PDF (PhD Thesis) - UWE Research Repository - University of the ...

Eventually 3 co-inquirers withdrew (Liz, Amy and Maria). Maria suggested
I interview her at the end of the inquiry. This prompted me to interview all
of the co-inquirers separately to establish if the inquiry had made a
difference to their practice and to check out my tentative sense making
from Strand 2. However, Liz did not take part in this process resulting in 9
1-1½ hour co-inquirers‘ interviews.
Our co-inquiry meetings lasted for 2½ hours. All were tape recorded with
key quotes transcribed. Full transcripts were not produced although tapes
were available for the co-inquirers. Originally, 6 sessions were organised
but the group wanted to carry on meeting. Jon suggested that the co-
inquiry should run concurrently with my return to practice so that I could
continue to inquire with them during Strand 2 of the inquiry. The overlap
was for 4 months. Nevertheless, attendance was always an issue and
gradually the toll became too much for the co-inquirers consequently
meetings ended with the summer break in 2005.
As the design changed in regard to Strand 3, I contacted the Director of
research for the Hospital Trust and the Director of Nursing, my research
sponsor, to see if I needed to re-apply for ethical approval. It was agreed
that the action learning sets were covered by the ethics committee
approval and so I would be able to use any data produced. I decided
however, to ask for verbal permission to use each story as data.
Data Generation and Analysis through Cycles of Action and
Reflective Inquiry
I did not want to add to the co-inquirers‘ workload by suggesting they kept
a diary during the research. This did not seem ethical because they did not
normally do this. I wanted the inquiry to reflect the reality of practice as
much as possible. As stated already, our main method of knowledge
51