Un an: espacio laberíntico

1.1. Interview

A semi-structured interview schedule was developed for both interview types and for both sample groups. Please see appendix 3 for service user semi structured interview schedule and appendix 4 for social worker semi structured interview schedule. The semi structured interview approach provided some structure to ensure the data generated addressed the research questions, whilst also allowing the participant freedom and flexibility to share their experiences and views, as discussed in the previous chapter. The interview questions were based on time, experience and recollection and these prompted the participant to story-tell. The interviews were designed around themes with each building upon the former, to add flow and depth to the interview. The themes identified were based on the literature review and the research questions being posed in the study. It is important to note that the interviews were not designed with an expectation of being adhered to rigidly. Rather, the schedule was a stimulant to generate data that best addressed the research question. Consequently, I used the schedule to ensure all the questions were covered. However, the number of questions directly asked from the schedule varied depending on the flow of the interview and the depth of material offered. Furthermore, the schedule was used in a manner that allowed the participant and researcher to explore relevant issues that arose that were not covered in the schedule.

I did consider interviewing mental health service users first and using the categories developed to inform interviews with the mental health social workers. However, as this subject has not been examined with either participant group within Northern Ireland it was important to seek their views and experiences as distinct groups. Furthermore, I wanted to treat both participant groups on equal terms. Thus, all of the interviews occurred in the same time period and did not inform the interview schedule of the other participant group.

1.2. The object

I invited all participants to bring an object / photograph which reflected what spirituality and / or religion meant to them to the interview. The object/ photograph is referred to as the “object”. Not only did the object prompt dialogue about religion and spirituality, but it also prompted exploration about how it was engaged with on a sensory basis. In chapter eight, the first of three service user findings chapters, I explore how participants engaged with the object. As more social worker participants did not bring an object to the interview I discuss how the object was engaged with even when participants did not bring one to the interview. For example, examining the reasons why the participant did not bring an object and, if appropriate, exploring what object they might have brought. This is explored in chapter eleven, the first of three social worker participant findings chapters. Six social worker participants and three service user participants did not bring an object. When the participant did not bring an object I explored with them why, and invited them to consider what they may have brought. The responses given by the participants were rich, in- depth, and made an equally valuable contribution to the study as those participants who did bring an object.

As the analysis process developed and I critically reflected upon the interviews and the emerging analysis, it became apparent that the object was adding significant value to the study, and that I had perhaps underestimated its use during the study design stage. When designing the study I viewed the object as a means to encourage the participant to discuss a very personal and sensitive subject. I considered that talking about religion and spirituality may be difficult due to it being quite an abstract, ‘out there’ concept and that the personal object may offer something tangible upon which to stimulate their storytelling. This is reflected in the participant’s semi-structured interview schedules where only one question refers to the object. However during the interview it became apparent that the object could be developed from being an interview stimulant to becoming a tool in its own right. According to Harris and Guillemin (2012: 695), the analysis process cannot be devoid of sensory experience. As the interviews developed I became more aware of the sensory within participants’ stories in two ways. Firstly in terms of how they engaged with the object during the interview, how they held it in their hands and how they looked at it. For example one participant brought a Saint Brigid’s cross that she

had made and which she keeps on the wall in her home. She talked about being taught how to make these crosses by her mother and that she has taught her children. During the interview she kept the cross on her lap and continually touched it throughout the interview, even when it was not being referred to specifically. Another participant brought a prayer card and placed it on the table near her seat. During the interview she often looked at it and occasionally nodded towards it, even though she was not speaking about it. The second way in which the object was explored is discussion about where it was kept, why it was kept in that place and how and why it may be moved. For example one participant talked about keeping a prayer card in a glass cabinet in her home and that when she left the house she would transfer it to her handbag. The participant talked about keeping the prayer card in the glass cabinet because it was personally valuable to her and moved it to her handbag when she was going out because she wanted it with her at all times. As already indicated there were more participants from a Roman Catholic background than any other Christian denomination. I have already indicated that the object could have been engaged with in a more in depth way in the data collection, as discussed above. Thus richer data and analysis may be gained through considering how objects may be used differently across the different Christian denominations. For example one participant from a Protestant background talked about objects not really being prominent within her beliefs. This idea of objects being used differently across different denominations, religions and within secular spiritualities is also relevant within the sampling process. These more in depth questions about the object developed as I became aware of the valuable data they were providing and of the need to explore the object in this way. It is also interesting to highlight that during the telephone interview some participants talked about valuing bringing something from ‘their own world’ to the interview. It appeared that they enjoyed framing the discussion around their personal object. Upon reflection I do not think that the interviews would have provided such rich data without the object as it enabled access to what is clearly a very sensitive and personal subject. Not only did the object support participants to talk about the subject, but through explicitly talking about the object and how participants engaged with it, it offered a richer exploration about the role of religion and spiritualty within participants’ lives.

2. Part two

1.1. Telephone interview

In the previous chapter I discussed reflexivities and Brownlie’s (2011) use of the telephone interview to explore reflexivity. As religion and spirituality are sensitive subjects in Northern Ireland, that sensitivity is also present in the interview event. With this in mind, I focused upon emotions in the interview. I used my field work diary alongside the main interview transcript and the telephone interview transcript to explore: at what points in the main interview was I congruent with the participant and when did our emotions appear to differ? What were the possible reasons for this and what impact did it have on the interview? I also explored the participant’s research experience and how it may have impacted their ideas about religion, spirituality, mental distress and social work practice in Northern Ireland.

The telephone interview was conducted with half of the participants from each sample. I purposively selected these individuals based on seeking a diversity of beliefs and experiences. The sample aimed to capture a broad range of accounts about participating in the study. For service user participants diversity focused on their views about including religion and spirituality in a mental health professional’s practice. For social workers diversity focused on whether the practitioner incorporated religion and spirituality into their practice. All of the service user participants whom I contacted were willing to take part in the telephone interview. However, one social worker participant did not respond to my invitations to participate. Please see appendix 5 for the service user and social worker semi- structured telephone interview schedule.

2. Field notes

In this study I was focused upon the participant story, not only that which is offered verbally, but also in the atmosphere of the interview, the participant’s body language and their demeanour throughout, and my own thoughts, feelings and emotions throughout and following the interview. Mason and Dale (2011: 19) state that the fieldwork experiences of the researcher, and their understandings of what is going on around, and I would suggest, through them, are central in the analytic endeavour. Within ethnographic approaches knowledge is enriched and developed as a result of the researcher’s engagement and interpretation throughout the reflexivity process. Harvey and Knox (2011: 112) suggest field notes are viewed not simply as a record

of what happened in the interview but they may also be viewed as shaping the ‘trajectory of the research’. Plummer (2001: 152) refers to them as a ‘personal log’. Field notes were maintained for the duration of data collection and enabled me to explore my role within the interview, the presence of emotion within the interview exchange, and an overall exploration of the interview as a co-produced event. Field notes were maintained throughout as they offered opportunity to reflect upon fieldwork and analysis and they offered a rich data source of these processes.

In order to make the most of the data and to draw linkages between each data source, once all the interviews were transcribed, and the field notes typed up, I noted cross references. For example when a participant appeared to find talking about a subject difficult I noted this in the field notes and then referred to it in telephone interview. This ongoing cross reference between the main interview, field notes and telephone interview (when conducted), produced an in depth analysis about not only what was said in the interview, but also the emotions surrounding it.

3. Transcription

In the previous chapter I identified three different types of narrative research: narrative syntax; narrative semantics and; narrative context (Squire, 2008: 2 and 9). Squire (2008: 33) states that different transcription approaches produce differences in interpretations. Narrative inquiry is wide and varied in its application, thus it is common for researchers not to include detailed speech elements on the premise that they are less concerned with how things were said, as with what is said. In this study I was primarily interested in using the individual’s account to explore meaning - making, and its location in the wider social field. Whilst I recognise the importance of language within narrative studies, analysis in this study was focused on what the participant said. Therefore, during the transcription process data was “cleaned” using the following conventions (Plummer, 2001: 150, cited Finnegan, 1992):

1) Leave out ‘uhs’ and other hesitations…like ‘you know’ or ‘I mean’ 2) Repair false starts and corrections

3) Omit interviewer responses like ‘I see’ or ‘yeah’ 4) Use standard spellings, not dialect

5) Do not use ‘eye spellings’ (‘enuff’ for ‘enough’) 6) Use punctuation as for normal written prose

7) Subject to the provisos above, do not correct or interpret

When cleaning up the data I paid careful attention to ensure the overall meaning of the participant’s speech remained. Therefore, where additional explanation is needed this is provided in [ ]. Furthermore, where portions of speech are being quoted … is used to identify a break in the speech whilst maintaining its overall flow for the reader.