Method two – Interviews

4.4 Method two – Interviews

Interviews were planned to allow for more in-depth discussion to take place between interested parties and the researcher. In other words, to explore concepts which may not have readily lent themselves to the written word and concepts that had become apparent during data transcription of the survey. Interviews may be defined as conversations between two people interested in a similar subject (Polgar, 2000), and, in fact, that is how the process was described to the people interviewed. However, there are different forms of interview which Robson (2002) and other writers (Cohen et al., 2005; Polgar, 2000) have discussed at length. Robson clearly distinguishes between the different types of interview ranging from a structured format where the interview has pre-determined set questions which do not vary, to the opposite end of the spectrum where the conversation between the interviewer and interviewee is allowed to develop at will.

A semi-structured interview format was chosen for this research. Each interviewee was given a list of set questions approximately one week prior to the interview to allow for preparation of thought. There was a risk of the interviewees discussing the questions with another sonographer; A semi-structured interview format was chosen for this research. Each interviewee was given a list of set questions approximately one week prior to the interview to allow for preparation of thought. There was a risk of the interviewees discussing the questions with another sonographer;

Respondents to the survey were asked to contact the researcher if they were interested in adding further comment verbally. Interviews took place after the volunteer received and read a plain language statement and a sample set of questions. Participants also signed and returned a consent form. At the beginning of each interview the process was explained again and the interviewee was told that he or she could discontinue at this time or any time in the future. Interviews took place at a time of the participant’s choosing. Interviews took place both face to face and by telephone due to the fact that sonographers are spread across Australia. All interviews were recorded with the permission of the interviewee and hand written notes were made at the time of the interviews. Notes were transcribed immediately after the interviews and emailed to the participants for verification that their thoughts and meanings had been correctly conveyed. After receipt of confirmation that the notes had been transcribed accurately, all voice recordings were deleted

The use of a semi-structured format allowed for some base to the interview but also allowed flexibility and an ability to clear up misunderstandings or probe further into meaning. There was also the possibility that an answer or comment could produce something unexpected and informative for the research. The interview questions are set out below, although interviewees were only required to answer those questions which were of interest to them:

x What do you think is the main reason for CPD? x Do you think that CPD makes a difference to sonographers? How? Or Why not? x What happens in your work place? x Do you feel better about yourself because you are doing more study? If yes, in what

way? way?

reflection occurred it did not lead to CPD. Why do you think this is so?

4.4.1 Possible bias

As a sonographer myself, I was very aware of the opinions and perceptions I held about CPD, which, indeed, had led to the research in the first place. Because of this, I took great care to avoid voice inflections or body language that may have indicated agreement, or otherwise, to an answer; in addition, I refrained from commenting one way or another about an answer, other than to encourage further information or clarification regarding a particular point the interviewee had made. I was also aware that the people responding to my request for interview were likely to hold biases themselves, but considered that this would only add to the overall information.

4.4.2 Analysis of interview material

There are various ways to analyse qualitative data, these include content analysis, which uses word or phrase frequencies; template approaches where codes have been predetermined; editing approaches where the researcher assigns codes based on his/her interpretation of the data and the immersion approach which is unstructured and very interpretive (Robson, 2002). Miles and Huberman (1994) described common features of qualitative analysis which included recording impressions of the researcher with the interview field notes and sorting and shifting through the materials to identify similar phrases, themes and patterns, before finally elaborating on these themes and making generalisations that can be confirmed or confronted by a previously formalised body of knowledge. According to Miles and Huberman, care and self-awareness of the researcher

need to be taken in analysing the interview materials because of the ease with which the data can lend itself to researcher bias. One way this can be minimised is to use a framework analysis as described by Ritchie and Spencer (1994). This analytical process contains a number of distinct systematic sequential stages which aid in analysis and allow a trail of evidence to verify the findings (Rabiee, 2004). This system also allows for themes to develop from both the research questions and the data (Rabiee, 2004). This method detailed below was used in the analysis of the data from the interviews, because the interviews were quite freeform in that the interviewees were allowed to begin with the issues that interested them most and not all interviewees answered all questions. The process of analysis of the interviews began with the discussion between interviewer and interviewee. The interviewer made notes throughout the discussion and gently probed the interviewee to extend answers where possible. After the interview, whilst the notes were being thought about and typed up a sense of the interview began to emerge and themes began to form. This was repeated for each of the interviews.

The following stage involved identifying the themes which formed the framework. Each sentence of each interview was examined and sorted until the dominant themes and sub-themes emerged. These themes and sub-themes were charted and relevant portions of each interview were arranged according to the theme they related to. The categorised data were cross-checked for frequency of comments and differences of opinion and also how specific the comments made were, that is, if ideas came from personal experience or hearsay. In addition, the emotional intensity of the interviewee at the time of the comments was taken heed of. Comments or ideas pertaining to the present administration of CPD and peculiar to each interviewee were set aside to

be dealt with separately at the end of the analysis. The findings were further validated by a colleague, an experienced researcher who is not a sonographer, to dispense with sonographer bias. She independently followed the same process of examination of the notes of all of the be dealt with separately at the end of the analysis. The findings were further validated by a colleague, an experienced researcher who is not a sonographer, to dispense with sonographer bias. She independently followed the same process of examination of the notes of all of the