As indicated in the previous chapter, semi-structured interviews were conducted with personnel or managers from each group (Boeije 2010: 62). While certain questions posed were the same for all centres/groups such as ‘What type of services/help does the centre provide? What are the constraints and challenges facing the centre/group?’
the nature of the interviews allowed for the dynamics of each centre and personnel
from the same to unfold in a fluid discourse. The semi-structured nature of the interviews allowed me to get ‘a feel’ of both the person I was interacting with as well as of the centre/group she was from and consequently its related services. The interviews ranged from a few minutes to over an hour and emanated from appointments which were formally made to spontaneous interaction. Interaction ranged from brief cursory responses (by interviewee) to long narrative s.
5.7.1 Analysis of Interviews
I had approached the interviews or interactions with the personnel from the different centres/groups as open-mindedly as I could. Mindful that I was soliciting information and help for my research purposes and thereby entering their spaces, I tried to approach the interview interactions appreciatively, as unobtrusively as possible and by allowing the interviewee to ‘take the lead’ in as far as providing information was concerned. Although I did interject by posing questions and comments at intervals, I allowed for the interviewees to unravel their discourses. This supports Kelly’s statement that: “The relations between the meanings of particular experiences and the meanings of themes that reflect a coherent clustering or ordering of themes of experiences represent the operation of the hermeneutical circle. This process is important in all phases of interpretation in qualitative research. It begins with listening and observing” (1999: 407). Furthermore, Silverman in his analysis of qualitative interviews cites Dawson and Prus (1993: 166): “Language shapes meanings but also permits intersubjectivity and the ability of wilful persons to create and maintain meaningful words.” He expands on this: “Recognising this, we cannot accept the proposition that interviews do not yield information about social worlds…Knowing full well that there are both structures and pollutants in any discussion, we choose to study what is said in that discussion” (2011: 135-136). I thus listened, observed and interpreted my interaction at the interviews. In compiling the formal data about these interviews I also adopted a ‘reflexive’ approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2003: 283, 284).
While the interaction of some of the personnel may be described as warm, empathetic and open, I experienced the opposite reactions in other interviews. Brief agitated responses from one coordinator were directed at me at one centre, whilst at another centre I was confronted by open hostility. I was informed by the latter person that they
(staff from the centre) did not appreciate research students imposing on them (the centre) for their private (the students) purposes which usually were also linked to upward career mobility, whilst they (the centres) basically remained at the same juncture even though they give off their time. Boeije refers to such situations which can impact negatively on the obtaining of information as those with ‘weak participant consent’ (2010: 54). However, after I explained my frame of reference to the coordinator, her demeanour changed and she was more receptive to my presence and questions. She further offered assistance to me by stating that I may contact her should I require further information or help. This incident indicated to me how we as subjective beings construct our own meanings of things often without having full or more text or information about something and that subsequent obtaining of information alters our meanings and perceptions of the same thing or situation.
Although the interviewee here ‘repaired’ the initial damage done in our interaction, when I reflected on that experience, I wondered about the manner in which the services were being provided to women who came there. I was cognisant that much assistance and intervention was made by that group for abused women, but the rigid requirements of appointments having to be made and set time frames for women going there, did lead me to question the manner and help given to women who went there. (I wondered whether women seeking help were also ‘admonished’ at times.) I subsequently became aware that the restricted, structured access to the centre/group and its services was as a result of limited resources.
Juxtaposed with that experience was the embracing and open reception I received at another centre. The coordinator there indicated her appreciation of my research and of thereby putting support groups into a more public domain. She openly shared with me not just the experiences of the centre and its challenges, but also some of her private experiences as well. For me her demeanour and sharing revealed not just her commitment and passion for what she did for other women, but also reflected the ethos of the centre/group she managed. Whilst I experienced an ‘air of condescending superiority’ from another member, this manager interacted with me on an equal level.
I did not feel as if I was invading their space, but felt that I was given a place in their space.
Interviews with a staff member at another centre indicated a lack of full knowledge of the centre’s services and procedures, and although she was empathetic to me and my work, I did not get a sense of complete organisation and structure about the services provided. However it was not as severe as the centre I referred to earlier where I was not helped, but was met with an agitated stance from the manager. Perhaps it was due to an audit to be conducted shortly by donors as she had indicated, but I did not perceive much organisation at that centre. Kelly reminds us about hermeneutics in research and states that interpreting visual representations are not subject to scientific prescripts, but rely more on ‘instinct’ (1999: 412). As a lecturer in Communication, I constantly remind my students about what Robbins and Wade simply refer to as ‘non- verbal’ communication or semiology, the communication of information through means other than spoken or written language (1999: 10). Whilst Robbins and Wade posit a very simplified construct of what Kelly refers to, my experiences as lecturer in the subject have resulted in my heightened awareness of messages from texts other than the ‘what of’ written or spoken language. Thus non- verbal cues such as body language and acoustic signs provide greater understanding of messages to me than merely what is spoken and has informed my interpretation and understanding of the interview processes.