Ratio de Endeudamiento

As my first two research questions focused on participants’ experiences through the life course, the life history narrative interview became the obvious choice. Goodey (2000) explains how this type of interview format connects with an interpretive stance:

It is the interpretive biographical framework that recognises the subject as playing a key role in the research process. It looks for experiences in the subject’s life that are connected to or deviate from socially established life course stages: for example, education, marriage, unemployment/employment. (Goodey, 2000, p 479)

During the first interviews, I took note of significant experiences in participants’ lives which emerged from the emphasis they placed on them in their responses. By providing the opportunity for participants, rather than me, to indicate the important sections of their narratives, they fulfilled a key role in the research process as outlined by Goodey (above). These experiences generally focused on the types of life course stages described above and included, among others, engagement and disengagement from education, significant relationships (both family and romantic), and offending behaviour and imprisonment. The use of a biographical interview format not only represents the memory and identity of the individual, it also produces and represents that identity for both the researcher and the participant. From this, both should be able to reflect on their own lives, ultimately achieving some form of understanding of one another and of the multiple realities involved in the creation of meaning (Tierney, 2000). This is an essential tool in creating a connection and

eliciting some form of reaction (hopefully an empathetic one) from participant and researcher.

For the second-round interviews, I adopted a stricter semi-structured approach. May (2001) explains that the semi-structured format can open up the interview method to an understanding of how the interviewees generate and deploy meaning in social life, specifically the meaning they attach to learning, education and their quality of life. Some of this was partly explored in the first-round life narrative stage but, as already outlined, the focus there was to gain a general understanding of the participants’ backgrounds and life courses. When certain details were returned to in the semi-structured interview this opened up the opportunity for participants to explore the meanings attached to these previously discussed areas of their lives.

The semi-structured interview questions were more specific than the first-stage interview questions but the freedom was also offered to probe beyond the questions if and when new topics emerged. Both clarification and elaboration can be gained and it enabled me to have more latitude to enquire beyond the answers and thus enter into an open dialogue with the interviewee (May, 2001). One intended result of both this and the life narrative interview is that a sustained relationship can be developed through prolonged discussion. This can allow individuals to answer more on their own terms than the standardized interview permits, and still provide a greater structure for comparability over that of the fully structured interview (May, 2000). The aim is that the more comfortable the participant became with myself as interviewer, the more open they became to discussing their experiences in more detail. The specifics of how both interview formats were carried out are discussed later in this chapter.

4.4 Ethics

Ethical clearance from the University of Glasgow and the SPS was sought and granted. This involved the completion of both standard ethical permission forms, including detailed descriptions of how ethical standards would be adhered to. There was a need to acknowledge that individuals in custody often display various vulnerabilities. Many have experienced complex trauma which can result in a lifelong negative impact to health and wellbeing. The

high prevalence of drug and alcohol misuse can also have a negative impact on physical, mental and emotional health. It was therefore essential that care was taken throughout the research process to ensure minimum negative impact to participants. How this was achieved is detailed in the following section and later on in parts of this chapter that discuss the first and second-round interviews.

Once SPS had granted ethical clearance, myself and my head supervisor met with the Governors of both research locations. This allowed me to explain my research and methodology, as well as providing the opportunity to raise any questions or concerns they had regarding their establishments or the individ uals in their care. It also gave me the opportunity to intonate my appreciation for allowing me to carry out interviews within their establishments. There were no major issues raised by any party during this meeting and both Governors were happy for me to progress to arranging my interviews. Prospective interviewees were approached in confidence by me in the first location (due to this being my place of work) and by the Learning Centre manager in the second location. An explanation of the research aim and process was verbally communicated to prospective participants and, if they expressed interest, a plain language statement was also supplied. This enabled participants to take it away and read it in more detail if they wished to. Once agreement was given, a date and time was arranged that suited their schedule.

Before the start of each first-round interview, I read through the plain language statement with each participant. This again explained the research aims and details of the interview process. Reading through this supported any participants who lacked confidence in reading, particularly if they did not wish to share this information. It also provided an opportunity for participants to ask any questions about the aims and structure of the research process. I then talked through the University of Glasgow research consent form taking care to explain to each participant that everything discussed was confidential and names would be changed when using extracts in my final thesis. It was also explained that participants could refuse to answer any questions and could remove themselves from the research process at any point. It was finally explained that all interview transcripts would be saved and stored in a secure digital format for ten years (as per university guidelines) and then destroyed.

Confidentiality was ensured by keeping the number of staff informed about participants to a minimum. The Learning Centre Manager and a small number of staff in the work sheds were involved in the participant recruitment process and were aware of who was taking part. All interviews were conducted in a private room (in the Links Centre or Learning Centre) with only myself and the participant present. To ensure anonymity, pseudonyms were used and research locations have not been specified in detail. Any background details within narratives that could have identified participants were either generalised or omitted .

At the end of each interview I checked that each participant was not distressed by anything that had been discussed. With their permission, both myself and the Learning Centre Manager also checked in with individuals a few days after each interview, again to ensure they were not upset. Should this have occurred, then again with permission, appropriate support would have been sought for the individual. In the first instance their Personal Officer would have been involved to provide this help. Should more specialised assistance be needed, such as consultation with a mental health professional, then this would be arranged. Myself and their Personal Officer would then have worked together to ensure ongoing support. This did not occur at any point during the research process and all participants confirmed they were not distressed by the interviews. As well as considering the welfare of my participants, I also had to engage with my position as a researcher which I shall now discuss.