The qualitative phenomenological nature of the research question required the curation of rich descriptive narratives and research interviews help develop a rapport with individuals or couples and create a safe space where participants could talk about sensitive issues. I chose semi-structured interview as an appropriate method which with to secure consistency across the participant group but also flexible enough to accommodate individual experience (Irvine, Drew, & Sainsbury, 2012;
Lamont & Swidler, 2014; Padgett, 2009). Furthermore, the use of open-ended questions and prompts encouraged participants to share their experiences and discussions about contemplating adoption. The structure of the interview schedule outlined below in Table 4.2 was used to guide participants to share their personal experiences of contemplating adoption and how that experience had been shared with others. Although concise,
88 the short interview schedule permitted participants to expand on their experiences and thereby somewhat limit the intrusion of my preconceived assumptions.
Table 4.2 Interview schedule
Interview Schedule (wording may change) 1. Would you please tell me a little about yourself?
2. When did you first think about becoming an adoptive parent?
3. Could you please tell me more about your experiences of contemplating or progressing towards adoptive parenthood?
4. Have your experiences influenced what you think adoptive parenthood means for you and how others perceive it?
5. What do you think about your experience of the process of becoming an adoptive parent?
As I began to undertake interviews, I reflected that my desire to stay true to the interview schedule inhibited the some of the discourses shared. However, as my confidence grew, my ability to engage with the story of each participant and to modify prompts about aspects of their experiences improved. In addition, there were also occasions when participants shared such detailed descriptions that the need to prompt was less apparent. This reflective process of the role and decision making of the phenomenological researcher assists understanding of the intersubjective experience of undertaking research that aims to examine the experiences of others (Cornejo, 2008; White, 2003; Willig, 2007). This thesis does not analyse my contribution to the interviews and the participation of my explicit intersubjectivity, but this issue could form part of a reflective paper as a means of sharing my postdoctoral learning.
It was important I acknowledged the potential effects of different research design elements. In their study, Irvine et al. (2012) used content analysis to detail the limitations of telephone interviews and the
89 subsequent change in the nature of the dialogue. However, I argue it is equally important to reflect on the benefits to research that electronic modes of communication can bring. In my study, telephone interviews permitted the inclusion of participants whose geographical location could have excluded them from the study. Perhaps, more importantly, it provided an extra layer of anonymity and facilitated choice to participants about how much of whom they are was shared with the interviewer (Rober, 2005). This personal use of agency was most visible to me when one participant used only the audio feature during a Skype call during what was an emotionally driven account of her experience. However, there was a stage when she switched on the web camera to show me an object that she had previously described to me. That act contained the symbolic resonance of her experience as she revealed a previously hidden aesthetic view of herself (Slattery, Krasny, & O’Malley, 2007). The richness of this interaction suggests that content analysis can only provide a partial understanding of the dialogic engagement that occurs during qualitative audio research interviews. Thus, I look forward to postdoc analysis investigating a dialogic perception of the research interview, arguing that it must include the participation of the researcher and participant (Russell & Kelly, 2002).
Although not part of the analysis presented in later chapters, it is essential to acknowledge the rhetorical influence of myself as the researcher within the interview transcripts (Cooper & Burnett, 2006).
Notably, Cooper and Burnett (2006) suggest the inclusion of researcher dialogue could compete with the focus on participant discourses; to this end, I tried to limit my conversation during interviews. However, at times this approach felt alien, particularly during telephone interviews when in the absence of visual cues more considerable care had to be employed to determine the level of animation required to communicate with the participant (Irvine et al., 2012). I suggest that to minimise the dialogical relationship between researcher and participants serves to limit an understanding of the dynamic research processes essential to the knowledge produced. Furthermore, I argue that an exploration of researcher positioning is always dialogically related to the theoretical
90 paradigms and those who participate in the research (Gulerce, 2014).
Intrinsic to this concept is the notion that knowledge, the language we use, and the positioning of who we are, is always reflected in our own genealogy (Foucault, 1989). Thus, I recognised I have contributed to the design, application and analysis of the knowledge emerging from this multifaceted exploration of the construction and experience of prospective adopters. In doing so, I co-constructed an opportunity to transcend traditionally perceived limitations of each epistemology allowing a more complex polygonal reflective ontology to emerge. More directly, I recognised and embraced the reality that whatever research lens we choose to use and make our primary focus, this does not discount the interrelatedness of other theoretical constructs of the world.
4.1.4 Transcription
All the semi-structured interviews were audio recorded and transcribed using features from the Jefferson (2004) transcription system.
The symbols I used and their meanings are depicted below in Table 4.3.
This method was familiar to me from previous analysis undertaken as part of my undergraduate and postgraduate psychology degrees. Although using the Jefferson system extends the time it takes to transcribe, my experience was that it also served to deepen my engagement with the spoken word. That is of crucial importance if the transcript is to be an accurate reflection of what was said. It was also essential to recognise that any judgement of an emphasis of a word or syllable in comparison to surrounding words is subjective. Although a positivist position would comment on subjectivity as a limitation, I only partially accept that argument as I also recognise the value in the intersubjective construction of meaning (Scotland, 2012). During transcription, I found there were times when I heard something for the first time. Thus, although I was listening during the interviews, at times participants shared information that I did not hear or had not remembered. Also, I note any absence in the recall may have been affected by the time lapse between interview and
91 transcription. This delay was planned in accordance with the ethical commitments embedded in the research design detailed below.
Table 4.3. Features of Jefferson transcription system (2004).
Symbol Meaning
(.) A brief but noticeable pause.
(8secs) A number inside brackets denotes a timed pause
(...) A pause of untimed length.
( ) Other aspects of communication, including where the words were too unclear to transcribe.
Italics Words have been replaced to protect anonymity.
Underlined Indicates emphasis on a syllable or word.
I Interviewer/Researcher
In compliance with the ethical requirements of the University of Huddersfield’s SREP participants were permitted to have a one month period after their interview to withdraw from the study. To ensure participants felt they could withdraw without additional concern of the time, I may have invested in their contribution; I advised them I would not transcribe their interviews until that time had lapsed. That also meant I chose not to make detailed field notes to reflect on the contribution at the time of the interview. Although, this decision could be viewed as at odds with the assumed methodology of qualitative research; I recognised how I was impacted by the interviews and aspects of each resonated with me, but a decision had to be made in relation to what actions or inaction of the researcher adds to the complexity of epoché (Heidegger, 1953/2010). I recognised this created some distance between the interviews and my post-interview engagement with them. This was a novel experience to me as my previous research had involved compiling field notes. However, I soon found that I was content with the decision not to do so and this is
92 anchored to how I felt authentic in making sense of my being-in-the-world as a phenomenological researcher. That said I was relieved when I found I re-engaged and re-lived the interviews again during the transcription process.
Essentially, the vibrancy of re-experiencing the emotions of laughter, sadness and the cognitive thoughts about their experiences did not appear to dull by the passing of time. This is important and led me to reflect that what was crucial in my role as a researcher was how I made sense of the length of time between interview and transcription.
Therefore, I could have constructed it as detrimental and focused on what may have been lost. Notably, I did not form that view. The decision was a pragmatic way to protect the participants, but also to safeguard my own investment in their experience. If I had proceeded to invest following the interview and they had wanted to withdraw, I would have to question how much knowledge I would have had to bracket. As it was, no participant withdrew from the study. However, I transcribed the four interviews of the participants who were not domiciled in the UK, and these were subject to data analysis, however, as their experiences were not connected to the British adoption processes, they did not resonate in the same way and were not used in the final analysis described below.