CHAPTER FOUR
4.4 Research Instruments
4.4.1 Interview schedules
Although the life history interview process invites participants to tell their stories, it is not without direction, given that the project addresses specific critical questions.
Interview schedules were constructed with the aim of structuring the process and keeping the life history frame as a deliberate orientation.
• Temporal emphasis: the schedules were structured to trace changing life experiences from childhood to adulthood.
• Social emphasis: it had to assist with accessing experiences within a social frame, as the influence of society, family school and life circumstances were important.
• Personal Frame: participants' personal sense-making of their experiences and issues of importance to them, was critical.
The interview schedules were a supportive tool developed to give direction to the unfolding process, but not intended to constrain it. The schedules were revised after the pilot process in which I found some questions too broad and others too specific. I prepared four related schedules each with a specific purpose (Appendix F). Each schedule had a guiding initial question intended as open-ended, followed by in-depth questions. The first interview schedule was designed to trace significant life experiences and events, in general and specific to stuttering, from childhood to adulthood. The second schedule was constructed to focus on a detailed exploration of stuttering experiences in varied life contexts. The third schedule was structured to illuminate how participant's negotiated stuttering over their life courses. The fourth was designed for summarising, clarifying and selecting those experiences most critical to their stories.
4.4.2 Understanding Myself: Researcher-as-instrument
It was necessary for me to understand myself in the context of researcher-as- instrument, a termed used by Harry (1996) to highlight the need for researchers to problematise their participation in knowledge construction processes which require
their active and influential participation. In this regard, Peshkin (1988, 2001) recommends using a well-informed subjectivity to reveal the multiple personas of the researcher. It became necessary to reflect on my own background, assumptions and positioning throughout the process. I was certainly present, had ideas and spoke from different positions. As a researcher in the process, I could occupy a variety of positions including female, mother, daughter, wife, Indian, university student and advocate, not just a single position as clinical practitioner or educator. My different subjectivities admitted a range of interests, beliefs and questions for me as researcher. In a similar fashion, the multiple subjectivities of participants are also admitted.
The interview therefore was intended to create a space for discursive engagement from multiple positions. Positioning was not regarded as bias and it was not possible to eliminate it. Truth is constructed in the midst of these influences (Chesney, 2001) which place knowledge construction as a state of flux. I was also aware of my positioning and careful not to impose judgements and decide what was right and wrong, for example, when participants told me about why they made particular choices. I wanted to make meaning, to understand their experience, not judge it or their actions. I positioned and repositioned myself, probed and discussed issues in detail with the specific intention of gaining a perspective on how they understood and acted in different situations. I was therefore not passive in the process but actively creating meaning with participants.
It was necessary for me to learn to tolerate and embrace uncertainty in the interview process. This was different to my prior experience of interviewing which entailed structuring and directing the interview process. Life history interviews unfold in a fluid way, and I was often not in control compared to when one administers a questionnaire. Therefore, I had to learn to tolerate and appreciate uncertainty of the unfolding process as positive learning and to allow the interview to run freely except if the topic was definitely irrelevant to the focus of the research. There were points at which participants raised issues I could not appreciate because of my limited exposure to such matters. In these instances I continued the conversation with the intention to learn about the issues through the participants. On several occasions, I read relevant material or explored particular issues in greater depth at a later stage of the interview.
Section Two: Producing Data
In this section I present a detailed overview of the interview process which served as the primary data production method. The production of data using an interview as method demands a review of critical issues, namely empathy, trust and power, which influence the process. The specific interviewing strategies, issues of sensing and connecting, are explained. I conclude this section with a discussion of memo-writing during the research process.
4.5 The Interview Process
The interview as the primary method of data production was scheduled over a two- month period for each participant. They were organised sequentially and did not overlap between participants because I needed to afford optimal time with each participant to engage intimately with each story. Also, structuring the process in this way provided the opportunity for considering the guidelines for selection of successive participants. In retrospect, I felt that this structure was beneficial because I had sharpened my interviewing skills over time, and I was able to gain clarity of emerging issues across participants. The initial data was produced over a twelve- month period during 2000 - 2001. The details of scheduling are presented in Appendix G.
4.5.1 Developing the research relationship
There are varying types of relationships between participants and researchers ranging from formal to intimate (Plummer, 2001). The relationship I aimed to develop could be described as a friendly partnership in which the researcher and participants were conversational partners. There was a need for us to get to know each other better through creating a common/shared discourse around the focus of the interview. The first challenge was therefore to become acquainted. We shared many commonalities but we were also of different backgrounds. Therefore, there is also a need for "bridging the gap" (Rubin &Rubin, 1995) for the purposes of developing the research relationship as these impact directly on the production of data. In my view the "distances" such as age, gender, cultural backgrounds between us did not make the conversation difficult, as one might expect, but served to make the discussion more informative. These "barriers" provided opportunities rather than obstacles because the process unravelled as one of discovery. I knew some participants well
prior to the interview but our relationship needed to be developed further in the context of the research process. However, with those I didn't know, it was necessary to spend a brief period sharing our respective backgrounds and getting acquainted.
It was necessary to foster a research relationship that would be mutual, trusting and empathetic because the construction of authentic knowledge comes only through the construction of authentic relationships (Lawrence-Lightfoot &Hoffman-Davis, 1997).
While the notion of authenticity is contestable, one must consider what kind of relationship is optimal in a study which is interested in personal truths. The process therefore depends on a relationship between participants and the researcher that is conducive to such personal meaning-making. Issues of warmth, empathy, trust, respect, genuineness are core to the research process (Josselson, 1995).
recognise that "we never meet each other naked", as complete strangers.
However, a priori assumptions can be dangerous. At the outset, therefore, we clarified assumptions we each held about the purpose of the interview, to ascertain how we saw each other in this context. One participant said he was pleasantly surprised to discover I was not an "old professor" as he had anticipated. I agreed to conduct the interview in his community, which he regarded as a sign of respect.
Some participants said that they were intimidated initially because I was unfamiliar, and a lecturer. However, having experienced the casual tone of the interview, they reported being more comfortable and interacted more freely. Although I felt closer to some participants than to others, in general I felt we had a healthy, friendly, respectful relationship conducive to data collection.
I found that after the purpose of the interview was clarified, the participants appeared comfortable with the types of issues raised, and the discussion became more focussed. We adjusted to the communicative styles of each other and the conversations flowed easily. However, it became necessary to negotiate how to handle particular issues as they arose. For example, with a participant who used English as a second language, we negotiated what was necessary to achieve meaningful communication. One participant suggested that it was useful to help him
"fill in words" when he experienced difficulties selecting suitable English words and that I should use simple, everyday language rather than "high academic language".
Ordinarily I would not have "filled in words", but his direct request proved to be useful strategy although I needed to use it only occasionally. As the process unfolded he became aware that I was not expecting "academic" language. Another strategy
participants used was expression in their vernacular. I asked them to elaborate and explain these to me.
Two participants stuttered severely and I had to negotiate with them about how to manage the communication. I explained that the situation was difficult for me because I could not pretend that the stutter was not present or potentially disruptive.
There were times when the stutter was so severe that I didn't understand what they said and asked for repetition. At times they answered questions with single words or short answers as a means of containing the fluency disruptions. At points the interview began to slide into a question-answer format and I seemed to be directing the conversation too much. I addressed these issues with the participants when I felt that we had become sufficiently acquainted.
I reinforced my view that I was interested in listening to their stories. My asking them to repeat or clarify what they had said was not a sign of not listening or disrespect. I did this because I wanted to engage with them. I also made clear that I was not judging them on the basis of their stutter. Participants made various suggestions to guide me in this regard. Some suggested that I wait until they had completed speaking, and not to fill in words or guess when they were in a block. Some suggested that although eye contact was necessary, they were not comfortable if I
"stared" at them while they were in a block. We considered options of writing as a supportive option, but none of the participants felt that this was their preferred option for various reasons. Two participants who stuttered severely provided written notes about their experiences in lieu of the interview as a means of supplementing what they said.
The relationship evolved over time. During the initial stages the potential of power imbalances was more apparent. Although I had set the agenda for the research and the framework for the discussion, participants were encouraged to steer the interview in selecting to speak about issues important to them with intention to admit stories. I intervened only if the discussion had steered too far from the scope of the research.
However, if participants felt the issues were important to raise and wanted to continue, the opportunity to do so was available. As power shifted in the research process, the participants and myself became flexible and comfortable from our respective positions allowing for an in-depth exploration of issues benefiting the process (Lincoln in Ebbs 1996). I also explored sensitive or controversial issues,
such as disclosure or traumatic relationships, at points where I felt participants were more comfortable in the relationship.
4.5.2 Conducting an interpretive conversation: sensing and connecting
The purpose of the interview was not just to hear the words participants spoke but to interpret meaning (verbal and non-verbal) to understand life stories. In this respect, active interviewing is an interpretative act. The general texts on life history interviewing (Atkinson, 1997; Cole &Knowles, 2001; Plum mer, 1995; Roberts, 2002) provide useful guidelines to enhance the knowledge production. These include:
• Listening with curiosity as the key
• Keeping an open-ended, non-directive, and flexible approach
• Acknowledging the uniqueness of each interview
• Practising interviewing techniques such as funnelling
• Being responsive and attentive to facilitate ease of conversation
• Being au fait with the participants' style of speaking and language use
• Being able to deal with resistances and difficult moments in the process
• Attending to participants' perspective in a non-judgemental way, with the intention of facilitating understanding
• Attending to power imbalances in the research process
However, there is no one way of interviewing and therefore each researcher develops a particular style and sensitivity. Here I have been influenced by feminist methodologies (Anderson & Jack, 1991; Fine, 1998, Josselson, 1995), which promote empathetic meaning-making. I use two terms "sensing" and "connecting" to explain how I approached the refined nature of the interpretative process.
I understand "sensing" as an interpretative practice that does not stop at listening but involves a combination of all sensory input and "more" to understand. This could be regarded as an intuitive, extrasensory stance to interpreting the conversation. My task was not just to listen to the words but also to remain sensitive to what participants were saying and importantly, what all of this meant. The tone of voice, emotions, silences, gestures, body language and words were all combined, as sensing became a core aspect of the interpretative process. As I actively constructed
meaning with participants, I fed the sense I made back into the research conversation for further discussion.
I had to process the meaning I was making through my own subjectivities therefore rendering the process as intersubjective. I had to connectwith participants. How was I doing this? On what basis was I to connect? I am not a PWS and I know the dangers of "Othering" (Fine, 1998) in the process. It was imperative that I understood their stories and yet I could be perceived as an outsider. Did I have to construct the PWS as Other, as different to me because they stutter, or the same as me because we shared many commonalties? Did I want to negotiate this interaction on the basis of the theory that was floating in my head? Which Theory? Sociology theory which I was beginning to enjoy, or Speech Pathology theory which I knew well? I couldn't pretend to be atheoretical. I felt I needed to use all of my resources to "connect" with the participant's experience.
There was no simple way to resolve these dilemmas that continued into the interpretation process. I adopted a commonsense approach. I firstly attempted to connect with their experience through my own multiple subjectivities. I also made overt how my understanding was being shaped, and invited participants to reinterpret and interact with my interpretation. If I was intending an intersubjective understanding then I had to "let myself in". It was important to shift away from being an objective outsider/spectator toward a position where I could stand "with" participants to create understanding and foster an empathising relationship. A useful strategy for me was to "connect" with participants through my own experiences which may have some resonance with theirs even if they were not identical. One example is a women feeling under threat in the presence of male authority, or feeling powerful in a context in which I was in authority. I also used a strategy of "imagining from multiple positions" (Josselson, 1995) how it could be, being lonely or feeling happy and normal as a child on a playground. However, I could never have claimed to stand in their shoes because I don't think that is possible. My intention was to get as close as possible to understanding their experiences.
At the core of all the issues that are critical to the telling of personal stories, is that of trust. It is a dilemma that was difficult to resolve. How would I know that the relationship was a trusting one? I would never know, and so I attempted to create a situation conducive to a developing trusting relationship. My intention to foreground the issues of equity, partnership, collaboration, consultation and transparency were
intended in the interests of "democratic faith". I reflected on these issues throughout the process (Appendix H) with intent to monitor whether I was encouraging a trusting relationship.
To enhance the sensitivity during the process three suggestions made by Anderson
&Jack (1991) and Frank (2000b) were particularly useful. Firstly, it was necessary to
listen to the participant's moral language. When participant's said, "I feel embarrassed, I feel like a failure, I work against the odds," they were introducing a moral element into the discourse. These moral self-evaluative comments in turn provided an opportunity for me to explore the relationships between self-concept and cultural norms and general expectations of how society expects one to behave (Anderson &Jack, 1991). Listening to moral imperatives of what constitutes "good"
and "bad" in context, and the choices participants make in their lifeworlds, allows the space to honour their individuality. As a researcher I felt that it was important to preserve and foster this freedom because it allowed me to understand how participants came to value, devalue and construct their experiences through their own stories.
Secondly, it was necessary to interpret the participants' meta-statements. These are the places where the participant stops and reflects on what was said. I became sensitive to the participant's analysis of the discrepancy between what should be done and what they did, or between what they thought was correct and what was society's expectation. I gained insights into how participants can struggle with dominant frames of reference that construct them as people with pathology and their challenge or submissions to them. This created the space for working within their own frames rather than public validation frameworks.
Thirdly, it was important to listen to the logic of the narrative with the intention of noting contradictions and internal consistencies and themes. For example, those who said they were living successfully with stuttering, told stories which showed how they reached this point. However, I was also aware that because there were dominant and competing discourses, contradictions were not a bad thing. Contradictions should not lead me to doubting the participant but rather offered opportunity to explore the nature of such contradictions. This allowed me the opportunity to appreciate the difficult and complex spaces participants lived in and the choices they made. In this way the intersections between personal and social interfaces became more obvious to me. The stories were not neat and straightforward and required that I probed
various aspects with the intention of establishing coherence by establishing the links between different parts of the discussion.
4.5.3 Power in the research relationship
The issue of power asymmetry in the research process including the interview is an inescapable reality that had to be addressed directly, at the outset, with participants and reinforced throughout the process. While it was impossible to achieve complete equity since the project was mine and I had invited participants and devised the schedule, attempts were made to minimise and raise awareness of imbalances and dominance.
The most obvious threat to the imbalance was that I was engaging in a process with PWS. Traditionally, people with disorders or disability have been constructed (by professionals and researchers), as people on the margins with "less power".
However, I felt it necessary to set the stage for the interview by inviting their stories and encouraging their positioning as expert on their lives. As the interview proceeded I was aware of imbalances and dominances between participants and myself as we discussed particular issues. I appreciated that neither of us could be neutral but also that the purpose of the research was to understand the participant's story. It was necessary to be respectful of different points of view and to keep the intention of the project in focus.
My fear was that I would commit symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1999) by becoming dominant during the process by the very words I chose and issues I emphasised, without participants or myself being aware of this. Because my own frame of reference had been shaped historically by the medical model, there remained the threat that it would become the dominant frame and that I would do exactly the opposite to what I intended. I felt I had blindspots of which I was unaware, and therefore engaged a fellow researcher to review how the interview was unfolding by listening to the audiotape. I received critical feedback from my research colleague who has experience in life history research. She commented on how I was enhancing and limiting the interview, for instance, in the words I chose, the issues I expanded and the issues I left unattended. In some cases I was made aware that I probed aspects because I wanted to know more about a particular issue which was not important to the participant. For example, I asked about therapy experience in detail when it was raised only as a minor issue by the participant.