SECRETARIADO DE ASUNTOS SOCIALES

One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted to produce oral accounts of police officers’ experiences of policing the mentally ill. After obtaining written consent (Appendix B) and answering any questions presented, the interviews commenced.

Given my outsider status and subsequent limited knowledge-base regarding police work involving the mentally ill, employing a semi-structured interview format allowed me to direct conversations towards relevant topics through the utilisation of open-ended interview questions (Appendix C) whilst remaining open to exploring conversational directions pertinent to the study that may not have been anticipated in the original research outline. It must be acknowledged that this style of interviewing requires the researcher to engage in interpretative methods during the data collection process itself due to the immediate and consistent assessment of whether certain paths of conversation are related to the study and whether or not to pursue particular avenues of thought (Wood & Kroger, 2000). Therefore, it is possible that potentially important directions of conversation may have been overseen or ignored that could have proved insightful and informative. Awareness of this limitation is important to bear in mind when interpreting the results and highlights the role of the researcher in the co-construction of the research data. As a consequence, my own discourse was included in the transcription and analysis.

10 interviews were conducted over a series of three non-consecutive days during work hours in private meeting rooms at the local police station organised in collaboration with, and approved by, the police station manager. One interview was conducted in the participant’s own home outside of work hours.

88 Methodology and method The interviews ranged in length from thirty minutes to one hour, producing between 13

and 29 pages of text per transcript. This variability of interview duration depended on the individual officer. Interviews were terminated when the participant indicated that they had nothing further to discuss on the subject matter.

The open-ended interview questions were formulated as starting points for discussion and were designed to act as ‘prompts’ to be utilised only when conversation was not naturally forthcoming. However, early in the interview process some participants communicated discomfort with this interview style, either through direct comments or non-verbal cues, and it was found a more structured approach was preferred. I believed a more structured interview format was preferable for the officers because it enabled the conversation to stay structured within safe boundaries and better suited the constraints of the police role and position. Because the police are in a highly public position in New Zealand society and often liaise with the media, they may have a heightened awareness of the risk of being misquoted or misunderstood if conversation is free to diverge into areas not anticipated. Therefore, as the interviews progressed I found myself utilising most to all of the pre- prepared questions in order to stimulate discussion and endeavoured, where the situation allowed, to follow divergent conversational paths produced naturally through conversation.

I was also required to re-examine the question list itself as it became apparent that particular questions were difficult for the officers to answer and may have produced some discomfort. These questions related to the officers’ personal feelings regarding policing the mentally ill. In my opinion, it appeared such questions were at odds with what the

Methodology and Method 89 participants’ believed was their ‘role’ and responsibility to comment on, both as a

contributor to the research project and as a police officer, and subsequent to this observation I avoided asking such questions directly.

On completion of the interviews, some officers conveyed they would have preferred to have been supplied the list of questions prior to interview commencement in order to formulate answers and think about issues ahead of time. As mentioned previously, police officers are in a highly public position and this concern may have stemmed from prior experiences dealing with media and the desire to represent the police force adequately and comprehensively to others. Whilst I was seeking a more informal and conversational body of data than this would allow, I have to acknowledge that preparation and

thoroughness was valued by many, if not all, of the participants and a more structured approach to interviewing may have allowed them to feel more comfortable and willing or able to share information with me. Whether these concerns were related to the subject of policing the mentally ill or to a tension produced by the constraints on what police officers are able to discuss with someone outside of the police force is unclear.

It is also important to note my subject position within the interview process – that of a student of psychology. At all times I encouraged participants to share their understandings and knowledge free from psychological ‘language’ and its limitations to meaning, however there were certain moments when officers would ask me for my understandings or

knowledge on a subject matter and I replied honestly in kind. Although I endeavoured at all times to stay within the parameters of the officers’ experiences and knowledge, there were many instances where I was asked to comment on, explain and discuss certain

90 Methodology and method psychological issues such as the definition of mental illness. Therefore, I was not removed

from the data creation process, but instead was an active contributor and co-constructor of the data gathered.

Furthermore, due to my position as a younger student of psychology there were times I sensed this caused a degree of caution for the participants. Given the public and influential nature of the police role in the community, and that they as officers are representative not only of the police force in general but also as employees of the Crown, it can be posited that the participants may have been concerned that information discussed would be misunderstood or taken out of context. It may be the case that some officers censored themselves to some degree during the interview process in order to prevent circumstances in which they could be misinterpreted or misrepresented. I believe that the most pressing issues emerged during the interviews due to the participants’ desire to advance and improve current practices and so feel confident that this censorship did not result in the omission of any crucial information regarding policing the mentally ill.

The interviews were digitally recorded and then later transcribed by myself as close to the completion of the interview as possible.