The interviews were one hour in length, with break times factored in as participants requested or required. The interviews took place in a pre-booked room, in a venue that was both safe and comfortable, as well as familiar. Pavee Point Traveller and Roma centre was chosen for its accessibility as the building is fitted with a ramp. It was also chosen for its cultural
appropriateness to a Traveller cohort, since it is known as a safe space for the Traveller community. Interviews were recorded with a Dictaphone.
Three context-specific requirements conditioned the process of the interviews undertaken. In the first, due to culturally-appropriate standards of conduct I, as a female interviewer, never engaged or was in conversation with a male without having another female present. In the second, my access needs as a researcher involved having a personal assistant in the room.
The personal assistant took notes under my direction. This situation was explained to participants in advance of the interview, and again at the commencement of the interview itself. Arrangements were made to facilitate any participant who expressed fear or a concern for privacy due to the presence of a third person who was not directly involved in the research in the room. In such cases, plans were put in place whereby my access needs were organised so that the personal assistant did not have to be in the room. This only happened at the
participant’s request. Finally, the language of the interview was altered to suit the register preferred by the participant, particularly participants in the Traveller categories, as many participants in these categories may not have had opportunities to complete formal education.
3.6.1 Interview content
Open-ended questions were favoured to reduce the likelihood of imposing predetermined answers onto questions, and to allow the interview itself to develop more freely and
spontaneously (Michael Quinn Patton, 2002). At the same time, the interview format made use of semi- structured interview questions, rather than entirely open and in-depth ones, partly to remain cognisant of the research and theoretical aims, but also due to time constraints. It was decided that this research required several interviews with some participants, rather than one or two, because the study is conscious of exploring and chronicling diversity. This placed
restrictions on time and resources, making economy necessary in the formulation of questions. Long interviews would also, potentially, have been difficult for both interviewer and
interviewee.
In writing the interview questions, focus was placed on trying to describe the experience of Travellers with impairments who have experienced simultaneous oppressions, in the form of racism and disablism, in ways which facilitated personal input but also recognised the systemic and structural nature of these oppressions. Guidance was taken from Cameron’s (2010) semi- structured interview approach, asking participants a series of basic questions regarding self- perfection, whether they identify as disabled and how they conceive of this identity. This essential spectrum of questions, focusing at first on identity, then led to more specific and in- depth questions exploring experiences of racism, stigma, shame and pride. Each target group was asked specific questions relating to Traveller or disabled identity [see Appendix D]. Some questions, addressed to separate groups, overlapped or echoed each other. This was inevitable, as non-disabled Travellers and disabled Travellers have a correlation of experiences because they belong to the same ethnic minority group. Settled people with impairments and Travellers with impairment also shared some common experiences and perceptions in relation to their experiences of living with disability. In formulating the questions, flexibility was paramount in the interests of capturing the similarities within each group whilst also accommodating
differences in experience between settled and Traveller participants, and Travellers with and without impairments. The data gathered was interpreted via Cameron’s (2010) affirmation model, with questions also formulated considering this. This approach enabled the researcher to highlight and develop an analysis of the affirmation model of disability within the context of disabled Traveller identity. The categories of questions and subjects were broad enough to encapsulate the rich texture of Traveller experience, and to allow for creative and participatory
reflection on the participant’s relationship with their identity. At the same time, the data was interpreted in such a way as to allow for ‘flash-points’ at which Travellers with impairments expressed similar opinions to that of settled people with impairments.
In developing and revising questions for participants, the focal point was Travellers with impairments, with emphasis on their ontological perspectives, how they understood themselves and their experiences of impairment and racism. In the All Ireland Traveller Health Study (AITHS, 2010) which was peer led, there was minimal references to impairment. Nonetheless, while developing this area of the thesis, the questions in the AITHS were used as a framework from which to develop questions particularly around access and culturally appropriate
accommodation. Immediate environment and accommodation are key indicators of quality of life and they are particularly pertinent in the case of Irish Travellers. During the process of revising questions and speaking with participants over the phone or in email in the form of follow-ups to the main interviews, time passed – eight or nine months between conversations or even, sometimes, a year depending on participants’ ability, availability and desire to revisit the topic with me. This long duration allowed for changes, instabilities and challenges
regarding accommodation, in the lives of participants, to become even more visible. It is important to acknowledge that, even currently in 2018, the economic crash which occurred in 2008 in Ireland is still reverberating in the form of an ongoing housing crisis. The specific situation of Traveller accommodation is masked, and sometimes lost, in the overall media coverage and public conversation regarding this housing and accommodation crisis. At the same time, budgets allocated for Traveller accommodation in different parts of the country remain unspent (Watson et al., 2017). Thus, accommodation is a significant issue for Travellers, and could not be avoided when formulating questions, or reflecting on Traveller experiences of oppression and systemic neglect. However, when interviewing settled people with impairments, I did not feel it necessary to ask about their accommodation. I felt this line of questioning would lead me on a different trajectory and into a comparative analysis beyond the scope of this thesis. Also, in my opinion, ultimately such a departure was not sufficiently relevant to the aims and theoretical programme of the thesis. Examples of questions regarding accommodation can be found in Appendix C.
3.7 The Focus groups
The focus groups were not part of the original design of my research. However, they were a lucky happenstance. As described above, the uptake from the non-disabled Traveller group was low. I decided therefore to include two Traveller focus groups in the interests of capturing more, and broader, perspectives, especially those of Travellers without impairments, and to expand the project’s scope and understanding of service provision and issues of access. Susan Short (2006: 110) notes that as participatory research methods such as focus groups, become increasingly popular in mainstream social scientific research, they offer the ability to ‘formalize the incorporation of community members in research’. Short (2006: 111) goes on to write about how groups of like members can create ‘comfortable venues for expression.’ My background in Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre greatly influenced the decision to include focus groups. I worked there for several years and I am involved with projects there from time to time. Staff were very generous in their support of my thesis topic and were willing to provide a safe space for interviews within a relaxed setting.
The focus groups were in a way an obvious solution to the poor uptake from the non disabled Traveller group. They could provide a free and relaxed discussion on the research questions with Travellers who were knowledgeable and readily available. I knew of two focus groups planned at the Centre that would coincide with my research. Both groups come together regularly to discuss a variety of topics of interest to the Traveller community. One focus group was made up of primary health care workers, all female; and the other of Traveller men working on a men’s mental health initiative. There were ten members in each group. The primary health care programmes which employ Travellers to work as community health workers are an avenue whereby the experience of Travellers with impairments can be accessed. This is not suggesting that impairment is solely a health issue. Depending on the impairment, there are health issues that are related but within the Traveller infrastructure, the primary health care programmes are a huge source of support for individuals and families with impairments. These focus groups were also necessary, in part, because it is difficult to discuss the issue of impairment openly within the Traveller community. While interview participants with impairments were willing and open to talk about their personal experiences, finding non-disabled Traveller men to interview on the subject was challenging. The focus groups addressed this deficit in data collection and had the potential to offer group perspectives, experiences and insights on impairment relevant to the research questions. However, Rachel Baker and Rachel Hinton (1999) caution that researchers