Financiamiento de la demanda en Argentina

Within narrative research the role of the researcher as an instrument of data collection is seen as a close collaborative process. Within the context of narrative research interviews are viewed as conversation (Riessman, 2008) and therefore there is a collaborative dialogic relationship between the researcher and the participant. Creating this relationship and fostering a relationship for this type of mutual collaboration to occur is essential for the success of a narrative research study. Within the context of this study I was known to all of the participants as a lecturer and I was therefore very conscious of creating as equal a relationship as possible with each participant. This was achieved I believe through various processes which are discussed in detail in the following sections.

In-depth interviews were used to address the research aim and objectives of this study as most narrative studies within the human sciences are based on interviews of some description (Riessman, 2008). Initially, I considered using focus groups. Nonetheless exploring reflective practice is a very personal and private journey for participants. Private thoughts and individual identities may become lost as the focus group may converge to form a consensus of opinion rather than individual views. Additionally, personal information such as personal struggles and conflict can be very sensitive to discuss in a collective situation and therefore may be avoided by the participants if focus groups were used.

Qualitative interviews by their nature are more engaged, more in-depth, more comprehensive and also less balanced than conversations as one person is asking most of the questions and one person is doing most of the answering (Rubin and

Rubin, 2005). Legard et al. (2009) articulate that the researcher will have some insight into the general themes they wish to broadly explore and will usually use a framework or guide to assist them in this venture. However, there is sufficient flexibility present within the interview process to accommodate responses being probed and explored further and to facilitate the responsiveness of the researcher. The second feature of in-depth interviewing is that it is interactive in nature so that the interviewees are encouraged to explore their narratives further. However it is proposed to merge structure with flexibility (Legard et al., 2003). The researcher uses probes to achieve in-depth answers and this facilitates the researcher in obtaining deeper understanding of the narratives (Legard et al., 2003).

Broad open-ended questions were prepared in order to assist with the starting point of the narrative. However, I was cognisant of the fact that the specific wording of questions is less important than the interviewer’s emotional attentiveness (Riessman, 2008). Nonetheless, some open-ended questions provided an opportunity for narrative storytelling and were therefore employed as part of a ‘settling in’ period for the interviews. This method of questioning also encouraged participants to take the lead and develop their own narratives within the research (Arthur and Nazroo, 2003). During the interview I probed in depth and aimed to uncover a deeper interpretation of the narrative (See Appendix 3). I used an interview guide as suggested by Kvale (1996), who refers to this as the ‘traveller metaphor’. This is created where the researcher takes the lead within the interview interaction and journeys with the participant and interprets the stories. Although I had a ‘list of broadly stated questions’ prepared to ask the participants during the interviews, I didn’t refer to them very often as the flow of the stories became more fluid and natural. This I suspect also reflected my comfort in being the researcher as the interviews progressed.

The role of the researcher is significant within qualitative research as the researcher is the research instrument for data collection (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). Therefore, the behaviour and actions of the researcher can greatly affect the quality of the interview process. In-depth interviews require several key attributes

interview (Rubin and Rubin, 2005). It was of particular importance to me as a novice researcher to behave in a relaxed manner and not allow inexperience to be conveyed to the participant. This I feel was achieved by being well prepared in advance of each interview. This involved preparing the physical environment for the interview such as having the room warm yet well ventilated, ensuring the chairs were comfortable with padded seats and good back and arm support to create a comfortable environment. Refreshments were available at each interview. In order to ensure that energy and concentration levels were high for each interview, I scheduled the interviews on separate dates. This ensured that my concentration levels were high in order for me to listen, probe and distil the essential points that the participant was expressing and to formulate relevant questions to explore the narrative further (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003).

I was mindful not to employ a ‘stimulus/response’ model where the facilitating interviewer asks the questions and the ‘vessel-like respondent’ gives the answers. Riessman (2008) argues that this method should be replaced by having two active participants, who together create meaning and narrative. Key to the narrative process within the interview is the ‘collaborative, dialogic nature of the relationship between the researcher and her or his research subjects (Moen, 2006, p. 6).

The goal within narrative research therefore is to generate detailed accounts of a phenomenon rather that brief descriptive answers. This requires considerable skill on the part of the researcher as it necessitates the development of a caring and trustworthy situation in which both the researcher and the participant feel comfortable (Moen, 2006).

Several authors (Chase, 2011; Clandinin and Connelly, 2000) are intrigued by the collaborative dialogic nature of the connection between the researcher and the participant within narrative research. The significance of ensuring that time and effort is employed in developing a caring relationship of trust and comfort between the researcher and the participant cannot be underestimated within narrative research (Moen, 2006). The aim within narrative research is that the

everyday stories’ (Chase, 2011, p. 422). Using in-depth interviews as a method of gathering narrative data provided me with the opportunity to look at and explore the participants’ use of language, laughter and repetition while also considering how the storytelling is embedded in the interaction between the researcher and the participant (Chase, 2011; Clandinin and Connelly, 2000; Riessman, 2008). Riessman (2008) suggests using language such as ‘tell me what happened’ which invites an extended account of the narrative. This type of questioning encourages conversation and therefore exploration. I employed such a method during the interviews.

Moen (2006) warns against the dilemma that may occur if the researcher and the participants interpret narrative in different ways or in the event that the participant has a better understanding of the experience than the researcher. This dilemma could possibly be solved if the researcher’s and the participants’ points of view are included within the research (Moen, 2006). I have endeavoured to do this in my findings chapter.