Timeline Tool

At the onset to each interview I introduced a timeline as a research tool to aid interviewees in reflecting upon their history and to provide a visual representation of each story within subsequent data analysis.

The timeline tool is a modification of a range of research tools termed ‘calendar methods or instruments’ or ‘timeline techniques’ developed within the life history tradition (Glasner and Vaart, 2009). Although originally developed to capture quantitative data within large-scale life course research, the value of such techniques in the collation of qualitative data in “producing a nuanced longitudinal account” is increasingly recognised (Nelson 2010:414). For example, within social research, calendar methods have been drawn upon to foster insight and achieve a clearer understanding of the issues under investigation, including the study of young adults’ educational trajectories (Nelson, 2010), applied gerontology (Feldman and Howie, 2009) and the working lives of older people (Porcellato et al., 2016). Glasner and Vaart

(2009) asserts that such participatory methods lead to enhanced researcher–participant interaction, as the participant is actively engaged in co-producing meaningful data. Furthermore, Porcellato et al., (2016) suggest that such interaction within their empirical research facilitated a positive and enjoyable research experience which consequently had a positive effect upon both the accuracy and reliability of data (Galner et al., 2009, Porcellato et al., 2016).

The timeline was centrally positioned during the interview so it could be easily viewed by both the interviewee and myself. Such positioning signified that its population was a collaborative effort. As interviewees narrated their career histories and experiences, I noted key events on a timeline (a black line drawn horizontally across the centre of a blank sheet of A4 paper, landscape orientated). The illustration of the timeline was a relatively uncomplicated process undertaken using pen and paper, rather than computerised techniques, to ensure visibility to both parties throughout the interview and flexibility in the completion process. Alternative materials have been employed by scholars in previous empirical studies including the use of easel paper, coloured pens and stickers (Glasner and Vaart, 2009). However, for the purpose of my research I considered this would be potentially disruptive to the primary intention of developing a coherent career narrative focused upon understanding ‘how’ and ‘why’ change had been contemplated or occurred. An A4 sheet proved somewhat limited for longer histories and the visual representation of the narrative was continued on the reverse. However, on occasion this prompted insightful reflection by the interviewee upon how at the onset they felt they would not have much to recount but in creating the timeline they realised their experiences were more extensive than initially thought. Some interviewees also commented upon how the ‘messiness’ of the timeline reflected how they pictured their career progression.

Career changes were noted along a central temporal line, including details of organisations and positions held to indicate salient ‘landmarks’ (Nelson, 2010). Events, key people and other points of interest related to work experiences were noted underneath the line whilst those associated with other aspects of the participant’s life were noted above. This interpretive approach is representative of an unstructured format introduced within qualitative research. Conversely, traditional life history calendar methods adopted a highly structured format comprised of a pre-printed grid.

Traditionally, the horizontal axis was divided into sections representing particular time periods, e.g. months or years to enable an accurate recording of the timing of events. And the vertical axis was divided into multiple predetermined domains to be investigated e.g. family and work. However, within my research, the purpose of the timeline tool was not to produce a detailed recording of ‘when’ which could result in an unnecessary emphasis upon the recollection of precise dates and fragment the narrative. Correspondingly, in exploring the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of change, a less structured format was employed, to capture explanatory information and individual heterogeneity, and interactions between history, biography and context, whilst preserving the flow of narrative (Porcellato et al., 2016).

The purpose of the timeline as an interview tool was twofold. Firstly, it provided a visual recall aid, enabling both the interviewee and the interviewer to cross- reference information across multiple domains. For example, referencing personal information and events with work histories has been evidenced to reduce discrepancies (Porcellato et al., 2016), and aid in clarifying dates or time periods that might otherwise be guessed or roughly estimated, with minimal disruption to the principal narrative. The visual representation of the career also aided both the interviewee and myself in identifying potential gaps in information, or confusion or overlaps within the sequence of events and provided the opportunity to confirm or revise information during the course of the interview. This proved particularly valuable when interviewing participants with extended career histories in helping to organise and sequence historical experiences. Secondly, the timeline provided a visual prompt for myself as interviewer of points of interest to be returned to within the later stages of the interview for further clarification or explanation, and for this purpose were indicated with a discrete asterisk. I endeavoured to populate the timeline in a concise manner to minimise disruption to the flow of the narrative. However, I also recognised that on occasion this provided useful pause points or moments of reflection for interviewees, particularly when narrating particularly complex or emotional experiences, and therefore enhanced the quality of the data collected. The timeline provided a significant focal point within the interview that aided in removing possible barriers between myself and interviewees by generating a joint sense of purpose. Whilst some participants had expressed their concern at the outset that their stories would not be relevant or useful to my research

(discussed further within Chapter Six), the visible recording of their story provided reassurance that their stories were of interest and contributory to the study.

In subsequently analysing the gathered career stories the timelines were not a specific analytical focus. However, they provided a concise overview of each career story, offering a valuable visual summary, which succinctly capturing the messiness and complexity of career. Hence, they were a useful tool within the data analysis process, enabling quick identification of specific narratives and a visual representation through which to identify initial emergent themes. Specifically, the timelines clearly highlighted discontinuity and change within career histories in addition to periods of continuity and overlap within experiences and connections between different key events within the multiple layers of context within which careering ensues. They also demonstrated that careers undertaken within a single organisation also contained much complexity and change. Two interviewees had less than ten years career experience, and hence produced shorter timelines, however, they also provided an enhanced amount of detail as they were able to readily recall early work experiences and career influences, including people and factors that had shaped early choices and opportunities. These shorter stories also facilitated the contrasting of future expectations of career development with more developed career stories. On completion of the timelines, or in concluding the interview, some participants themselves reflected with surprise upon their experiences, expressing how they had found the process to be interesting or cathartic, as they ordinarily would not have the opportunity to observe a visual sequence of their experiences.