In general, interviews have become the preferred choice of data collection method in qualitative research (Silverman, 2010). In particular, in-depth interviews are most commonly utilised (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Legard, Keegan, & Ward, 2003; Liamputtong, 2007). Nevertheless, my decision to adopt in-depth interviewing as the preferred data gathering method was based on an honest reflection on the most suitable method to achieve my research aim. Braun and Clarke (2013) maintain that interviews are most suitable for answering experience-type research questions and are the most common data collection method for phenomenological research (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Galvin & Holloway, 2015; Lawthom & Tindall, 2011; Ngulube & Ngulube, 2017). The purpose of an in-depth interview, which is to elicit rich information (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Liamputtong, 2007) by exploring the lifeworld of the participant (Monette, Sullivan, & DeJong, 2011), was thus methodologically congruent with the aim of this study.
Although I identified the in-depth interview as the most suitable data gathering method, I approached the overall research process with an open mind and endeavoured to adopt a flexible research strategy (Snape & Spencer, 2003). I therefore opted to conduct two pilot interviews,22 firstly to define the parameters of the study and
secondly to gain a better understanding of the environment and contextual issues (see Levers, 2006). The outcome of these interviews would determine whether I needed to adjust my research procedure. The pilot interviews, which I also refer to as ‘entry-into- the-field interviews’, confirmed the suitability of this method for my research.
21 The sample was heterogeneous in terms of demographic variables such as race and gender. 22 More details regarding the specific research procedure that was followed during these interviews
Particularly sensitive information was revealed by the participants and in order to do them justice by enabling them to share their stories, I decided to continue with one- on-one in-depth interviews. As the data from the pilot interviews elicited rich and relevant information in relation to the phenomenon under study, and as I did not revise my interview guide after conducting these interviews, I therefore opted to include these pilot interviews as part of my formal data set (Arthur & Nazroo, 2003; Ravitch & Carl, 2016). According to Arthur and Nazroo (2003) and Ravitch and Carl (2016), pilot interviews do not have to be excluded from a formal data set unless there are significant revisions to the research objectives or data collection method of a research study.
In-depth interviews are issue/topic orientated (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011) and a predetermined list of questions is not used (Saunders et al., 2016). The process is fairly unstructured and informal and may be compared to a conversation (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011; Yin, 2016). The researcher (interviewer) follows a broad agenda with the aim of eliciting answers to open-ended questions (Lawthom & Tindall, 2011; Yin, 2016). While an interview is viewed as a common conversation in lifeworld research, the questions and the manner in which they are posed are crucial for gaining insight into the phenomenon and the participant’s individual experience. Interview questions therefore need to open up the experience but the interview itself does need to have focus (Dahlberg, Dahlberg, & Nyström, 2008). In this regard, I adopted a thematic interview approach (see Yeung, 2004) where a list of themes of interest was developed to guide my research procedure. However, I allowed the conversation to flow and develop.
Churchill (2018) also stresses that the research phenomenon needs to be distinguished from “the situation that reveals it” (p. 211). Therefore, in terms of the interview, a distinction needs to be made between the research questions (those that are posed to the data) and the questions that are posed to the participants to elicit the lived experience (Churchill, 2018; Lockhart & Resick, 2015). As I endeavoured to understand volunteer well-being (research phenomenon) through the work–life experiences of volunteers (the situation that will reveal the volunteer’s well-being), the
theme of the interview questions (see Appendix G) centred on the experiences of volunteering.
Together with my methodological path, my research aim23 and the outcome of the
entry-into-the-field interviews, I also reflected on the following key features of in-depth interviews (Legard et al., 2003), which demonstrate the suitability of this method for this study in particular:
• In-depth interviews combine structure with flexibility. Since the focus is on exploring the work–life experiences of volunteers from their points of view (Miller & Glassner, 2011), each interview will be different. A thematic interview approach (see Yeung, 2004) allowed me to adopt a contextual attitude thereby being open to the responses provided by each participant (Braun & Clarke, 2013).
• Each interview is interactive in nature.24 The entire process therefore tends to be
seen as a partnership or relationship (Yin, 2016), as meaning is co-constructed by the interviewer and the participant (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011) refer to the process as a “meaning-making endeavour” (p. 94). As the researcher, I could only access the mind-dependent reality (Ormston et al., 2014) of the volunteers’ work–life experiences by adopting an interactive relationship. My role was to elicit experiences by adopting an open-ended questioning approach. In-depth responses can only be elicited by asking open-ended questions as this will allow participants to speak freely (Braun & Clarke, 2013). • The focus is on the individual and his or her own language. In-depth interviews
allowed me to capture the subjective understanding of volunteers’ work–life experiences in their own words (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Yin, 2016), thus depicting their points of view (Miller & Glassner, 2011) in ways that make sense to them (Monette et al., 2011). This honours the participant, their story and their voice.
23 In-depth interviews are also congruent with the overall purpose of this research as they are used to
generate exploratory and descriptive data (Babbie & Mouton, 2006; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011).
24 Due to the interactive nature of in-depth interviews, Braun and Clarke (2013) advise interviewers
(the researcher) to adopt a reflexive process and indicate how their practices and values shaped the data. These details will be explicated in Chapter 5 where I outline my overall research procedure.
Since interview data are captured in their natural form (Legard et al., 2003), I now describe how I captured, managed and stored my interview data.