PLAN DE MEJORAS

A total of 14 one-off semi-structured interviews were used within the final-write up with student-athletes (n=9) and stakeholders (n=5), and were used in data collection points 1, 5, 9, and 10 (see Appendix H). Interviews lasted between 26 and 54 minutes (x̅ = 33.9, SD ± 7.5). Interviewing forms a cornerstone of qualitative data collection in sport psychology (Biddle, Markland, Gilbourne, Chatzisarantis, & Sparkes, 2001), and has the potential to yield data that provides depth and detail to create understanding of phenomena and lived

experiences (Smith & Caddick, 2012). Patton (2002) describes semi-structured interviews as a research technique where the researcher has a number of pre-determined questions to be covered with participants, but is flexible and allows new topics to be brought up during the conversation (Patton, 2002). In addition, the use of semi-structured interviews allows the researcher to explore participants’ perspectives, thoughts and opinions, and provides the opportunity to highlight specific factors associated with the topic without being constrained by specific questions (Patton, 2002). Semi structured-interviews are suitable where depth of meaning is important and the research is primarily focused on gaining both insight and understanding (Gillham, 2000; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). The semi-structured interview schedule also allowed for new questions to be asked and adapted based on the responses of participants.

3.3.1.1 One-off semi-structured interview schedule detail. 3.3.1.1.1 Student-athlete interview schedules. A total of 4 interview schedules were used for one-off interviews with student-athletes. Questions were related to Wylleman and colleagues (2013) holistic athletic career model, Stambulova’s (2003) athletic career transition model, and previous literature on the student-athlete transition to university (see Appendix G; e.g., Aquilina, 2013; MacNamara & Collins, 2010; Fuller, 2014). At the beginning of the one-off student-athlete interviews, participants were asked to provide relevant contextual information (e.g., their age, sport, course, year of study, length of time competing in sport), and perceptions of their current academic and sporting performance. Additionally, student-athletes already at university were asked about their transition experiences into university. Student-athlete interview schedules included those for: (a) student-athletes who were about to make the transition into university (“what are your feelings about the forthcoming transition period?”), (b) Student-athletes

already at university (“which areas of support are you finding most important following your transition into university?”, (c) Student-athletes about to make the transition out of university (e.g., have you received any support to help you in your transition out of university?), and, (d) student-athletes who had recently made the transition out of university (e.g., “what path have you taken since you left university and why did you decide to take that path?”).

3.3.1.1.2 Stakeholder interview schedules. A total of 3 interview schedules were used for one-off stakeholder interviews (see Appendix C for an example schedule). Prior to

interviews with stakeholders, they were asked to describe their role and the number of years they had spent working with student-athletes. These interview schedules included that for a sport scholarship manager that focused on pre-transition support (e.g., “do you help to manage the athlete’s expectations of their transition into university?). Finally, two one-off semi-

structured interview schedules were developed as follow-up interviews with two members of different athlete support staff focus groups (conducted 1 month after focus group). Questions were related to specific themes and points of interest that emerged from the focus group they participated in, where the interviewee was asked to expand on those points to obtain more in- depth data (e.g., there was discussion about individual background and how this affects the transition, can you expand on this?”).

Despite using one-off semi-structured interviews throughout the current thesis, there are limitations to the technique that need to be considered. Brown (2001) stated that a

disadvantage of conducting semi-structured interviewing is the potential for the researcher to be subconsciously bias. As I was the interviewer throughout the whole PhD, I may have inadvertently projected my own bias into the interview process. Although there were certain topics to be covered on the semi-structured interview schedule, my body language or the way I asked certain questions may have resulted in different responses from participants. To reduce this limitation, I used pilot interviews throughout my PhD. Pilot interviews are a technique that could potentially counteract this bias and also enhance the skills of the researcher, in which the interviewer asks questions that they will ask in the final study to an experienced qualitative researcher (Gillham, 2000). The experienced qualitative researcher is then able to support the development of the interviewers’ skills to draw out responses to the questions that they ask (e.g., the experienced researcher could suggest alternative ways that questions could be asked to participants). In addition, to further improve the quality of my interviews, I drew upon Patton (2015) who suggested taking notes during interviews to help formulate new questions as the interview moves along, picking up on things said earlier in the interview. Patton (2015) also suggests that it is important to explain the purpose of the particular

questions throughout the interview. As outlined by Patton (2015), I also used probes

throughout the interviews. Probes are used to deepen the response to a question, and increase the richness and depth of responses. The main type of probe that I regularly used was an elaboration probe. For example, “can you explain that further?” Elaboration probes tell the interviewee that you need further information or context regarding a certain topic (Patton, 2015).