Clasificación

I added analytical notes immediately after the interviews and during transcription (or reading of transcription. I undertook half of the transcriptions and used a service for the remainder). A red-thread or decisional audit trail, as Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe it, was maintained. I referred the questions I had asked during interviews back to interview cues and compared across interviews to ensure further dependability. Phenomenological enquiry deems that questions should not be exactly replicated across interviews, but reflecting on previous interviews helped enhance the reproduction of, and justified adherence to (or not), themes set out in interview cues. In using cues, however, my inherent researcher bias has to be acknowledged because I risked guiding questioning too much. To increase rigour, I examined my assumptions at the outset, outlined earlier as: EOLC experiences could be improved and a good death could be had in critical care. I maintained a reflective diary throughout to enhance awareness of bias, and annotated immediately after interview. These measures, along with the analytical processes that will be described in Section 4.8, help towards confirmability (the quality and reflexivity in the approach), which is developed through further measures around reflection and reflexivity in Sections 5.1 and 5.5. I have addressed certain issues of credibility and dependability in phenomenological analysis to ensure transparency. I chose not to return transcripts (or derived concepts) to participants for reasons that will be discussed below. Furthermore, van Manen (1990), whose analytical framework I used, does not advocate returning transcripts. While this can be a marker for credibility, it is not the sole criterion.

First, the researcher constantly reframes and interprets as the interview progresses, checking and re-checking that the experience reflects the participant‘s meaning, exploring concepts at that time.

Second, phenomenological research is, by its very nature, temporal. What was felt at that time may well be interpreted or felt differently in another time. Ashworth (1993; 2003) questions whether participant validity is the key to phenomenological validity and concurs that those findings emerge in a specific context. Interviews undertaken at another time might reveal different phenomena. Denzin‘s (2001) perspective of the interview as an active text, where meaning is created and performed means that participant checks would be meaningless since the interview itself is a construction. Munhall (1994) and van Manen (1990) raise the issue that co-constructing together in

99

the interview is a member-check in itself. Indeed, it could be deemed a more valid member check since the researcher clarifies what was meant by that statement at that exact moment, rather than several weeks or months later.

Lastly, and importantly, there was an ethical issue around returning the transcripts in this research study. The texts contained many very difficult ethical issues. To require people to re-read a lengthy transcript and again address many very difficult feelings, without any support package in place, is ethically dubious.

Transferability, in relation to the findings, will become evident in Chapter 7 and finally in Section 8.5. Internal validity and credibility in phenomenology rests on the richness of the data (Stephenson and Corben, 1997). Finlay (2006) argues that credibility replaces internal validity and dependability replaces reliability. Indeed, validity in phenomenological texts is sparsely addressed for these reasons. The very nature and uniqueness of exploring individual experience, for example, means it cannot be generalised from. However some degree of moderatum generalisation and transferability from the findings‘ essences can be applied. Therefore, here I apply general principles of qualitative validity to ensure my choices and influences remain clear. Denzin and Lincoln (2003) define validity as relating to the description of an explanation and whether or not the explanation fits the description. How I demonstrate authenticity in my research is evident in Section 5.2. I strived to maintain validity and reliability as described in Boxes 9 and 10 overleaf:

100

Box 9. Credibility and validity trail

Box 10. Reliability and consistency trail

- In-depth and prolonged engagement with the data (Lincoln and Guba, 1985;

Ashworth, 1997)

- Exploring and making explicit bias and assumptions through reflexivity

(Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Streubert and Carpenter, 2003)

- Peer review of concepts (and debriefing (Lincoln and Guba, 1995; Robson,

2002) to enhance credibility

- Additional peer review of transcripts and reflective accounts (Janesick, 1998) - Exemplifying concepts with verbatim quotes (Johnson, 1997)

- Reframing the meanings with informant at the time of interview to ensure

what was interpreted reflected the true meaning (van Manen, 1990)

- Audit and decision trails (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Koch, 1994), reflective

research diaries (maintained in this study as described above and in Chapter 5)

- Making explicit assumptions (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) (as outlined in this

chapter and in Chapter 1)

- Using verbatim quotes to ground interpretations (Johnson, 1997) (as

exemplified in Chapter 6)

- Peer review of transcripts to check for technical accuracy (Peräkylä, 1997),

questioning and concepts (using supervisory support as discussed)

- Iterative engagement with the data and interpretation (Stiles, 1993; Priest,

2002) (as detailed in 4.7)

101

Analysis proceeded from preliminary thoughts to explicit understanding, emerging as data interpretation could be explained (Streubert-Speziale and Carpenter, 2006). This essentially formed the hermeneutic circle of examining and re-examining the data, whilst reflecting upon emerging phenomena. I have attempted to ensure that I adhered to these principles throughout the study. I outline the process of analysis in depth next to exemplify transparency in coding and analysis.