Balance General a) ACTIVO

The central research method in this study is in-depth interviews. These are conducted rather than surveys because surveys do not provide the rich, detailed responses that interviews do (Curry, 2015b; Jansen, 2010). A set of broad, somewhat open-ended questions are posed to those involved in the closure reviews of Parliament Oak and A.J. Baker. The interview questions are supplied in Appendix 1. However, during interviews, further questions were asked and different directions taken based on responses from interview participants or the specific areas of interest or expertise of the interview participants. The goal of this type of open-ended interview is to elicit deeper

contributions and allow interview participants an opportunity to control the direction of their interview. Interview participants were encouraged to offer insight into something not covered by the pre-set questions. As well, the broad nature of the questions helps to ensure areas not anticipated are given the opportunity for discussion and analysis. For example, the financial implications of closing Parliament Oak were not considered until the issue arose during interviews.

In-depth interviews provide accounts of individual experiences and perspectives. They are like “guided conversations”: rich answers are the goal, but there is also the need to ensure the interview stays on topic (Curry, 2015b). In selecting interview participants, this study turns to what Curry (2015b) calls “key informants” meaning those who have a knowledge of, or experience with, the issue at hand and are willing to speak about it. Interview questions need to be open and non-directional so they are more exploratory and do not overly guide the interview subject. There is a clear set of questions for each interview, but the interviews will deviate when an idea or issue is raised by the

participant that warrants exploration. It is also acceptable to reword or drop or add questions as the interview progresses (Curry, 2015b).

Curry (2015b) suggests opening the interview with a broad comfortable question, like “describe your situation here.” This allows the interviewer to get a sense of the

participant and makes the interviewee comfortable and open to responding fully. Good questions are those that encourage descriptions of processes that open up discussions about a broad range of factors. A “tell me about it” type of question is good to use to ensure answers are not guided. Another good tip is to ask about how things have changed as they will highlight and focus on things they have noticed. These can be followed up with what changes they might like to see.

It is very important to carefully craft questions so they are not leading. The interview guide will need to be thoroughly known with the questions memorized (Curry, 2015b). During the interview one must not move to the next question or topic too quickly so as to allow the interviewee to fully answer the questions and not be interrupted.

After the interviews are completed, a content analysis is performed to identify key words or themes (Schulz, 2012). As with the document analysis method, a discourse analysis is needed to look at how things are expressed and if there are certain words that are used to describe something. Following this, a relational analysis is performed to identify relationships between different concepts or themes.

An inductive approach would have the interviews as open as possible, find what the participants say, and then develop some theory or express commonalities or

connections based on their responses. While Schulz (2012) describes a very detailed process of sorting and coding his interview material, it can be generally summed up as finding commonalities in the interviews, labelling those as subthemes, and seeking to find commonalities across those subthemes to identify main themes and then begin theory generation or analysis.

A deductive approach, on the other hand, begins with a theory or theories followed by interviews to test the theories to see if the interviewees confirm the theory (Schulz, 2012). If a theory is not already on hand, some interviews can be done, and then a theory can be developed using the inductive approach. That theory can then be tested

in further interviews with the deductive approach. As with the inductive approach

outlined above, the interviews are analyzed to find subthemes and themes while looking at the relationships between these themes. More generally, new themes and ideas need to be allowed to emerge while also being systematic.

This thesis asks questions from both the inductive and deductive structures. That is, interview questions are open and broad so the interview participants articulate whatever they think and in their own terms. At the same time, some questions are posed from a deductive interview structure: the questions ask if they think a certain theory,

explanation, or principle expressed in the consultation or review guidelines matches their experience.

Another important task comes after the interviews themselves. What seems to be the most popular method for analysing the information is to categorize and then code the information (Taylor-Powell, E. and Renner, 2003). This can mean finding themes in each interview, placing each interview into a column with the themes listed within each column, then finding commonalities across columns to find common topics. This is a good way to visually organize the interview data and clearly identify themes and topics. Another way to think about this is to develop a “code structure” (Curry, 2015a). This refers to the process of developing a practical way of organizing the data into topics and themes by summarizing points and identifying commonalities across the data.

Importantly, this is an “iterative” process, which means that code and theme

development requires returning to transcripts throughout the process to add, subtract, and revise the code structure as we work through the data (Curry, 2015a).

But, how to know what to code? To start, a line-by-line analysis of each interview will help the researcher find the following: something repeated in different interviews, something unanticipated, anything the interviewee explicitly states as being important, something that aligns with research or theories presented in the literature review, or any other reason the researcher deems important (Löfgren, 2013a). While this is somewhat

abstract and ideal, these various themes begin to emerge during the process of interviewing and become quite clear to the researcher.

3.7 R

M

S