Fifty interviews in total were undertaken between September 2013 and January 2015, lasting between 30 minutes and 80 minutes plus one written account. Although the interviews were semi-structured, I used an interview schedule as a memory aid, especially in the early stages of the research. After the first few interviews I became more familiar with the key topics to be discussed and the schedule was used if needed as a reminder.
The interview questions were informed by the literature review and experience gained through involvement in meetings at Sacro. The full interview schedule for women is attached in Appendix 5. Table 3 provides a summary of topics discussed for each participant type. The work of Ann Oakley has provided guidance on how interviews should be conducted and approached under a feminist framework (Oakley 1981). Oakley stresses the importance of a non-hierarchical relationship during the interview process and that the interview should be a two way process, where the interviewee
should be viewed as an equal. The interview itself must be carried out in such a way that the participant is free to tell their story (Oakley 1981; Westmarland 2001).
Table 2: Number of interviews completed at each mentoring location by type of participant
Qualitative Sample
Head Office
Glasgow Lanarkshire Fife Falkirk Edinburgh Total
Interview: mentee 9 5 1 3 1 19 Second Interview: mentee 1 1 0 0 0 2 Written account by mentee
n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a 1
Interview: mentor (paid) 4 2 2 1 2 11* Interview: mentor (volunteer) 2 1 0 0 0 3 Interview: Sacro senior manager 1 1 1 1 0** 1 5 Interview: volunteer coordinator (Sacro) 1 1 Interview: senior social worker (Funder) 1 1 1 0 0 3 Interview: social work staff 1 1 4 0 0 6 TOTAL:51
* Three of the paid mentors had previously volunteered as a mentor and were able to provide a perspective of both roles in interviews. **Edinburgh and Falkirk were managed by the same individual so one interview covered both services.
Table 3: Summaries of topics in interview schedules Mentee Interview
Schedule Topics
Mentor Interview Schedule Topics
Funders/social work staff Interview Schedule Topics
Expectations of mentoring
Motivations Definition of mentoring
Definition of mentoring Definition of mentoring Role of mentors Mentoring sessions
and relationship with mentor
Mentoring sessions and relationship with mentee
Expectations of mentoring
Volunteer mentors Training and recruitment Profile of women referred Outcomes of
mentoring
Outcomes of mentoring Satisfaction with mentoring
Social capital (experiences in the
community and relationships)
Experiences with other agencies Development/changes to mentoring
Interviewing in line with a feminist approach generally ‘aims to be reflexive and interactive, take a non-hierarchical approach and avoid objectifying the participant’ (Ritchie and Lewis 2003: 140). I decided to adopt this approach at is seemed appropriate for my aims, in that I wanted to give women the opportunity to talk about issues important to them and not to be restricted.
Oakley (1981) argued that in feminist research, women should interview women as, due to their shared gender, they are more likely to construct in-depth knowledge from the research process. However the hierarchical nature of the interview process is not only influenced by gender but also by factors such as class, age, ethnicity, sexuality and global location so it cannot be assumed that a sharing of gender in itself is enough to remove power imbalances (Doucet and Mauthner 2008). Ramazanoglu (1989) discussed her research in the 1960s on female shift workers. She reflected that the women who participated in interviews were very aware of the class differences between themselves and the interviewer. Dominant public opinion at the time viewed the role of married women to be at home with their children and not out at work. The author noted that when the women in her study were questioned about
recognition that she was of a middle class background. Ramazanoglu also viewed this defensiveness as a response to the power imbalance of the situation. She found that the lack of rapport and disclosure from herself made it very difficult to develop any kind of trusting relationship with participants. McDermott (2004) reported a similar influence of class on the influence of ‘telling’ lesbian stories. The working class women in her study were more likely than middle class participants to appear nervous in interviews and report feeling that their life experiences were not of value. She relates this to the pathologising of working class people and their experiences which have also been highlighted by Skeggs (1997).
It is difficult to address issues of class completely, and it is unlikely that the interview situation was completely non-hierarchical. As I am a university student, and many of the women were from disadvantaged circumstances with little education then it may have been difficult to overcome these class differences. However I attempted to reduce any inequalities of power and class differences by talking informally with the participants, dressing informally, asking questions in a conversational style and answering any questions that they asked. I also reiterated my limited knowledge of mentoring at Sacro and my student status, to attempt to negate any perceptions of myself as an ‘expert’ or as a ‘professional.’ This approach was more important for interviews with women who used the service than staff interviews. Information sheets also informed women that the findings from the study would be used by Sacro to inform the service, however it did not explicitly state that Sacro were funding the study.
Interviews with women who used the mentoring service were carried out in Sacro office locations. It was important that the women who were participating in the study were in an environment where they felt safe, and where they had the support of a professional that they knew, should they need it. Prior to the commencement of the interview, I talked through the information sheet with the women and asked her to sign the consent form if she was happy to proceed. Mentee participants were briefed on the research by a Sacro worker prior to the interview, and rarely asked any questions. The majority of women appeared comfortable with being recorded. One woman said that she felt a little self-conscious at the beginning of the interview about being recorded, and I offered to stop recording but she declined. At the end of the interview
she stated that she had forgotten all about the recorder and was speaking openly and relaxed. She also participated in a follow-up interview.
Follow-up interviews proved to be very difficult to arrange, mainly because women were often uncontactable. Attempts were made to contact women through staff and two follow-up interviews were carried out. These interviews were used to note any changes in women’s experiences since their first interview (approximately six months). One woman who had agreed to take part in a follow-up interview was in custody at the time of the later stages of field work and therefore was not available to participate in a second interview. Another woman did not attend an arranged follow-up interview. The lack of follow-up interviews may have reflected the circumstances that women continue to face after a period of mentoring, e.g. financial difficulties, addiction or homelessness. This lack of a longitudinal exploration meant that substantial claims could not be made about changes over time. Follow-up interviews were then utilised as a means to providing more depth to first interviews instead of providing a longitudinal approach. The focus of the research was then directed to a greater extent towards exploring the aims and processes of mentoring. The lack of follow-up interviews therefore had a significant impact on my findings in that I could not make claims about the longer term impact of mentoring for women.
The majority of the women were relaxed and positive during the interview process and answered the questions with ease, often expanding on their answers without any prompting and offering their views on areas they had not been specifically asked about. Two of the women were happy to participate but were quite reserved during the interview, and gave short answers, coming across as a little nervous. In order to try and ease their nerves I avoided using the interview schedule, and tried to make the situation as informal as possible. One of these women explained that one of the significant changes for her since she started mentoring was that she was now less nervous about speaking to unfamiliar individuals, and therefore coming to the interview was in itself a positive experience for her. Another participant spoke at length and answered all questions, talking about other subject areas that she felt were relevant; however she frequently apologised for not answering the question asked, and not being clear in her answers. I reassured her that she was talking clearly and the questions were only to be used as probes as I was interested in everything she
However at the end of the interview she appeared happier and stated that taking part had helped her take her mind off other concerns.
McDermott (2004) also found that some of the women she interviewed were hesitant and nervous in their responses and unsure why their story should be of interest, asking for reassurance that they were saying the ‘right thing.’ However only a small number of women in the study appeared nervous, and many talked at length. This may be due to the experience that many of the women had in talking to professionals through their contact with social workers and the criminal justice system generally. Whilst every effort was made to make the women feel comfortable and not an ‘object’ of knowledge, many of these women had been telling their stories to the criminal justice system for many years and may have viewed this as another case of telling their ‘story’ to a stranger.
At the end of the interview, after switching off the recorder, I explained again, the purpose of the research. The women were also given a ‘Thank You’ card and a £10 gift voucher as a thank you for participating. One woman requested to write about her experiences rather than be interviewed. She was provided with the topic subject headings from the interview schedule, and asked to document her experiences and views on mentoring.
Interviews with Sacro staff were also undertaken within the Sacro offices. The majority of social work staff were interviewed in their own offices, with one conducted at the Sacro office. There were only two mentors (out of 14) who were invited to participate and did not. One mentor declined to participate via an email from her supervisor. Another mentor who had agreed to participate was very difficult to contact. After several attempts to arrange a date, and limited contact it was decided not to pursue this interview.
Senior social workers were asked to participate in interviews as representing the funders of the mentoring projects which were funded by the local authority. Main grade social work staff were also recruited to share their experiences of working with the Sacro mentoring service. Contact details for the relevant social work staff managers were gained from Sacro staff in the first instance. These social workers were representative of ‘funders.’ These managers provided contact details of some
main grade social workers. They were invited to participate via email, and only two social workers did not respond to the initial email or a follow-up email. However, there were no social workers from the Edinburgh or Falkirk areas meaning that the views of social workers in other areas could not be taken as representing these areas. Their views were incorporated with the aim of strengthening the research through the inclusion of a perspective external to Sacro.