IDEA DE LEGISLAR

In order to engage with the participants in a familiar and ‘safe’ environment, I met with each participant separately at the university. On meeting Alex, she had prior knowledge of my disability as a colleague and needed little explanation, therefore I explained the narrative research process and how the interview would work. For Sarah, who was the participant gained through the recruitment process; I introduced myself, my research topic, the purpose of the interview and the format. As the interviews were interactional and narrative, each participant was asked to introduce themselves, describe their impairment and then to speak about adolescence by reflecting back on their own experiences. The confidentiality,

withdrawal and the details of the audio recording were shared again verbally.

In line with the research aims, I guided them to discuss adolescence, being disabled and being female. I facilitated them where necessary (i.e. the participants commented, I don’t know, or needed rephrasing of the question) however it was important for me to follow their lead in terms of what topics they raised within the general remit of adolescence to keep the authenticity of their stories. I asked them to extend on points they made, and explore topics they shared, to ensure I understood and had captured their meaning. At times however, it was likely that their responses were shaped by my own contributions to the interview as the interviews were interactional.

In narrative interviewing the aim is to generate detailed accounts rather than brief answers or overall statements (Riessman, 2008, in: Nolan et al.,2018). During a narrative interviewing Riessman recommends a technique that allows the interpretive process to begin during the conversation. This means listening in an emotionally attentive and engaged way, essential to attempting to ‘enter the world as experienced by another’ (Nolan et al.,2018). I ensure that the climate allowed for storytelling, leaving long turns to speak than are typical (Riessman, 2008). I adhered to this in each interview and allowed one story to lead to another without correcting the participant or asking them to remain on topic. I looked for associations and meanings that might, together, link several stories. I reflected these back to the participant

49

during the interview, this can be seen in the transcriptions (Appendices 4 and 6). I also encouraged them to elaborate on their depth of detail.

A positive rapport was developed enabling the participants to tell their stories in their own way (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Ziebland, 2013). The participants were encouraged to share detailed accounts relating to their lives cross-contextually. I listened empathically to enable the development of a trusting relationship in which to share experiences (Stuckley, 2013 in: Nolan et al.,2018). This was essential in my research due to its auto-ethnographic nature particularly, as Gough and Madill (2012) explain, there is significant importance in using empathy when interviewing populations whose members are not used to having others show interest in their experiences.

As discussed in Chapter 1, disabled people, particularly women are a marginalised group and experience a lack of representation and equality, twice over, due to intersectionality. This highlights the importance of informing the participants fully of my own positionality and narrative beginnings as a disabled woman, so that empathy can be reciprocal. Unlike a conventional interview I shared my experiences when asked and related to the interaction at the time. I acknowledge that this influenced their responses to a degree. Because

interpretive researchers produce theorised accounts that represent participant’s sociological understandings (Danby & Farrell, 2004, p. 41), there are issues around ownership. For example, who owns the data, how will the data be used and how much control over the findings do participants have. Although participants are often given a voice; it is usually the researcher who decides upon the direction of the research, the final interpretation of the data, and which information is made public. I made this clear throughout the process and through email, shared elements of analysis with the participants post interview.

As expressed, I engaged reciprocally with the participants (for example where a similarity occurred in the story) and invited them to ask me questions relating to adolescence and disability towards the end of the interview. According to Berger (2001) this can add

complexity to the narrative produced. I explored the experiences of the participants as they were told and events in need of further explanation were scrutinised in the natural flow of the narrative being told, as would happen within a conversation. Denzin (1989) suggests that there are two coexisting worlds which form the human experience these are the deep and the surface. One consists of everyday events and is available for others to see, the ‘Surface’. The ‘deep’ on the other hand, contain personal thoughts and feelings characteristic to the inner‐self which is at times, but not always fully, revealed to others. However, I am critical of this perspective in relation to social constructionism, which drives the research. The idea of ‘worlds which exist’ and the idea that there are thoughts and feelings that are ‘innate’ (not influenced by society) are opposed to a social constructivist view. Therefore in my research

50

the interviews do aim to delve deep beneath the surface of superficial responses to obtain ‘true’ meanings that individuals assign to events. They will acknowledge the complexity of the participants’ attitudes, behaviours and experiences regarding disability, identity and gender; but all I relation to the social context. This will be shown through the data analysis and discussion.

Thought-out the interview, I used prompts, delivered in the narrative context, to encourage details such as when, how and why events occurred, the associated feelings and how these experiences reflected on their identity as recommended by Polkinghorne, (1991). It was essential for me to use my judgment, empathy and respect in the inquiry in order to contribute to, but not dominate, the interactions. I used skills gained from practical

experience of holding consultations in my work as a Trainee EP, especially in Sarah’s case as we were unfamiliar with each other. According to De Fina (2009), many researchers, particularly those who apply ‘conversational analytic or ethno-methodological approaches’ (Schegloff, 1997; Goodwin, 1997) regard narrative interviews as artificial and consider them to oppose naturally occurring stories. Based on these interpretations, I wanted to ensure my interviews were as conversational and naturalistic as possible with the aim of providing a richer and more interesting source of data and analysis. To end the interview, I thanked each participant, fed back how interesting I had found their stories and explained the next steps for them in terms of sharing my findings.

Post interview contact

Some narrative researchers consider the need for long term interaction with the participants to ‘thicken’ their stories (Creswell and Miller, 2000). Due to time constraints around this research, the participants in this research were contacted by email approximately 3 months post-interview in order to ensure that the retelling of their story was in line with their

expectations and I, as the researcher had portrayed their meaning successfully. I did this in person with Alex and via email with Sarah, each of their responses were integrated into the analysis such as by correcting details or extending on meaning.

I felt it important to contact both participants to share with them my interpretations of the data and to explain the use of the listening guide. This was with the narrative principles and my research aim around giving voice to my participants, in mind. Checking back with my participants added to the collaborative nature and ‘shared experience’ aspect of the

research, in line with my research aims. Both of the participants gave positive feedback, they were happy with the representation of their views and, particularly, the presentation of the i- Poems. They felt that the listening guide was an interesting and appropriate analysis for

51

their stories and were in agreement with the themes I had selected. Sarah pointed out minor an inaccuracy within her story and this ‘checking back’ gave me the opportunity to ensure their verbal data had been transcribed as accurately as possible, meaning it represented their views as truthfully as possible. No new data was added through this step however it gave me confidence as a researcher that I had represented their voices ethically within the research. This stage of the research added to the reflexive nature of the research; instead of simply reporting facts or ‘truths’ that they had shared with me, I wished to actively construct interpretations of the data, and then question how those interpretations came about.