Research interviews with people with mental handicaps

MENTAL HANDICAP RESEARCH, 1988; 1 : 1, 75-90 0 BlMH Publications

75

Research interviews with people with mental handicaps

Dorothy Atkinson", Lecturer, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA

ABSTRACT In any study of the lives and life styles of people with mental handicaps it is essential to make every effort to obtain the consumers' own perspective of their own social situation and personal circumstances. There is a growing body of literature on the challenges faced by researchers who seek the viewpoint of consumers and some ideas are now emerging about how to meet those challenges most effectively. This paper looks at this growing body of literature, and notes some points of consensus.

The paper then describes the research methods used in a follow-up study of people with mental handicaps living in the community, in which personal views were sought. An attempt is made to describe the challenges met, not only at the design stage but also during the research interviews. Some key issues emerged from the study, and these are discussed in some detail. Illustrative interview material is included to highlight points made about the interaction between researchers and respondents, and to suggest some ways forward for others embarking in this field.

INTRODUCTION This paper attempts to do three things. First, it looks at the literature of research design and examines some general issues relating to the use of interviews with people with mental handicaps. Secondly, it describes the specific issues addressed in a research project which involved people with mental handicaps as respondents. Thirdly, it includes illustrative material on the interview dynamics, and the process of interaction, drawn from detailed field notes made at the time; the implications for other researchers contained in these accounts are drawn out.

The opinions of people with mental handicaps are increasingly being sought by planners and practitioners (Sigelman et al., 1981a; 1982), and individuals are at the same time being encouraged to speak for themselves (Sigelman et al., 1981b). In recent years, researchers have begun to recog- nise the value of including the views of people with mental handicaps in

'At the time that this research project was conducted the author was a Senior Social Worker with Somerset Social Services Department.

ATKINSON

areas of research which directly touch their lives. (See, for example, Edgerton, 1967; Edgerton and Bercovici, 1976; Edgerton, Bollinger, and Herr, 1984; Malin, 1983; Faire, 1985). The challenge remains, however, for researchers to involve individuals effectively, so that not only are people enabled to express their point of view, but their viewpoint is faithhlly and accurately represented in subsequent research reports.

Qualitative research is about people’s subjective experiences; it is about how they see their world, and how they describe it (Bercovici, 1981; Taylor and Bogdan, 1981). The qualitative approach is a way of viewing and understanding people; seeing them in their social situation and exploring their view of it (Bercovici, 1981). Qualitative methods offer researchers, and others, opportunities to study the first-hand experiences of people with mental handicaps living in the community who can, and do, participate in research studies. They have provided “complex and moving accounts of their experiences in returning to community life” (Wyngaarden, 198 1).

Although interest is growing, and experience accumulating, about how best people with mental handicaps can be involved in studies of their lives and life styles, the published literature on methodological issues remains scant (Sigelman et al., 1980; 1981a; 1982; Sigelman and Budd, 1986). There is still a need for researchers in the field to share their experiences (Flynn, 1986). This paper aims to make a contribution to this end.

GENERAL ISSUES OF RESEARCH DESIGN The decision to involve people with mental handicaps in the research design, and actively to seek their viewpoints and personal experiences, is easy to justify. They are, after all, best placed to describe their own social situation, their personal experience of it, and their feelings about it (Wyngaarden, 1981).

Ways need to be found, however, of enabling people with mental handicaps to take part in this process. The “Getting to Know You” approach, devised by Brost and Johnson (1982), is one way. It means investing time in personal contact and, within the context ofa relationship, allowing a full picture ofa person to emerge. In a generously resourced research project which allows frequent, regular, and close contact between researchers and respondents over a prolonged period, and which employs a range of opportunities for conversation and observation, many research problems can be overcome (Edgerton 1967, 1984; Edgerton and Bercovici, 1976; Edgerton, Bollinger, and Herr, 1984).

RESEARCH INTERVIEWS 77

The “naturalistic” approach advocated by Edgerton and his colleagues is effective. People are seen, observed, related to, and engaged with over periods that are long enough to enable their perspective on their situation to be fully recorded. This approach, and the resources necessary to use it, are out of reach of small studies and projects with limited resources and/or restricted timetables. Instead, the research interview becomes the focus of attention, as researchers look for ways of resolving the methodological problems inherent in any research project which seeks valid and reliable information from people with mental handicaps.

There is a small, but growing, body of literature on the design of research interviews for people with mental handicaps. This seems to indicate some consensus on: what sort of questions to ask and how; how the interview should be conducted; who should be involved and how; where the interview should be held; and what safeguards can be built in to the data collection.

The literature surveyed in this paper is based on qualitative research studies involving people with mental handicaps. Two observations are relevant at this point. Whilst much of the material cited is from research conducted and published in the United States of America, relevant British studies are reviewed. The research projects undertaken by Malin (1983), Faire (1989, and Flynn (1986), for example, included interviews with people with mental handicaps.

The second point is that the issues raised in this review are not confined to the design and conduct of interviews with people with mental handicaps. Good interviewing techniques apply “across the board”, to respondents in varied circumstances and from different backgrounds.

Questions to ask Open-ended questions are increasingly favoured (Sigelman et al., 1980, 1981b; Wyngaarden, 1981). They avoid the pitfalls of acquiescence and over-reporting associated with yes/no questions (Sigelman et al., 1980, 1981a, 1981b), and the tendency to choose the second option in either/or questions (Sigelman et al., 1981c; Sigelman and Budd, 1986).

Conduct of interviews Interviews should be natural, unobtrusive, and unthreatening interactions between researchers and respondents (Taylor and Bogdan, 1981). A relaxed and conversational style is preferable, with as little structure as possible and minimum formality (Wyngaarden, 198 1; Taylor and Bogdan, 1981).

78 ATKINSON

Who to involve and how Some researchers favour individual interviews in order to maintain privacy and safeguard confidentiality (Wyngaarden, 1981). It may help to find out in advance about people’s communication skills, and take steps to cope with situations where these skills are known to be limited (Flynn, 1986). A tape recorder reduces the amount of writing required and can make interviews seem less of a test situation (Edgerton and Bercovici, 1976; Flynn, 1986).

Interview setting The favoured setting appears to be the person’s own home (Malin, 1983; Faire, 1985; Flynn, 1986). This is conducive to a relaxed, conversational style of interviewing.

Safeguards Interview questions can be asked in a number ofways so that answers can be cross-checked (Wyngaarden, 198 1). Interviews should start with easy questions to build up people’s confidence; and difficult or upsetting questions should come in the middle or towards the end (Wyngaarden, 1981). Involvement of non-handicapped “informants” who know the respondents well can act as a useful check on information collected (Sigelman et al., 1981).

SPECIFIC ISSUES OF RESEARCH DESIGN The second part ofthis paper looks at the methodology of a research project which included the perspective, and viewpoints, of people with mental handicaps. Their view, as consumers, was considered paramount. The research aimed to look at people’s everyday lives in the community; their friendships, support networks, and the pattern of their days. The project’s primary aim was to look at the lives and life styles of people with mental handicaps through their eyes, and through the eyes of people who knew them well, in order to add to the growing understanding of what “life in the community” is like for people moving out of long-stay hospitals.

The desired outcome from the project was a full and rich picture of people’s lives, described as far as possible by the people .themselves, and supplemented by accounts from social workers. The aim and desired outcome determined the research design. Interviews with people with mental handicaps themselves and their social workers, would be necessary; interviews which would provide time and space for people to talk about, and reflect upon, their day-to-day experiences of community living.


The issues of research design, as outlined above, had to be addressed and dealt with in order to set up interviews which “worked” for respondents and researcher alike. The aim was for people to have an opportunity to talk about themselves and their lives to someone with time to listen; and for the “listener”, or researcher, to have an opportunity to hear the fullest possible account of people’s experiences.

The research project was a two-part study of people leaving mental handicap hospitals to live in independent living situations in the community (Atkinson, 1984). The first part ofthe project, the hospital study, identified the 55 people who formed the research group, and a detailed study of their case notes gave a retrospective account of their lives in hospital.

The second part of the project, the follow-up study, looked at the lives of these people (now 50 in number) in their community settings. The follow- up study used several methods of data collection, including interviews with people with mental handicaps themselves as respondents. (Other methods are described in Atkinson, 1985a). This was a study of their life styles: the people they knew and spent time with; the places theyvisited; and what they did there. (Most of these findings have been written up in a series of papers - see, for example: Atkinson, 1985b; 1986).

The research interview: anticipated areas of difficulty Four main areas of likely difficulty were identified at the outset, and these influenced the final design of the project:

the respondents - their possible characteristics; the respondents’ perception of the research; the need for feedback; the respondents’ perception of the researcher.

The respondents The respondents had all previously lived in mental handicap hospitals. Therefore, the following possible difficulties had to be allowed for: INSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND Respondents’ background of institutional care could inhibit them in interviews, possibly in two ways. They could, through relatively limited experience of ordinary life, have little to say. Or, they could be inhibited by fear of failure resulting in return to the hospital. LIMITED UNDERSTANDING It was assumed that the people being interviewed had some intellectual

80 ATKINSON

limitations. Some, therefore, might have difficulty in understanding the purpose of the research and in understanding the questions asked. They might also find it difficult to convey their own experiences and conceptual- ise, generalise, recall events and names of people, and generally communicate their ideas to another person. TRYING TO PLEASE It was anticipated that some respondents might try hard to please the interviewer. They might try to establish what ideas the interviewer had in mind and then produce answers along the lines of their perception. It was likely that great care would be needed, therefore, to help people express their ideas without influencing their choice of words and mode of expression. COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS It was possible that some respondents would have speech or hearing problems, and that it might prove difficult for interviewer and respondents to communicate.

Respondents’ perception of the research It was anticipated that the negative experiences of respondents, as people who had been segregated and stigmatised, might influence their perception ofthe research. In particular, they might harbour fears about the purpose of the research, for instance, that it was designed to check on them, to test them, or to catch them out.

The research had to take account of these factors as they could lead some people to refuse to participate at all, and others to feel obliged to do so. In addition, there might be a reluctance to talk about problem areas, attempts to cover up difficulties by putting on a brave face, and worries about confidentiality.

Need for feedback Respondents’ worries about the nature and purpose of the research project could possibly be allayed by the promise of early feedback. An assurance that an interview would later be followed by a report ofthe findings, and that these findings might help people in other parts of the country, was thought essential in this context.

The research problem was how to put this assurance into practice. Time had to be built into the schedule after the completion of interviews for the design and production of a suitable, easy-to-understand, written account of actual findings, with illustrations, which could be distributed to all


respondents (Atkinson, 1983).

Respondents’ perception of the researcher RESPONDENTS WHO KNEW THE RESEARCHER AS A SOCIAL WORKER Nine respondents were “clients” of the researcher. Some of the others, though not “clients”, lived locally and perceived the researcher primarily in the role of social worker. It was possible, therefore, that client respondents and local respondents might query the motives of the social worker- researcher. They might also have difficulty in relating to the social worker as a researcher, and to discussing matters in a more formal manner than usual.

Clearly the people concerned would need a convincing explanation of the purposes ofthe research and ofthe special role adopted by the social worker- researcher in this context. Research interviews would need to be set at a different time from the usual social work interviews, to mark their different purpose and content. It was hoped that these minimum safeguards would help to reduce any tendency to tailor replies to fit perceived expectations. This outcome could not be guaranteed, however, and the researcher would have to remain alert to the possibility. RESPONDENTS WHO DID NOT KNOW THE RESEARCHER Most respondents did not know the researcher prior to the project. To take account ofthis fact and ofall the possible fears and other difficulties outlined above, a personal introduction seemed necessary.

The people best-placed to make such introductions were the respondents’ visiting social workers. They would, in any case, be asking their clients if they would participate in the research interviews and a personal introduction seemed to be a logical consequence ofthis request. It might also help to alleviate some of the possible fears about the purposes of the research project. It should be acknowledged, however, that such personal introductions could lead people to identify the researcher as a colleague of their social worker, and that they would tailor their replies accordingly. Again, the researcher would have to watch for this tendency.

RESEARCH DESIGN The research problems identified above all relate to interviews with people with mental handicaps. Clearly, to base the research on interviews which could contain so many pitfalls would be to run a high risk of eliciting inaccurate information. Respondent interviews were thus conducted

82 ATKINSON

during the later stages of the fieldwork; they were to be final checks on data collected by other means.

T h e project was based on a battery of methods, the aim being to construct a “fail-safe” system of gathering information. As the material sought could prove elusive, safeguards were built into the research design at each stage. T h e safeguards were established through the interlocking design, which allowed for the cross-checking and cross-referencing of material.

T h e battery of methods comprised: the study of individual (and group) files from Social Services area offices; a three part interview with social workers; interviews with respondents; a diary kept by respondents for one week after their interview.

METHOD The interview schedule A schedule was designed to help focus interviews with individual respondents. It was in three parts. The first part was the most important and it was designed to be an easy section to complete. Respondents were asked to talk about “yesterday” in terms of where they had been, who they had seen, and what they had done. They were then asked to comment on whether it had been an ordinary weekday or not and, if not, what would happen on other weekdays. They were next asked to talk about the preceding weekend, again in terms of the people, places, and activities encountered. This section was designed to interlock with the social workers’ similar accounts of their respondents’ daily and weekly contacts and activities.

The second part of the interview schedule simply cross-checked the information already elicited, by asking specific questions related to respondents’ current life styles. This part contained, for example, questions about visitors, social visits, and daytime and leisure activities. It also included those special events in a social calendar which may not happen in an ordinary week but which are important; for example, contact with family and distant friends, outings, holidays, birthdays, and Christmas.

The final part of the schedule was a simple checklist of items of household or general interest which may not have been covered in the first two parts. It included, for example, invitations to discuss shared activities, such as the group pet or the household newspapers and magazines; it included people who may be important but had not been mentioned elsewhere under the headings of “visitors” or “social visits”, such as neighbours and local shopkeepers.

Pilot study The interview schedule was piloted with the help of five people living in a group


home in a neighbouring county. An interview was held with everyone present. This joint interview was chosen on the basis of four considerations:

an open session could alleviate anxieties and reassure people about the research aims - it could even be fun; one member of the group could help another if necessary, for example, if someone “got stuck” or had speech problems; the presence ofknowledgeable peers could serve as a check on any tendency to offer an improved version of life; the lives of group members are inevitably intertwined to some degree, and time would be saved through group interviews where areas of common concern could first be established, and individual differences explored afterwards.

The pilot interview was tape recorded. This helped to minimise writing in the interview itself and was a useful check on some of the more complex interactions that occurred. The interview lasted for 90 minutes. It appeared to be an interesting, even enjoyable, experience for the respondents.

The interviews Interviews with respondents were preceded by interviews with their social workers. All social workers were interviewed, the sessions were tape recorded, and the material was transcribed soon afterwards. Most interviews lasted about two hours, and a great deal of information was gleaned about the everyday lives of the people being studied. Details of important life events, and the names of significant people in their lives, were thus known in advance. This proved invaluable where respondents had speech and communication difficulties because it enabled the researcher to “tune in” more easily to names and events already previewed.

A total of 50 respondents were followed-up in this part of the fieldwork. Four of the original 55 had died, and a fifth person had moved out of the county. All members of the research group were invited to participate. In all 47 people accepted, a response rate of 94 per cent. Respective social workers arranged the interviews, gave personal introductions where necessary and, in two instances, sat- in on interviews to alleviate anxieties.

The principles established in the pilot interview were applied in the follow-up interviews. Thus group interviews were held in shared households and married couples were seen together. With just one exception, all interviews were tape recorded.

Each interview commenced with a simple explanation of the research aims. Respondents were told that the research aimed: to look at the experiences and achievements of people living in the community; to record those experiences in a report or a book; and to circulate the findings in order to help people in other areas to share similar opportunities ofcommunity living. Respondents appeared to grasp the idea, and appreciate the potential value to others of their personal experiences. Many people were keen to receive early results of the research, and they were

ATKINSON

assured of this outcome. The research aimed to set a friendly and informal tone to the interviews. A gift of

flowers, cake, or chocolates was taken to respondents’ homes as a way of saying “Thank you” in advance for their time and trouble in taking part. The gifts also helped to set an easy, informal atmosphere. Time on arrival was spent in preliminary chatting to establish rapport, and pets, photographs, pictures, and ornaments were admired and commented on.

The actual interviews commenced with a warm invitaiton to talk about the preceding day with the question: “Can you tell me what you did yesterday?” Respondents started with when they got up, and continued through their day until bedtime. This quickly got the conversation flowing, and events were recalled in detail. The structure of the whole week followed easily from this starting point. The interviews were meant to elicit information on people, places, and activities; areas of life that respondents seemed happy to discuss in detail. No attempt was made to probe any area of very private concern, such as personal problems or previous hospital histories. Interviews usually ended on a light-hearted note as talk was turned to pets and favourite television programmes.

The researcher accepted cues given by respondents. Thus, in most instances, certain words such as “handicap” were avoided by mutual consent; previous un- happy experiences, perhaps in a group home, were regarded as closedchapters; and the few references made to hospitals were initiated by respondents, not by the researcher.

ISSUES ARISING FROM THE RESEARCH PROJECT Detailed fieldnotes of all the follow-up interviews were kept by the researcher. These notes were written immediately afterwards, and provided full commentaries Qn the dynamics of the interviews, and the interactions between researcher and respondents. T h e y filled in gaps when the recorder was not switched on, and they contain observations and quotes not recorded elsewhere.

A content analysis of the complete set of fieldnotes has highlighted some areas of interest which emerged during the interviews:

the researcher’s perception of the respondents;

the respondents’ perception of the research (and the researcher); the interaction between respondents and researcher;

the relationship between respondents and researcher; roles and relationships within households.

These points will be covered briefly in this paper. A discussion of the interview process itself, and the dynamics of the interaction between researchers and respondents, are rarely attempted in the research literature


Oakley, 1981). Yet t he dynamics of a n interview, and the relationship between its central participants, are influential in determining the quality and richness of its outcome.

T h e extracts which follow are taken directly from the fieldnotes. T h c y are the researcher’s own descriptive account of the interviews and what hap- pened, as well as being a personal interpretation of interactions between people. T h e y are a behind-the-scenes look at research interviews, albeit from the researcher’s point of view.

The researcher’s perception of the respondents Extract (a) (Interview with Joan Woods, Mabel West, and Vera Bainbridge)

“I wore my old clothes because I expected the place to be extremely grim. I knocked. The window was open (for the cat) and r h c r t was much muttering and shuming from within. I called out ‘Hello!’ and tvmtually a woman asked, ‘Did I hear a knock?’. I was allowed to let myself in by Joan Woods: ‘You can save my legs those few yards’. Although I was in my old clothes, they were all looking smart. The room itselfwas cluttered, but nothing out ofthe ordinary. Had they cleaned up specially?”

Extract (b) (Interview with Keith and Beryl Gill) “They were very welcoming, and were calling out to me long before I reached their door. They both looked very smart. They both looked as if they had dressed up for the occasion, and they seemed to be wearing new shoes.

We sat down. They seemed relaxed and very happy to talk about themselves. Perhaps they were glad of the company?”

The respondents’ perception of the research (and the researcher) Extract (a) (Interview with Laura Vickers)

“Laura was not at her best. Was she worried about this interview? Had Ralph and Enid made her nervous? She had a dry mouth; was it nervousness? She commented on this herself.

I got a little irritable about the hearing aid not working properly, and she may have added that irritation to the semi-formality of the occasion. She remained a little ill-at-ease throughout. The one positive outcome, from Laura’s point of view, was that I stayed longer than usual.’’

Extract (b) (Interview with Charles Deacon, Fiona Appleby, and Roger Boland)

“Dominic (social worker) warned me that Charles had already heard on the grapevine about my impending visit, and was alarmed about the use of a tape recorder. I arrived with a cake, and Dominic in tow. Fiona was unsure how to respond and what to do; she only has the use of one hand, and she found it awkward getting herself, and cake, into the kitchen. She returned and sat on

86 ATKINSON

the settee. Charles remained sitting. The atmosphere was tense. No-one asked us to sit down. The spare bit of the settee was covered in papers and magazines, the foot stool likewise. Dominic sat on the floor. Eventually Charles moved the papers from the footstool and let me sit there.

I asked about using the tape recorder. Roger didn’t mind. Charles said he wasn’t sure, and asked Fiona if she minded. She said ‘no’ but it was not clear whether that meant ‘no, she didn’t mind’ or ‘no she didn’t want it on’. Charles asked her again. She was looking away, half turned, flicking through a magazine saying nothing but making it clear what she really felt. I agreed not to use it.”

Extract (c) (Interview with Edgar Carter, Robert Harper, and Norma Jones) “Everyone seemed composed during the interview. The only time they lost their composure was when the diary was introduced, and they had to admit they couldn’t write.

No-one mentioned ‘handicap’ or knowing ‘handicapped people’. Their Gateway Club was identified by its clientele, and references to ‘groups’. I was expected to read the clues and know what they meant. They asked about Maurice Deacon who had left his group home to live in a caravan: ‘He is still free, isn’t he?’, and commented about Glenda Whiting who had left her group home for a hostel: ‘Oh no! That’s not nice, moving her’. Fiona asked if I knew their hospital, but Edgar interjected: ‘I’m trying to forget that place. She’s bringing the past up. I want to forget that place. We’re free aren’t we? It’s better now’.’’

Descriptive comments about the researcher: Alice Wise (in an aside to her social worker)

“She’s very nice, isn’t she? I thought she’d be strict and horrible”.

Joyce Hardcastle “Are you an important social services person? Are you very high up? Edgar said you were”.

Edward Hayes (in an aside to his social worker)’ “She must be very important, asking us all those questions”.

The interaction between respondents and researcher Extract (a) (Interview with Denise Parker)

“Conversation was difficult, because she is very deaf and not forthcoming; not a great conversationalist. Communication was difficult because I had to shout at her. I found the asking ofquestions very trying as I began to feel more and more like an interrogator.”

Extract (b) (Interview with Philip Grey, Douglas Field, and Melanie Saunders) “We sat around the table. Philip made a pot of tea and poured. My cup and saucer were different from theirs, from their best set. They were being polite;


they didn’t touch their tea and seemed to be waiting until I’d gone to have theirs.

There was a nice atmosphere. They helped one another. Philip had a lot to say, but was unable to make me understand. His best friend, Douglas, translated for him. Everyone seemed to enjoy the conversation and thanked me profusely afterwards.”

The relationship between respondents and researcher Extract (a) (Interview with Joan Woods, Mabel West, and Vera Bainbridge)

“They all hoped I’d call again. It was a very positive visit, ending with pleasantries, smiles and warmth. They have no real confidante and they seemed sorry about this. They get only practical advice from the area office. They have a nice home help, but not someone to sit and talk things over with. My visit actually met a social, and emotional, need; someone just to sit and listen, and take them seriously. I felt sad.”

“Afterwards we sat over tea, looking at photos and talking about families, the past, jobs . . . They were both very friendly, and the conversation ambled along. They asked me if I’d call again. Helen said she’d make a cake for the occasion.”

Extract (b) (Interview with Bruce and Helen Winters)

Roles and relationships within households Extract (a) (Interview with Ralph and Enid Walker)

“Ralph and Enid referred to each other as ‘my wife’ and ‘my husband’. Enid sat on the settee, while Ralph and I sat in armchairs by the open fire. Ralph offered me coffee, and Enid went off to get it. She didn’t sit down immediately, she hovered and began to wander in and out of the kitchen getting lunch ready. They took up their roles in the interview; Ralph in expansive mood sitting by the fire talking to the visitor whilst Enid made coffee and kept an eye on lunch.”

Extract (b) (Interview with Doreen Gilmore, Joyce Hardcastle, Arthur Stott, and Nigel Short)

“I was obviously interrupting their routine. Arthur was told offfor repeatedly looking at his watch; he wanted to get his tea ready and get off to his club. Joyce became anxious about missing Crossroads and Doreen told her off too.

Doreen was obviously in charge. She had an authoritarian manner, told people off, kept order and made sure they answered. There was some overt hostility between Doreen and Arthur, encouraged by Joyce. Nigel didn’t like it and tried to smoothe it over - ‘He’s not that bad’. Poor Arthur just stood there and took it. It’s not a united group. They talked about their separate holidays and activities. As I left, Arthur was already dishing up food for himself to eat alone.”

88 ATKINSON

THE RESEARCH INTERVIEWS: SOME IMPLICATIONS The sequence of interviews confirmed the pertinence of points made in the rehabilitation research literature. It is essential to find ways of including people with mental handicaps in research which focuses on their lives and experiences.

Open-ended questions, a friendly and informal atmosphere, and a conversational format all helped the respondents to talk freely about their lives. Three additional factors were included in this research project, and these also seemed to contribute to the outcome:

social workers, as knowledgeable informants, were interviewed first - the researcher was thus forewarned of important people and events to listen for during respondents’ conversations;

respondents who shared a home were seen together - this meant that roles and relationships and everyday household dynamics were demon- strated in the interview itself;

the interviews began with a gift from the researcher, seen and received as a token of recognition of the respondents as people with valuable time to give and worthwhile experiences to share.

It should be acknowledged that each of these factors could have had a negative outcome. Firstly, the researcher could have been biased in her views through having access to prior information from social workers. It could be argued that the respondents were approached with a mind at least partially made up. Secondly, joint interviewing can actually cause difficulties. People’s anxieties about secrets may be allayed, but others may be evoked: there is no confidentiality in a group interview; there may be few opportunities for some people to maintain a personal, treasured viewpoint in the face of group pressure; and the situation could be used to bring “dissident” group members into line. The group interview is a public forum where people can be ridiculed and humiliated. Thirdly, the researcher’s gifts could be seen as bribes. Could anyone refuse to cooperate after having been seduced by flowers and a smile?

Throughout the course ofthe fieldwork, some trends emerged. These are summarised as follows:

the researcher was seen sometimes as a threat (recreating a “test” situation and causing anxiety); sometimes as a helper (answering


benefit queries and helping write letters); and often as a friend (“DO come again”);

interviews often seemed to leave respondents feeling valued; time was spent with them and they were listened to; the preceding gift, and the later feedback, also helped in this;

respondents saw the interviews as important occasions; they dressed up for them, tidied the house, and offered hospitality.

CONCLUSIONS People with mental handicaps can, and do, contribute to research projects which focus on their lives and life styles. There are challenges in achieving their full and active involvement, and it is up to researchers to find innovative and imaginative ways of meeting these challenges. It is hoped that this paper is a small step in that direction.

The interpersonal dynamics of interviews are important. They are elusive, however, and are felt or experienced, rather than observed. Feelings, expectations, and perceptions of researchers and respondents alike are in operation, and these colour the interactions between them. In joint interviews, feelings between peers add to the complexity of the interpersonal dynamics. The challenge is to understand these processes; a first step towards acquiring such understanding is to describe them. This paper has offered some descriptive passages from fieldnotes in an attempt to highlight the importance of the interpersonal dynamics of research interviews.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are due to the people who took part in this project, who gave their time so generously. This applies especially to those whose homes were visited, but also includes their visiting social workers who talked so long, and with such warmth, about the people they knew. Thanks are due, too, to other colleagues in Somerset, both in the Social Services Department and in the Health Authority, for their interest and active support ofthis project.

REFERENCES ATKINSON, D. (1983). Independent Living. London: CMH. ATKINSON, D. (1984). Steps Towards Integration. M. Phil. thesis. Southampton: Univ.

Southampton. ATKINSON, D. (1985a). The use of participant observation and respondent diaries in a study

of ordinary living. British Journal of Mental Subnormality. XXXI, 33-49. ATKINSON, D. (1985b). With time to spare: the leisure pursuits of people with mental

handicaps. Mental Handicap, 13, 139- 140. ATKINSON, D (1986). Engaging competent others: a study of the support networks of people

with mental handicap. British Journal of Social Work, 16, Supplement, 83- 101.

90 ATKfNSON

BERCOVICI , S. (1 981 1. Qualitative methods and cultural perspectives in the study of deinstutionafization. In BRUININKS, R. H., MEYERS, C. E., SIGFORD, B. B., LAKIN, K. C. (eds).Deinstitutionalization and Community Adjustment of Mentally Retarded People. Monog. 4. Washington DC: AAMD.

BROST, M., JOHNSON, T. (1982). Getting to Know You: One Approach to Service Assessment and Planning for Individuals with Disabilities. Wisconsin: Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy.

EDGERTON, R. B. (1967). The Cloak of Competence: Stigma in the Lives of the Mentally Retarded. Berkeley: Univ. California Press.

EDGERTON, R. B., BERCOVICI, S. M. (1976). The cloak of competence: years later. American Journalof Mental Deficiency, 89,485-497.

EDGERTON, R. B., BOLLINGER, M., HERR, B. (1984). The cloak of competence: after two decades. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88,345-35 1.

EDGERTON, R. B. (ed). (1984). Lives in Process: mildly retarded adults in a large city. Monog. 6. Washington DC: AAMD.

FAIRE, C. (1985). It’s Never Too Late. A n Evaluation of Bath District Health Authority’s ‘An Ordinary Life Project for Elderly People with a Mental handicap. Bath: Bath DHA.

FLYNN, M. C. (1986). Adults who are mentally handicapped as consumers: issues and guidelines for interviewing. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 30, 369-377.

MALIN, N. (1983). Group Homes for the Mentally Handicapped. London: HMSO. OAKLEY, A. (1981). Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms. In: Roberts, H. (ed).

Doing Reminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. SIGELMAN, C., SCHOENROCK, C., SPANHEL, C., HROMAS, S., WINER, J., BUDD, E., MARTIN, P.

(1 980). Surveying mentally retarded persons: responsiveness and response validity in three samples. American Journal ofMental Deficiency, 84,479-484.

S IGELMAN,~ . K., BUDD, E. C., SPANHEL,~ . L., SCHOENROCK, C. J. (1981a). Asking questions of retarded persons: a comparison of yes-no and either-or formats. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2, 347-357.

SIGELMAN, C. E., BUDD, E. C., SPANHEL, C. L., SCHOENROCK, C. J. (1981b). When in doubt, say yes: acquiescence in interviews with mentally retarded persons. Mental Retardation, 19, 53-58.

SIGELMAN, C. K., SCHOENROCK, C. J., WINER, J. L., SPANHEL, C. L., HROMAS, S. G., MARTIN, R. W., BUDD, E. C., BENSBERG, G . J. (1981~). Issues in interviewing mentally retarded persons: an empirical study. In BRUININKS, R. H., MEYERS, C. E., SIGFORD, B. B., LAKIN, K. C. (eds). Deinstitutionalization and Community Adjustment of Mentally Retarded People. Monog. 4. Washington DC: AAMD.

SIGELMAN, C. K., BUDD, E. C., WINER, J. L., SCHOENROCK, C. J., MARTIN, R. W. (1982). Evaluating alternative techniques of questioning mentally retarded persons. American JournalofMental Deficiency, 86, 51 1-518.

SIGELMAN, C. K., BUDD, E. C. (1986). Pictures as an aid in questioning mentally retarded persons. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 29, 173- 181.

TAYLOR, S. J., BOGDAN, R. (1981). A qualitative approach to the study of community adjustment. In BRUININKS, R. H., MEYERS, C. E., SIGFORD, B. B., LAKIN, K. C. (eds). Deinstitutionalization and Community Adjustment of Mentally Retarded People. Monog. 4. Washington DC: AAMD.

WYNGAARDEN, M. (1 981). Interviewing mentally retarded persons: issues and strategies. In BRUININKS, R. H., MEYERS, C. E., SIGFORD, E. B., LAKIN, K. C. (eds). Deinstitutionalization and Community Adjustment of Mentally Retarded People. Monog. 4. Washington DC: AAMD.

Research interviews with people with mental handicaps

Documents

Transcript of Research interviews with people with mental handicaps