EL MATERIAL DIDÁCTICO

The main reason I selected semi-structured interviews to generate data is that they are a way to encourage a dialogue that allows me to explore the women’s views and

understandings, their actions and experiences, and their feelings and concerns (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994; Mason, 2002). Semi-structured interviews fall between the extremes of a single question designed to open up debate with the occasional prompt (unstructured), and a verbal questionnaire (structured). Each of these interview styles has their place, however, a particular strength of semi-structured interviews is that although the topics and questions are predetermined, they are designed in such a way that allows further exploration of issues as they arise in the conversation (Berg, 2004: 81). What the women share during the

interview is, of course, subject to their own comfort and willingness (Finch, 1993). They have the absolute right to withhold any information they choose, and ethically it is important that they both know that, and do not feel that there is any need to explain why or what (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). There were not any occasions when anyone refused to answer a

question, and, having listened to the recordings a number of times, I cannot detect any obvious deflection of a question.

One of the most beneficial aspects of this method of generating data is the potential to prompt explanation by encouraging reflection. Questions, followed by prompts or nudges to

62

consider how and why things are done gave me an insight into what practice means for the women and how this might be influenced by wider social structures. In addition, they facilitate an immediate response to questions as they arise, allowing both researcher and participant to explore meanings and to resolve any ambiguities in a friendly and relaxed manner (Gorman and Clayton, 1997: 124). Ultimately, the hope is that in encouraging participants to tell their own story, in their own words, some degree of power remains with the participant, who can, to some extent shape the direction and content of the interview. This has to be carefully managed of course, to maintain the focus of the research, but also to be open to issues that I had not considered in advance. This is not to suggest that interviews of this type are problem-free. They can be time-consuming, extremely personal and open to bias (Gorman and Clayton, 1997: 125); for the interviewee, this may be difficult both

physically and emotionally, and for the researcher, the sheer volume of data can make it difficult to sift out what is meaningful.

I designed a semi-structured interview schedule, built around key themes (see Appendix Four). Although the interview schedule was not intended as a script to be followed verbatim, it is written in a conversational style and makes it clear that my endeavour was to achieve an approximation of everyday dialogue. I grouped questions under broad topics that I thought would open the discussion as much as possible but remain close to the original aims of the research.

Transition to motherhood: Asking questions about when they decided to become a mother,

for example, was intended to get an idea of whether motherhood is a ‘natural’ expectation. Asking if there is anything they miss was intended to encourage them to talk about changing perceptions of identity.

Advice, Practice and Comparison: Asking how they learned to be a mother was intended to

extend the issue of whether motherhood is natural, however, it was also intended to gain some insight into their attitude to ‘expert’ knowledge. Questions about comparison to others were designed to open a discussion about judgement and distinction.

Skills, Traits and Imagined Futures: This topic was intended as the point when the women

could have the opportunity to talk about their children, what they imagined their efforts would mean for the adult they would become, and to uncover some aspirations and values.

63

Responsibility and Intervention: This section was intended to discover attitudes to larger

issues, who the women consider responsible when things go wrong, and what solutions might be appropriate. I expected this topic to reveal more about values and value. I spent a considerable amount of time planning the questions and operationalising my themes. These descriptions are very broad brush strokes and do not capture the intention behind each question. Furthermore, as discussed, this is an exploratory piece of research, so regardless of my plans, I went into each interview being flexible about how the conversation would unfold. I always planned to take cues from the discussion rather than follow a linear path and to explore, not impose meanings.

As it turned out many of the issues I wanted to find out about developed organically as the conversation went on. I found in the early interviews for example, that the questions I had prepared regarding ‘Broken Britain’ felt cumbersome in the context of actual interviews, in a way that hadn’t been clear in the pilot exercise; on the other hand, I had not prepared questions about paid work, other than to ask about occupation in the initial ‘demographic’ questions. During the course of the first interview, it became clear that this was an omission on my part, and became an issue I probed more in subsequent interviews. Despite the best of intentions, I did not (probably could not) know in advance what turns the interviews would take. This, however, is part of the iterative process of this type of research; I reviewed each interview after I completed it, and made notes of what worked, and what didn’t. Of course, this does not mean that after each the process was completely changed, but I remained mindful, and where patterns emerged adjusted accordingly. I have kept the interview schedule as it was in the interest of transparency and because as noted at the beginning of this chapter, the process is messy (Bryman, 2012: 15).

I was not worried that the women would have nothing to say, or that they would be closed in their responses. Rather, I assumed they volunteered to take part because they have something to say and relied on the fact that ‘interviewees frequently know that they are expected to be expansive in their answers’ (Bryman, 2012: 44). From the outset I wanted the interviews to be conversational; my interview schedule although worded as if it were a script was a prompt designed to ensure I remained within the terms of my theoretical concerns. I carried the schedule with me, and during the interviews kept it open in case I needed to refer to it, however, that rarely happened. Some of the women inevitably would have felt less comfortable talking to me than others, and this wasn’t always something I could

64

mitigate. Claire, who I met in a café was worried her sister-in-law would walk in, or that someone else may overhear and report back to her; Erin’s partner stayed in the room and played video games during our interview; and Kelly was very concerned her dogs didn’t bother me (they didn’t). In chapter six I will discuss Kelly’s concern about the dogs in more detail, but note at this stage that they were a source of anxiety about potentially disparaging judgements made by health visitors. As someone else who was coming into her home to ask about her mothering, I suspect she viewed me with a slight sense of suspicion.