With reference to Gadamer's quote ―the method of phenomenology and hermeneutics is that there is no method!‖ (2004 [1975]:285), Gadamer is sceptical of valuing any specific research method to guarantee true understanding and is defiant of advocating a particular tool to undertake the process of understanding. This view point is shared by Van Manen (1997) who has devised a discover-oriented approach that is free of any pre-described method for investigating lived experiences. In view of the particular features of lived experience, e.g. the retrospective nature of reflection of lived experience as experiences which can only be studied after they have occurred (Van Manen, 1997, Kahn, 2000) and the intrinsic nature or privacy of lived experience, i.e. the experience of a situation or activity differs from individual to individual (Sprigge, 1969) and can only be shared through the individual‘s own words (Kahn, 2000; Gadamer, 2004 [1975]; Ajjawi and Higgs, 2007) the decision was made to collect data through interviews. Also, in view of the hermeneutic circle in which understanding is co- constructed with the research participant and experiential accounts are generated through dialogue between the researcher and the respondent, this data collection method seemed most suitable. In view of the focus on the individual‘s lived experiences and the participation of both the researcher and the participant in the research process, focus groups were perceived as less appropriate although the contribution of group members to the conversation could potentially assist specific experiences to unfold and meanings to emerge (Sorrell and Redmond, 1995).
In line with the understanding that lived experience is always something past (Gadamer, 2004 [1975]; Van Manen, 1997), interviews took place after the event had been staged and the volunteer involvement had come to an end. In line with the hermeneutic phenomenological nature of the study, interviews were focused around
‗grand-tour questions‘ (Sorrell and Redmond, 1995:1119) as an initial starting point such as ‗What was it like to be an event volunteer?‘ which allowed ―the opening up, and keeping open, of possibilities‖ (Gadamer, 2004 [1975]:226). These questions evolved into semi-structured questions as they were informed by the stages of the event volunteer engagement, i.e. the time before the event took place, during the event and after it had finished. For example, having started off with the general question ‗What was it like to be a volunteer at the World Firefighters Games 2008?' that served as an icebreaker and to allow researchers to access their episodic memory related to their volunteer experience, questions relating to the pre-event stage included ‗How did you get involved in the Games?‘, ‗Which jobs did you apply for?‘, ‗What was training day like?‘, ‗Can you remember your first day as event volunteer? What was it like?‘ Other than that the interview content was shaped by the responses and narratives of the interviewee who was encouraged by unstructured, open-ended questions, e.g. ‗What do you mean by that?‘, ‗How did this make you feel?‘ to elaborate further on specific information provided. This reflected the concept of the hermeneutic circle in the form of ongoing interaction and mutual engagement in the research process by both the interviewee and myself as researcher. As a result, the interview evolved into to conversation, a dialogue.
The interviews took place in Liverpool at the beginning of October 2008 which was one month after the WFG‘08 had finished. They were predominantly conducted in the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Headquarters where I was allowed as a courtesy by the event organizer to use one of the meeting rooms depending on availability. At other times interviews were carried out in hotel lobbies in the city centre. Research participants were asked prior to the interview to provide written informed consent to participate and for the interview to be audio-recorded. Furthermore, they were informed that they could request for the voice recorder to be switched off and decide to withdraw from the study at any time. Finally, they were confirmed that their names and those of the person they named and/or referred to during the interview would be replaced with fictitious ones in the transcript as well as in the thesis in order to guarantee the anonymity of research participants and the confidentiality regarding the management of the information shared with the researcher.
In view of the need to access the episodic memory of the research participants involved as sport event volunteers at the WFG‘08, they were encouraged to bring external
photos, newspaper clippings, the volunteer T-Shirt and/or other types of souvenirs to the interview in order to facilitate the recall of particular situations, thoughts and feelings. Van den Hoven and Eggen (2008) refer to these types of external memory aids as ―memory cues‖ (p.439) and ―physical artefacts‖ (p.439) that ―serve as a memory landscape‖ (p.439). Referring to the findings of their study on how souvenirs can cue memories, they conclude that souvenirs are powerful memory cues as they are linked to memories and can assist with recalling and restructuring specific moments that occurred in a person‘s past. Similarly, Glos and Umaschi (1997) and Hodges et al. (2006) suggest that souvenirs should be seen as a useful research tool as their usage facilitates storytelling or the sharing of recollected memories with others. Their arguments are supported by the successful use of photos to stimulate people‘s memories in past research: for example, the study of Bourgeois (1990) established how the quality of the conversation with interviewees improved through the use of photographs. Similar findings were produced by Kapur et al. (2002) who confirm that reviewing photographs as part of the interview process improve the research respondents‘ ability to remember past experiences. Hodges et al. (2006) explain the success of photographs as memory stimulant by referring to the work of Brewer (1986; 1986) who established the important role of visual images in memory functioning.
The interviews were recorded verbatim and transcribed. After each meeting with former event volunteers, I wrote an initial summary of my interpretation of the information provided during the interview, including specific characteristics of each interviewee and what I had learnt from myself during the encounter. This allowed me to keep a mental picture of each research participant and a record of my own change of perceptions. These were to be revisited later to assess to what extent my understanding of sport event volunteering had changed as a result of writing this thesis.