The interpretivist approaches, taken in this study, focused on understanding the participants and finding out what events meant to them, how they adapted and how they viewed what had happened. From these subjective experiences themes were identified. In qualitative research, there is less a focus on generalisability and external validity but more on reliability and internal validation (Carpenter and Suto 2008). The data needs to accurately represent the attitude, perceptions and views of the participants but also allow the reader to follow the footsteps of the researcher. Being sensitivity to context challenges whether the researcher has focused on the participant’s view of the lived experience. To answer this, it is worth reiterating that the
study complied with the ethics committees and the design of the study was set in the real world with interviews conducted in the hospital setting. The participants put themselves forward to take part and freely gave of their time and experiences. There is within the analysis a large number of transcripts enabling the voices of the participants to describe the phenomena. The length of the interviews and the enthusiasm of the participants to talk about their experiences of being an ESP illustrate the focus on the context of the study. None of the
179
participants altered their transcribed interviews when returned to them or made amendments. This suggests that the interviews and transcripts captured what the participants wanted to say.
In terms of commitment and rigour to this study, this can be demonstrated in several ways. Firstly, the length of time over which the study has been conducted beginning in 2011 and finishing in 2016 demonstrates a commitment to the study. The reason and interest for conducting the study were outlined in the introduction and are still relevant today as physiotherapy continues to develop. There is still no other published study to date which describes the experiences of physiotherapists engaged in challenging clinical boundaries. Much of this individual work remains buried within the organisations. The co-commitment with the participants was to capture their experiences, make them visible to other physiotherapists and the wider physiotherapy professions to gain an understanding of the experiences of evolving roles.
Rigour was ensured by compliance with the methodology and attention to detail in the method. The philosophical basis of the interpretative phenomenological methodology was followed in terms of capturing the participants experiences and making these clear using in their own voices in the text. The whole basis of the study was to the participants to describe and explain their experiences of being an ESP before then seeking an understanding. The method, or means of implementing this philosophical standpoint relied on semi-structured interviews as the sole source of data for the study reflects the value this study places on the participant’s
interpretation of the phenomenon under study. As Smith et al (2009 p56) explains, “Participants should have been granted an opportunity to tell their stories, to speak freely and reflectively, and to develop their ideas and express their concerns at some length.” Any
interpretation of the data was based solely on what the participants expressed in their interviews endeavouring ‘to make sense of the participant trying to make sense of what is happening to them’ (Smith et al. 2009 p3). The actual process of analysis is detailed in the
180
Stein and Roberts (2011) argue that to reduce bias and ensure rigour, more than one researcher should be involved in the process of data analysis. In individual doctoral research, this is a problem which was accounted for by robust supervision. Supervisors challenged and checked that the final report was plausible or credible in terms of the data which have been collected and that there was a logical step-by-step path through the chain of evidence. The researcher had to argue and convince them that the findings were not based on opinion, but on a rigorous analytically transparent process. Supervision was there to assure the consumers of the research that the conclusions were logically derived from the data and that the study
was systematic and transparent (Smith et al 2009 p183). Examples of the interview transcripts (including annotations), extracts from the reflective log and copies of mind maps used in the analysis are included in the appendix 8 (p 231-235) to demonstrate transparency in the research process and attention to detail.
Coherence within the study describes the way in which elements such as the research aim and objectives, method, reflexivity and outcome match the methodology. (Ballinger 2006). The research followed an interpretative phenomenological tradition which culminated in many months of writing and crafting a narrative to explain the experiences of the ESPs in terms of the themes discovered from their interviews and written transcripts. The understanding of these experiences as institutional work is consistent with the methodology. Suddaby (2010 p16) argues that phenomenological methodologies share an interpretative heritage with institutional work and share the same philosophy. As such, phenomenological methodologies are “both pertinent to the purpose and apposite to the assumptions of institutional work scholars.” There is a consistency throughout the study with the phenomenology methodology,
method and interpretation.
Finally, the importance and impact of the study, or as Smith et al (2009 p183) describe it, “the
principle about a significant contribution whether the final product tells the reader something interesting, important, or useful.” This is outlined in the previous section, and continues in the
181
investigation and that the role of the researcher is accounted for in a way that is consistent with the orientation of the research.