Undertaking the interviews

Based on the experiences of the pilot interviews it was anticipated that the formal interviews would last around forty-five minutes each, after the housekeeping of the interview (i.e. explanation of the remit and

confirmation that all responses would be kept confidential, and any person or organisational identifiable data would be anonymised) had

taken place. Upon completion of the study, the average time per interview was forty-three minutes, with a range from twenty-nine minutes, to one hour seven minutes.

Prior to commencing the interview each participant was asked to complete the consent form so that there was a written record of their agreement to participate. A blank copy of this form is available in Appendix 6.

As part of the introductory component of the interview, the role of the researcher, for the purposes of this study, was explained and that it was being undertaken as part of a PhD affiliated to the University of

101

independent of their employing organisation and that this would not have access to any of their responses. The intent of informing them of this was that it would offer them further reassurance of confidentiality of their responses.

My intent at the start of the interviews was that I did not wish to pre- empt or guide the participants’ responses, therefore I deliberately did not declare my previous knowledge and experience of working in intermediate care services at the outset of the interviews. I considered that by sharing this personal information about myself the participants may anticipate that I would expect certain responses, whereas I needed them to share with me a description of their own personal opinions and experiences. However, in withholding this information there was also a potential risk that this would impact on the interaction, the development of mutual trust and the building of rapport with the participant due to, what they may perceive, was a lack of common ground between us.

In accordance with a Constructivist Ground Theory approach it is not suggested that interviewers should be passive, but instead, by developing a rapport and a state of equity between the researcher and participant, this assists the interview to be “an open-ended, in-depth exploration of an area in which the interviewee has substantial experience” (Charmaz, p. 2014, p. 85). This is described by Birks and Mills (2011, p. 56) as a process of “narrative interaction” during which both the “participant and researcher give and take from each other” to construct knowledge. This minimises the distance between the researcher and the phenomenon through the mutual interpretation of actions and meanings. Where I was uncertain of the meaning of the participant’s responses then I sought to clarify these through further questioning, but also where participants

actively questioned my clinical background in relation to intermediate care then I responded honestly, summarising this for them.

Participants were offered the option of having interviews undertaken in their own department or workplace, should this make them feel more

102

comfortable and decrease travelling time for staff. However, they were also provided with the option of attending the interview in an independent setting if they wished. All indicated they were happy to meet in their

existing workplace and either the team leader of the service or the interview participant identified and booked an appropriate room for the interview and informed me of the location of the room. This assisted with the organisation of the interviews.

The process that each interview took varied depending on the response from the participant. This was an advantage of semi-structured interviews in that questions or topics could be discussed in a flexible format, or

follow up questions could be asked in order to accommodate or clarify the participant’s responses (Bryman 2012).

This approach could be described as requiring effective listening skills and offered greater flexibility during the interviews, allowing the interviewer to respond to emerging issues (King and Horrocks 2014) as they arose. An outcome of this was that it provided the opportunity for the conversation to take alternative and sometimes unexpected directions.

Henn, Weinstein and Foad (2009) suggest the collection of data can be chaotic with the revision of questioning taking place following the analysis of early data. The revision that took place, within this study, following this, led to a greater emphasis on the relationship dynamics within the teams and the impact that internal and external stressors had on these. During the interview the aim was to create an environment where the participants perceived that they were able to respond freely, hence by asking them to talk about themselves in the initial stages, the intent was that this would relax them and encourage them to consider their role within the wider team and their relationships with others. From this point there was an opportunity to expand on this information further. By

103

intention that this would encourage them to be able to speak openly and honestly without fear of reprisal.

In accordance with semi-structured interviewing, introducing questions sought out initial information about the topic, for example “please tell me about your experiences of working with your colleagues in this service” and these were then followed up with additional questions based on the participants’ responses to clarify the points that they raised.

This was also an opportunity to seek clarification of the participant’s

responses by asking them to expand on their original answer to elaborate it further and also for me to give my perception of their answer and check whether this perception of their response tallied with their own.

On some occasions the participants found it difficult to answer the

question, for example when asked for a definition of collaboration. They had habitualised this way of working to the extent that they stated that it was something that they did subconsciously therefore were unclear how to explain their actions. Some asked for a period of reflective time in order to consider how to articulate their answer and they were allowed as much time as they required to do so.

The participants were allowed to direct their responses which, upon reflecting upon the transcripts, may appear as though some participants diversified significantly. However, the rationale was that, as an

interviewer, I did not want to miss out on any information that the participants considered was relevant which may send the study into different directions, including ones that would not otherwise have been considered. An example of this may be seen in a response from OT 1 who when asked which professions she considered to make up her team

responded by saying that she considered that each patient had a unique group of people working with them depending on their needs. This

104

terms of its make-up and led to further consideration of how stability of inter-relationships can ensue in such interchangeable groups.

The following section will summarise the processes undertaken to record the findings from the interviews.