Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

221
confidentiality and anonymity. All interviews were conducted by the lead researcher (Jermaine Ravalier), with each
digitally recorded in two ways to ensure that there is more than one source should either of the recordings fail: via
the use of a mobile telephone and a laptop computer. After each interview both sets of recordings were
transferred onto separate password-encrypted folders on two different personal computers, with access to the files
restricted to the lead researcher only.
An interview schedule was designed once the log and Survey 1 stages had been completed and fully
analysed. The results of these two stages therefore informed the interview schedule (Appendix 7). The role of the
beginning of the interview schedule was to put the participant at ease while also informing of the nature and
purpose of the study, and gaining consent. Therefore the interviewer’s role in the participating organisation and at
Anglia Ruskin University were explained, and consent was gained by having interviewees read the participant
information sheet (see Appendix 8) and read and sign two copies of interview consent form (see Appendix 9) with
one copy retained by the participant and the second retained by Jermaine Ravalier in a locked drawer at Anglia
Ruskin University. Participants were then allowed to ask any questions that they may have had, the anonymity of
the process was elaborated upon and it was stressed that should the participant want to stop the interview at any
time or withdraw their data after the interview process they could do so without penalty.
Section 1 of the interview schedule referred to what had been working well in their everyday working lives,
and why. Participants were allowed the opportunity to freely discuss the everyday things that improved upon their
working life. The interviewer asked the participants to elaborate upon the answers given here where necessary, as
well as asking for suggestions as to how areas could be improved. Next, the results of the first two log phase
questions were described to the participant. Individuals were asked whether they agreed with these results as well