, other data which remains unfiltered (Schwandt & Halpern in Holloway, 1997:43). Debriefing took place with each respondent after the formal part of the interview had concluded.

There was no necessity for gatekeepers (Holloway, 1997:77) and the author had free and ready access (Holloway, 1997:20) to all respondents as required. It was

32 Note that it has not been possible to locate a post-bushfire copy of the Interview Schedule.

33 However, it later transpired in the interview that ‘Ian’s’ separation had been mutual, and actually implemented by Ian.

not necessary to re-contact any of the respondents to clarify any matter which they had raised as they had all spoken quite openly, clearly and definitively.

Holloway (1997:49) describes the process of the interviewers ‘disengagement’

after research involvement with subjects. There has been no ongoing dialogue about either the research or the interviews since the time that the interviews took place and the researcher has not had any ongoing contact with the interviewees since. It would appear that respondents involved themselves in the interviews as much for their own personal reasons as for any actual interest in the research or its outcomes.

3.5.2.1 Additional relevant background information:

Originally, the earlier research proposal was to interview twenty subjects and also to hold at least two focus groups. In consultation with RMIT supervisors, such extensive interviewing was deemed unnecessary to achieve a reasonable sample, and the focus groups were also deemed unnecessary for a study of this nature and size. Also, because of the sheer volume of taped information, the interviews were not literally transcribed, but were re-listened to, with relevant note-taking occurring.

In early 2006, well after the interviews had been concluded, one of the interviewees declined to proceed with his participation in the research project. He requested that his involvement in the research be terminated and his material not be used. He also lodged a formal complaint against the researcher with the RMIT Ethics Department.

The respondent was a member of a small community-based Association Committee along with the researcher, and a range of issues arose which polarised the Committee. Unfortunately, it transpired that the respondent and the researcher held opposing views and the respondent attempted to use the researcher’s study as a weapon against the researcher in the matter related to the Association dispute. After thorough investigation and consideration, the RMIT Ethics Committee concluded that there was no case for the researcher to answer: This unfortunate occurrence reduced the number of useable interviews to six.