Comprobación de Hipótesis

All of the interviews conducted were, with the consent of the participants, digitally recorded. Due to the busy nature of the CH environment, gaining interviews proved to be a difficult task even when staff were keen to partake. To try to offset this, I

employed a flexible approach, allowing the interviewees to dictate the time and place of interviews (see Appendix J for a list of interview and interviewee characteristics). Finding time for interviews was difficult. Often staff were on duty for long or split shifts and sometimes they were short staffed, so staff breaks were a highly valued time. Consequently, when arranging interviews I did not suggest they take place in

124

care staffs’ breaks or within their own time. Three interviews did take place during staff break times; however in each case the interviewee suggested this time. Two interviewees suggested the interview taking place after their shift and a further two arranged to come to the CH especially on a day off to be interviewed. Five interviews were conducted during night shifts; this was a good time to arrange to interview senior staff (n=3) who were covering nights due to staff shortages, since it was easier to find free time at some stage during a night shift than a day shift. These examples reflect the busyness of CH shifts and the benefit of accommodating each participant’s preference. The flexible approach worked to gain interviews in circumstances where it proved difficult to find suitable times.

Several interviews were conducted during shifts when a staff member had a quiet moment, stopped working and ‘came off the floor.’ Sometimes these interviews had been prior arranged earlier that day or on previous days and sometimes they were ad- hoc interviews conducted in ‘snatched time’ with little notice during a quiet moment in the routine of the shift. Conducting interviews during working hours was an issue negotiated with management staff at the beginning of the case studies and senior staff as and when interviews occurred. There was an ethical connotation to

interviewing staff during their shifts, since while staff were off the floor the researcher was in effect taking the residents’ time. This issue was in part counterbalanced by the reciprocal nature of the role ‘researcher as participant.’

Further interviews were conducted alongside work tasks. Often staff would arrange interviews at times they would be conducting tasks other than care tasks. Many staff had dual roles as carers and/or activity co-ordinators and as cleaners, laundry staff or kitchen staff. Or as part of the care worker role kitchen work was involved. These tasks away from the residential areas of the CHs allowed a space for interviewing while work was still being completed. Interviewing staff while they were ironing, preparing food, cleaning the kitchen or laying the tables in the dining room were not ideal interview environments, but allowed more interviews to be obtained.

The interviews were conducted in places determined by the participants themselves; these included staff rooms, empty rooms such as, a hairdressing room, vacant

125

bedrooms, an activity room or in quiet areas of public spaces for example lounges, corridors or dining rooms. The venues for interviews created issues connected to privacy. Interviews were often interrupted either by staff or residents, some multiple times. If the staff member was needed the interview was either terminated or the participant returned shortly afterwards to continue. An empty staff room would become occupied or a resident may join us in the corridor. On these occasions I was led by the individual participant. Intruders to the interviews were always

acknowledged and informed of the ongoing process. The participant was asked what they felt should happen and the responses differed. Some participants suggested moving to a more private venue, which we did, others were happy to continue with the interview in situ, in this case the intruder/s were asked if they minded and if they were in agreement we continued (in the case of the intruder being a resident the questions I asked after their arrival were restricted to less sensitive issues). Some staff intruders in this situation would join in answering the interview questions; the issue of consent then became prominent. It became necessary to inform the non-participant verbally about the consent needed and to produce a consent form and information sheet. If the intruder and participant were both in agreement for a joint interview (as occurred twice) we would proceed. These changing circumstances often required quick and instinctive actions to maintain an ethical environment for the interviews to proceed.

Interviewing participants at impromptu moments sometimes with little more than a minute’s notice, during night shifts (finishing as late as 2am in one instance) and alongside non-care tasks made the generation of interview data difficult. Distractions, interruptions, tiredness, background noise (such as a radio), short time available for interviews, abrupt termination of interviews and lack of preparation time all created challenges for me as an interviewer. To attempt to overcome these and make the most of the interview opportunities an informal style was employed and the most salient issues to explore were prioritised (see Appendix E for the indicative interview topic guide). The informal style allowed the generation of data to derive from a dialogue between researcher and participant, helping the participants feel more at ease and hopefully able to talk more freely. Conducting interviews in these difficult

126

circumstances rendered the planned in-depth interviews as, at times, unachievable. Instead flexibility was essential; I adapted to the time, place and person; obtaining the data I could when I could. Interviewees had different styles, some were very confident and open, and others were more reluctant to talk freely and came across as hesitant. To enhance the interview opportunities I adapted to each interviewee, if they were perceived to be lacking confidence I actively tried to provide reassurance that what they were saying was fine. If participants were free speaking I used a more traditional interview technique, since less encouragement and leading was required.