An interview schedule provides structure, promotes interaction and encourages a comprehensive description of the participants’ experience, with nominal input from the researcher (Doody & Noonan, 2013. King & Horrocks, 2011. Smith et al, 2009). For this study, the interview schedule was developed (Appendix 12), informed by the literature reviewed in
chapter 1. The schedule also linked to the research questions and aims, with appropriate prompts developed to ensure experiences could be explored in depth. The schedule commenced with a broad question about their
experience in the ambulance service and how it feels to work in an emergency environment, allowing the participant to descriptively recall their experience to date in order to embed the idiographic approach. The relevant time-scale and their experience was determined by the individual. This broad and open approach encourages dialogue and enables the
participant to feel more comfortable with the topic area and the interview process.
The interview schedule was based on three main areas. Firstly, my own personal experience of this area, with the acknowledgment that during the interviews I needed to remain open-minded and non-judgmental on discussion areas. This influenced the way questions and prompts were
constructed, following detailed discussions with supervisors about how I developed awareness of how my professional role influenced the way I asked questions. Secondly, the literature review (chapter 1) was important as it identified gaps in the current knowledge base that required further exploration. Due to the paucity of evidence in this area, it was imperative that the schedule was open and adaptable. Thirdly, the initial work around the interview questions, through peer review and self-evaluation (section 2.5) (King & Horrocks, 2011). As part of the process I ensured that the research aim and questions were prominent in my notes, enabling me to check that the phenomenon being researched remained the focus of interview.
In order to develop questions and prompts that elicit the most
comprehensive responses during the interview, a variety of question types would be used to trigger a breadth of information from the participant. These differing question types (Patton, 1990) are displayed in Table 2 (overleaf), in addition to examples from the interview schedule.
Table 2. Different styles of interview questions with examples from the
interview schedule and interviews.
Adapted from King & Horrocks (2011). p37
Type of information Rationale Example from
interview schedule Background/demographic Descriptive questions
about key personal characteristics
Tell me about your
professional background… Experience/behaviour Specific and overt
actions that the researcher could observe if they were present at the time
What do you do to prepare?
Opinion/values To reveal what the participant thinks about the topic area and how their thoughts relate to their values, goals and intentions
What does the term ‘emergency preparedness’ mean to you?
Feeling Focus on the
participants emotional experiences.
How does that feel? What were your thoughts when that happened?
Knowledge Questions relating to
factual information that the participant holds.
What does the evidence-base look like?
Sensory Sensory aspects of an
experience. What the participant saw, heard, touched, tasted or smelled in any given situation.
Tell me what you saw and heard at that moment…
Although these classifications of questions appear well defined, the practical application is less discrete, as the interviewer responds to the participant’s responses (Kings & Horrocks, 2011). However, review of these categories was particularly helpful in the planning stage of the research, to ensure that
the openness of the interview was maintained and allowing a breadth of response from the participant. In addition, agreed prompts were noted on the framework to enable clarification on certain responses or to generate further information to enable the discussion to cover the pre-determined research questions. These were invaluable to enable conversation flow and elicit further response from the participant.
Once developed, the schedule was trialled and peer-reviewed with a nursing colleague, who had some experience of working in a pre-hospital
environment, in addition to paramedic colleagues who determined
appropriate language use and any assumptions that I may have on this area (described in section 2.5). The schedule was also discussed with both supervisors.
Prior to ethical approval, the Ambulance Service ethical panel voiced their unease in relation to the openness and flexibility of the schedule, both of which are key features of a qualitative interview (Biggerstaff & Thompson, 2008. Streubert & Carpenter, 2011). Openness is a key attribute of an IPA interview, with the literature acknowledging that awareness is required as to whether the researcher is guiding or leading the participant through the interview (Smith et al, 2009). Flexibility is required in how the questions are phrased, the order in which they are asked and how they should lead the interaction (King & Horrocks, 2011). Reassurance was given that these key topic areas would remain unchanged, but the schedule may be ‘tweaked’ for
order and key prompts following review of the first few interviews, to enable the most comprehensive response to answer the research questions.
Practically, a formal review with my supervisors and a peer-review with the local IPA group occurred after interview three. Key areas for review
included looking as to whether I interrupted, asked too many questions at once, or asked leading questions. On reflection, I could see areas where I could develop my interviewing technique, such as asking one key question, rather than a long question with multiple strands, and this was modified as I progressed through the interviews. This review, after reflection using the prompts (table 2), resulted in adaptation of the schedule enabling a deeper response from the participants.