Consideraciones finales

3.9.1. Interviews

Potential participants who were interested in the study were given an information leaflet about the research, outlining the research aim and data collection procedure (see Appendix A). The main research question, which explored ‘psychologists’ experiences of the ways in which a difference/similarity in religious stance between themselves and their client, has an effect on the psychologist’, had sub-themes which were identified for further exploration as the analysis unfolded.

Initial interview questions were piloted with three trainee counselling psychologists to get their input and ascertain if they felt there were any gaps in the schedule; and for the researcher to detect any other unforeseen difficulties. The feedback was that the questions were thought-provoking and there were no suggestions for changes, however, the researcher felt that some of the trainee responses were intellectualised, perhaps not reflecting their actual views. As a result, the pilot interviews were not analysed for the main study. At this stage a decision was made to drop a vignette which was encouraging hypothetical/theoretical answers and to replace this with

92

more socratic-type questions that might elicit answers from participants’ actual experiences (see Appendix B). This generated richer data in successive interviews (see Appendix F for an example of a transcript). From a critical realist perspective, Maxwell (2012) says that the purpose of a research interview is to raise participants’ level of awareness of how they “reason” about certain situations and what they feel inhibits or allows them to act in particular ways within these settings. This mapped on well to the study’s research question.

Post-positivists aim for precision in data collection by using structured interview guides and detailed coding sequences (Fassinger, 2005). If the interview is more structured it facilitates the later conceptual understanding of the data (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Similarly, the first interview schedule of this study was semi- structured, exploring participants’ experiences of working with clients religious beliefs, how this affects them on a personal level and what role they think religion plays in the client’s life and how their own religious practice influences their clinical work. The interview guide comprised a set of open questions to encourage participants’ to talk freely about their experiences, without imposing pre-decided variables on the data (Charmaz, 2014). An example of an opening question was, “Could you tell me about an experience you’ve had working with clients’ religious material in therapy and what your thoughts and feelings were about this?”

Probes and prompts were used when necessary. Using Strauss and Corbin’s (2008) funnelling technique, the questions became more specific towards the end of the interview and reflective paraphrasing was utilized as a way of checking the researcher’s understanding of what was being said and to verify theoretical points of interest (Rennie, 1995). This process felt familiar, as a counselling psychologist. It is especially important when the participants’ answers are coded according to categories and may also convey to the participant that the researcher is listening to them. Fine (cited in Fassinger, 2005: 159) sums up the dilemma that must be settled by the researcher, “as the ethics of involvement and the ethics of detachment”. The interview guide was shaped by analysis and modified in the later stages of recruitment to reflect this.

Topics initiated by participants were, also, explored which allowed for stories to develop, new categories to surface, and for the specific experiences of participants to be expressed (Silverman, 2010). This included psychological counsellors’ own personal experience with religion, their opportunities for self-reflection in this area,

93

their supervisory experience and self-disclosure with clients. Using constant comparison, data analysis took place while interviews were still ongoing, facilitating integration of findings and the generation of new questions in successive interviews (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

In line with Ponterotto’s (2005) advice, an effort was made to conduct interviews in person, as this creates strong researcher and participant synergy, but geographic location made this difficult, at times. Seven interviews were done in person and six were conducted via an internet communication programme called Skype with the camera function turned on so the researcher and participant could see one another. Skype interviews were held in a private room for confidentiality and no interruptions. Interviews lasted about an hour and when meeting participants in person, a colleague of the researcher, was informed of the location, to maintain personal safety.

All participants were asked to read and sign the consent form (see Appendix C) before their interview started and any questions about their participation in the research were discussed. Participants were reminded that they could withdraw from the study, but none objected to continuing with the interview. They were also asked to complete a short demographic questionnaire to establish whether the participant practised a particular faith/spirituality, the frequency with which they did so and the extent to which this influenced or motivated their life activities/choices. This was done using the Religious Commitment Inventory (Worthington, Wade, Hight, Ripley, McCullough, Berry, Schmitt, Berry, Bursley, O’Connor, 2003. See Appendix D).

Interviews were recorded using a digital audio recorder and transcribed with participants consent. Recording interviews captured all verbal data, allowing the researcher to concentrate on the interview process and to foster rapport without the distraction of writing notes (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). At the end, participants were asked if they had anything further to add and if they had any questions. Some participants were concerned that what they had said would detract from the aims of the study and the researcher reassured them that there were no wrong answers and what was important was that they shared their personal experiences. After the interviews, participants were debriefed verbally and also handed a Debriefing form (see Appendix E) and received a small gift for their involvement in the study. The researcher’s reflections about the interviews were also written down to capture observations and consider her own personal beliefs about this process.

94

After the analysis of the interviews, the prospective model and outcomes were sent to some participants for feedback and an adequacy check of the results.