Article

Characteristic interviews, different strategies: Methodological challenges in qualitative interviewing among respondents with mild intellectual disabilities

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 2014, Vol. 18(2) 188–202 ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1744629514523159 jid.sagepub.com

Hanne Marie Høybra˚ ten Sigstad University of Oslo, Norway Date accepted: 15 January 2014

Abstract Conducting qualitative research interviews among individuals with intellectual disabilities, including cognitive limitations and difficulties in communication, presents particular research challenges. One question is whether the difficulties that informants encounter affect interviews to such an extent that the validity of the results is weakened. This article focuses on voluntary informed consent and the specific challenges with the greatest effects on such interviews. The discussion shows that complementary and meaningful descriptions from informants imply the need to employ alternative strategies and methods that may, in other contexts, challenge the traditional understanding of what is acceptable in research. Keywords Alternative strategies, methodological challenges, mild intellectual disabilities, qualitative interviews

Introduction Traditionally, a large amount of research has been conducted on intellectual disabilities, although few studies have employed the perspective of individuals with such disabilities. An increased focus on user perspectives and empowerment in the field implies the need to obtain data from users

Corresponding author: Hanne Marie Høybr˚aten Sigstad, Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1140 Blindern 0318 Oslo, Norway. Email: [email protected]

Sigstad

189

themselves (Cleaver et al., 2010), who can best express their experience of what it is like to live with a disability. Self-reporting also appears to be crucial for choice and self-determination (Wehmeyer, 2005). Thus, individuals with intellectual disabilities are increasingly included in such studies (Bogdan and Taylor, 1982; Edgerton, 1967; Folkestad, 2004; Gustavsson, 2001; Kittelsaa, 2008; Olsen, 2009; Sagen, 2011). In recent times, there also has been a growing focus on actively involving people with intellectual disabilities in the research process (e.g. Bigby and Frawley, 2010; Bigby et al., 2013; Flood et al., 2012; Johnson, 2009; Koenig, 2011; Nierse and Abma, 2011; Nind and Vinha, 2012). Inclusive research is a new approach where people with intellectual disabilities are supported by researchers to conduct their own research project. In this context, those with intellectual disabilities participate fully in the entire research process, data collection, and analysis, which provide the opportunity to gain increased control over the research process. Methodological challenges in such form for participatory research are not the topic of this article. The article discusses methodical dilemmas in qualitative interviewing among respondents with mild intellectual disabilities and verbal language. The individuals with intellectual disabilities are respondents, and they are not responsible for the research process. The purpose is to determine how we can facilitate qualitative research interviews to include individuals with mild intellectual disabilities. Mild intellectual disabilities are defined according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10, 2011). We know that individuals with intellectual disabilities have cognitive limitations and often experience difficulties with communication, which presents particular challenges to research (Dockrell, 2004). Such difficulties may include a lack of understanding of complex grammatical structures and concepts in addition to difficulties in formulating appropriate responses within a specific context (Finlay and Lyons, 2001). The asymmetrical relationship that exists between researchers and informants is challenging as well (Meyer, 2008). One essential question is whether the difficulties of informants affect interviews to such an extent that the reliability and validity of the results are weakened (Hartley and MacLean, 2006; Heal and Sigelman, 1995; Finlay and Lyons, 2001; Sigelman et al., 1981a). This article is based on the author’s own interview study (Sigstad, 2013a, 2013b), in which the purpose was to investigate the teacher–student relationship and student participation among students with mild intellectual disabilities in lower secondary school. Two themes were crucial in this study: (1) safeguarding the voluntary informed consent of informants and (2) addressing the challenges that are associated with communication between the researcher and informants in the interview situation. Based on these two key issues from the mentioned study, this article will discuss the current challenges (1 and 2) related to experiences gained from this study and other research studies. Furthermore, various options are discussed to examine a third theme: (3) how to achieve good qualitative interviews in which informants with intellectual disabilities can be heard on their own terms.

Research methodological challenges Voluntary informed consent Safeguarding the voluntary informed consent of informants is often cited as a methodological challenge in the use of people with intellectual disabilities as informants. Norwegian research studies in social science comply with guidelines given by The National Committee for Research

190

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 18(2)

Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities in Norway (NESH, 2013). Voluntary informed consent includes three elements, all of which must be met to allow participation in a research study (Ellingsen, 2009). Voluntary participation also includes the right to withdraw at any time, without stating a reason. Consent depends on voluntariness and capacity to make decision based on the information provided. Therefore, participants must be given genuine opportunities to reserve themselves without encountering inappropriate pressure. In some countries, a valid consent is defined as a voluntary decision, which is given only in the absence of undue influence by a third party (Dennehy and White, 2012; Veenstra et al., 2010). Individuals, who do not have authority to consent to participate in research, must still provide their assent. Assent is an active affirmation of a desire to participate but differs from consent that is provided from an individual with legal authority to do so. NESH (2013) doesn’t differ between the concepts consent and assent. Nevertheless, the guidelines from NESH show specific directions if individuals are unable to grant informed consent: Individuals unable to grant informed consent shall generally only be included in research that cannot perform on individuals who are able to grant consent, and can show it to be probable that the research in question is of direct substantial benefit to the individual or group being studied. (NESH, 2013: 16)

In Norway, parental consent is required when the studies including children under the age of 15. Otherwise, children’s own consent is necessary from the time they are old enough to express their own opinion. However, voluntary consent can be a particular challenge because people with intellectual disabilities often have a strong respect for authority and thus find it difficult to set their own limits. Consent depends on information. In this context, a participant should be able to understand information about the research project, the potential influence of the project, and his or her role in the project. Consent is also related to a participant’s competence to give consent as well as an assessment of the participant’s capabilities, which is linked to an evaluation of the areas to which this consent applies. Several studies show that in situations in which it is difficult to obtain satisfactory consent, this problem can be solved by other persons representing and providing consent on behalf of individuals with intellectual disabilities (Dusseljee et al., 2011; Veenstra et al., 2010). In the author’s interview study, informed consent was obtained by students and parents together (Sigstad, 2013a, 2013b). The students were from 13 to 16 years old, thus a parental consent was required. Moreover, to ensure that the information was understood, the parents were involved. The children hopefully would find it easier to argue their views to the parents, if they did not wish to participate. In this way, their contribution could potentially reduce any imbalance of power. The teachers forwarded an informational letter to the students and parents involved in the project. The parents were asked to communicate simple information about the project to their children and to describe what their participation would entail. The parents and students provided permission for the interview by giving a response form to the teachers and by giving a response form directly to the research manager, including signatures by both students and parents. This means that both gave their consent. Where there was a need for further information and clarification, the parents made direct contact with the research manager. Some parents availed themselves of this opportunity. More comprehensive information provided on the phone appeared to increase the decision to join the study. Difficult words in the information letter could be clarified, thus the parents were better able to explain to their children what it was about. Information about the project and questions

Sigstad

191

concerning participation were repeated before the actual interview. The informants then had the opportunity to give their consent again verbally or, alternatively, to withdraw their consent. All of the informants consented to attend when they met for an interview. The extent to which interviewees understand what the research process actually entails or the implications of their involvement appears to be particularly challenging in the process of obtaining voluntary informed consent. Previous studies have shown that people with intellectual disabilities may have difficulty fully understanding the main aims of the research, and some parts of the research process appear to be more problematic than others (Arscott et al., 1998; McCarthy, 1998). It appears to be relatively easier to understand the information that is needed to agree to meet for an interview. However, it may be more difficult for informants to give consent for the follow-up after the research interview is completed, perhaps because of a limited understanding of the risks and benefits associated with such a research project or because of the rights of informants to refuse to participate or to withdraw from the study (Arscott et al., 1998). For example, it may be difficult to understand that communication in an interview will be analyzed, categorized, quoted, and published. In the author’s study (Sigstad, 2013a, 2013b), the information was not formulated in this way to the informants. Instead, the research manager chose to rely on consent given by the students and parents together based on their communication at home, so that together they could understand the consequences of attending and feel free to withdraw at a later stage, if necessary. We saw that parents were more capable of conveying information about the research project. They could explain, clarify misunderstandings, and thus provide the child the opportunity to refuse. One can never be quite sure if the parents actually have persuaded the children to participate or not. Therefore, in this study we emphasized the importance of repeating the information to the informants when they met for an interview. Then they got a new opportunity to withdraw. A review of 20 research studies over a period of 20 years (1986–2006) showed that the focus was directed toward people with intellectual disabilities and their participation in research (Cleaver et al., 2010). With the exception of three studies that excluded the consent of people with intellectual disabilities, these studies showed that alternative strategies could be useful in obtaining satisfactory consent. The strategies involved obtaining consent only from the person with intellectual disabilities or, if he or she was not competent to give consent, contacting a support person who could provide consent on behalf of the informant. In all cases, this approach involved contacting both the person with intellectual disabilities and a support person to request that they provide consent together. A study by Boxall and Ralph (2009) supported these findings and indicated that service providers or other individuals with whom people with intellectual disabilities may be more familiar may be the most suitable people from whom to acquire satisfactory agreement. To ensure that the content of the research information is understood, it may also be beneficial to repeat the information several times and in different ways (Kittelsaa, 2010; Wennberg and Kjellberg, 2010), as in the author’s study. The most serious consequences associated with the challenges of obtaining consent from informants with intellectual disabilities primarily pertain to the risk that potential informants will cease participation in studies in which these individuals could likely have contributed a great deal (Ellingsen, 2009). Nevertheless, voluntary informed consent requires that informants understand that participation is voluntary, which requires that information to be understood (Kittelsaa, 2010). In the author’s study (Sigstad, 2013a, 2013b), possibly it had been better if the informants had received an easy-read information sheet by themselves. In that case, we could be less dependent on relying on parents’ ability to explain. Whatever, it is important to ensure that participants have the competence needed to provide consent or to obtain the support that they need from a significant

192

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 18(2)

other. Hence, the goal of including as many people with intellectual disabilities as possible in research requires strong planning and arrangement of the consent process. Planning will involve collaboration with possible service providers or with someone close to the informants, the preparation of those who will be participating, facilitation with regard to available information about the research project, expertise on intellectual disabilities, and knowledge of the relevant informants who want to participate. Another way of obtaining consent from informants with intellectual disabilities can be done as a process rather than as an event or two, as was the case in this study. In a process, it is possible that a rather regularly negotiating consent with the participants as the study progresses and the participants see what will happen with their data. In this way, participants can hopefully achieve greater self-determination and control in the research process, and a voluntary informed consent is thus better addressed.

Challenges associated with communication in the interview situation Previous studies refer to the aspects of research interviews that appear to be particularly influenced by the cognitive and linguistic limitations of informants. These studies appear to show contradictory results. The mentioned challenges may be assessed as sources of error with respect to the quality of the results (Hartley and MacLean, 2006; Heal and Sigelman, 1995; Finlay and Lyons, 2001; Sigelman et al., 1981a), or they may be understood merely as characteristic features that one must consider when conducting research among informants with intellectual disabilities (Finlay and Lyons, 2002; Fujiura and RRTC, 2012; Rapley and Antaki, 1996). The tendency of informants to acquiesce is one of the challenges that is most frequently reported in this context (Heal and Sigelman, 1995; Finlay and Lyons, 2002; Sigelman et al., 1981a, 1981b). Acquiescence is defined as a disposition to respond ‘‘yes’’ regardless of the question that is asked. Such a response can also be interpreted as a form of compliance in which the informants respond according to what they believe is expected. In the author’s project, the researcher was prepared for the informants’ tendency to acquiesce (Sigstad, 2013a, 2013b). Therefore, during the interviews, a large amount of time was allotted to ensure that the questions were understood. Nevertheless, in this project, short ‘‘yes’’ answers were more common than detailed provisions and rich responses. The example below (Sigstad, 2013a) shows a slightly demanding conversation between the interviewer (I) and a participant (student, S), in which the interviewer primarily receives confirmations of questions without answers that provide detailed information: I: S: I: S: I: S: I: S: I: S: I: S:

What are you allowed to decide at school? I don’t know. Here at school, when you are in class, is there anything that you are allowed to decide? Yes. If we have time, so it happens that we are playing something. So that you can choose it? Yes. When you have spare time? Um. How do you like making decisions about what to do at school? Yes. Is it okay to decide on something? Um.

Sigstad

193

However, the question is whether the informant’s inadequate responses are related to the interviewer’s difficulties in asking good questions. This call may be an example of questions that were too long and possibly linguistically advanced or questions that were too abstract or executive, so the only answers may be affirmative. As in this case, it is possible that interviewees do not always understand the question or that they lack the skills to respond. They may not remember or may have difficulties finding words. Thus, consent may appear to be the easiest solution. Finlay and Lyons (2002) reported that yes responses appear to occur more frequently when the answer is unknown, when questions are too long, or when the sentence structure is overly complex. Informants thus risk focusing on only a limited part of the question and losing focus on other significant parts of the question. The following example taken from the same study (Sigstad, 2013a) shows how a participant perceives only part of what is said. The interviewer repeats the informant’s answers and reframes the question to enable the student to understand: I: S: I: S: I: S:

What is the best thing about being Oliver? Because it is the best name. It is the best name? Yes. But what do you think is good about being you? I like myself.

Here, repetition and reformulation seems to be helpful. Otherwise, both abstract and open-ended questions without answers may be difficult to employ (Tøssebro, 1992). Informants may believe that concrete answers are expected, and they may worry about responding incorrectly. In the example below (Sigstad, 2013b), it appears that the informant initially attempts to provide the answer that he thinks is expected. It appears to be easier when the interviewer is more specific and asks the informant to describe an activity: I: S: I: S: I: I: S: I: S:

Do you like having break time? Yes. Why is it good to have break time then? Fresh air. Yes, fresh air. What do you usually do during break time? I don’t know, playing with friends? Playing with friends? Yes.

Heal and Sigelman (1995) argued that the tendency to acquiesce is significantly more pronounced when people with low status are asked questions by interviewers with high status. In other words, an uneven balance of power exists in the relationship between researcher and informant. The example below shows an informant who appears to find it difficult to be critical in front of the interviewer (Sigstad, 2013a). It is difficult for the informant to admit that he does not enjoy school. The interviewer then attempts to provide support by reformulating the informant’s response. The informant again provides a doubtful response, followed by an acknowledgment that he does not enjoy school when the interviewer repeats the same question: I:

How do you like school?

194

S: I: S: I: S:

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 18(2)

Um, not good. You do not enjoy school? Yes, no. You do not enjoy school? Yes.

Inconsistency in informants’ statements can pose a challenge (Finlay and Lyons, 2001; Rapley, 1995; Rapley and Antaki, 1996), and the informants may give contradictory answers. The conversation above displays such an example and shows a call that indicates that interviewer should be particularly careful to understand what is meant by the informant’s responses and whether any uncertainty or misunderstanding caused some type of compliance. However, Finlay and Lyons (2002) argued that the tendency to provide yes responses is not necessarily related to submissiveness and the tendency to ‘‘please.’’ The grammar and complexity of the questions and the difficulties associated with being evaluated by others also appear to be important. Questions that are formulated to be speculative, hypothetical, future-oriented, or retrospective can be especially difficult. In the author’s study (Sigstad, 2013a), the interviewer attempted to link questions to the present day and specific tasks that concerned the students: S: I: S: I: S: I: S:

And next year, you know when I start in the ninth. Then, I have canteen. Oh, so much fun. Are you looking forward to it? Um. So there is ninth, which is responsible for the canteen? Yes. In eighth, are you not allowed to work there yet? Yes, sometimes. Occasionally, I may be there. Kinley’s there (teacher). And today I’m going there to buy something. I: You should be. So you bring your money? S: Forty or something, forty-five and. I: What do you intend to buy? S: Maybe yoghurt or drink.

In this study, it was much easier for the student to talk when the conversation revolved around specific themes. The student showed interest in talking and provided more information. Another challenge in such interviews is that informants with disabilities may choose to exaggerate reality. Hence, interviewees present a picture of the reality that they prefer (Tøssebro and Lundeby, 2002). In the author’s project, it appears that one of the informants attempts this approach: I: S: I: S:

Who is it that deciding at school? It’s Edward (teacher). What do you think about Edward deciding? I think that’s pretty good because we don’t do anything wrong then. So I think that’s very good.

In the example above, it may be that the student attempted to introduce a picture of reality that he thought the interviewer would want to hear. It may also be that the student actually did not mind that the teacher decided; this is what he was used to and when he felt safe.

Sigstad

195

Interviewing adolescents often differs from interviewing adults. When children and adolescents are asked if they can remember any specific information, they can be as accurate in their responses as adults, although they cannot remember as much as adults do (Dockrell, 2004). Specific questions increase the amount of information but the answers are nevertheless less precise. The example below is taken from a study of student participation among students with disabilities (Sigstad, 2013a). This excerpt shows how an informant’s response is extended when the interviewer changes the formulation of the question. By changing the question from a fairly open question to a more hypothetical question, the interviewer gives the participant the ability to be more specific: I: S: I: I:

What if you were allowed to make decisions at school? I do not know. I do not decide. You do not decide? But what if you were to be allowed? For example, if I said that now were you Tim (the teacher)? If you were Tim, what would you decide in your class then? S: I would have decided that everyone should be kind to each other and that no one can fool around. I would have been very hard on those who would not do things.

As previously mentioned, it appears that there are different ways of understanding related to the inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities in research interviews. Among various methodological challenges, acquiescence has been a particularly important research topic in methodological research on persons with intellectual disabilities. Sigelman et al. (1981b) showed in their studies that informants with intellectual disabilities demonstrated an increased tendency to provide yes responses and that this tendency to acquiesce was negatively correlated with intelligence quotient (IQ). In this respect, Ramirez (2005) conducted an evaluation study assessing the tendency to provide yes responses related to yes–no questions among children with and without disabilities. In contrast to the findings reported by Sigelman et al. (1981a, 1981b), this study did not find significant cognitive group differences with regard to this phenomenon. In addition, there was no significant correlation between IQ scores as a measured tendency toward yes responses. However, these results support the finding that children with intellectual disabilities do not differ from younger children and other peers without intellectual disabilities in terms of yes responses in relation to yes–no questions. These findings are also consistent with the work of Finlay and Lyons (2002). Rapley and Atanki (1996) noted that the traditional understanding of informants’ submissiveness and willingness to ‘‘please’’ the interviewer is not necessarily an appropriate explanation for this phenomenon. Rather, the authors explain that informants tend to agree because they perceive the research interview as a test situation in which the fear of failure to reply affects the choice to consent. It may be the interview logic that provides such ‘‘pseudo-yes-answers’’ in the face of interviewer reformulations and that leads to informants’ follow-up with several acceptable answers. Dockrell (2004) supported this criticism and showed how an interviewer’s questioning can affect a participant’s ability to admit that he or she does not know the answer to a question. This situation can easily result in the informant attempting to answer yes–no questions even if he or she is unable to answer them. This situation occurs because the interview does not sufficiently account for the social context of the informant. Moreover, according to Rapley and Atanki (1996), the researcher’s interest should be replaced with a more respectful understanding of informants’ interaction skills and cognitive competence that are representative of people with learning disabilities.

196

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 18(2)

My own experience has shown that qualitative interviews among individuals with intellectual disabilities require the researcher to allocate sufficient time, with regard to both informants’ need for processing and any incidental contributions that arise during such interviews (Sigstad, 2013a, 2013b). For example, both incoherent and irrelevant responses are relatively common in such interviews (Finlay and Lyons, 2001). Informants who are concerned about providing a concrete answer in advance appear to have an ongoing need to return to these questions during the interview, possibly because of a lack of control over the ability to disengage from previous themes or because the interviewer moved too rapidly through the interview. In this respect, Fujiura and RRTC (2012) argued that rather than searching for ‘‘mistakes,’’ interviewers could adopt an inclusive attitude toward informants and seek to understand how things are perceived, processed, and answered. Information should not be passively recalled and directly given to the interviewers; informants should be active participants in the process in which they are supposed to recognize, remember, interpret, and formulate responses. A good qualitative interview presupposes that the interview is adapted to suit the abilities and capacity of the informants rather than the reverse. By improving understanding of how responses are formulated, researchers can strengthen the accuracy of such forms of communication.

Planning and adaptation of the research interview in accordance with informants’ own terms Establishment of confidence If a research interview is to be conducted on the informant’s terms, the interview depends on an understanding of the informant’s social context (Rapley and Antaki, 1996). This understanding requires a good knowledge of the environment of the informants, including home, school, work, or leisure arenas. The research theme forms the basis for the greatest research interest. It is also necessary to have sufficient knowledge of the daily activities of the informants. The aim is to achieve the broadest possible knowledge of the existing arenas of the informants’ lives and to attempt to build the informants’ confidence and knowledge. Participant observation is often recommended as a replacement or as complementary method to the interview (Sundet, 2010). The purpose of such observation is initially to create trust and communication. It can be difficult to determine the extent to which an interviewer has obtained a common understanding and succeeded in gaining the confidence of the informant. This method can also be challenging because researchers must attempt to maintain distance from their own prejudices, which are often closely related to their own understanding of intellectual disabilities. In the interview study among secondary school students with a mild degree of intellectual disabilities, the method was restricted to interviews (Sigstad, 2013a, 2013b). For this reason, it was especially important to ensure adequate preparation for the interview situation by obtaining the necessary information from teachers, who knew the students, and the support of the students’ parents. One of the students did not want to participate because he perceived the interview as a type of test, which is something that he had previously experienced in a negative way. In a conversation with the parents, the student acquired a new understanding and chose to participate.

Development of the interview guide An important question in the context of a research interview is related to the extent to which we can assume that the informants’ responses are influenced by the interview situation. Good qualitative

Sigstad

197

answers are provided primarily as a result of thorough preparation of the interview guide. In the planning phase of the study on the teacher–student relationship and student participation (Sigstad, 2013a, 2013b), it was essential to use both simple and concrete questions and to allow both parties room for improvisation (Kittelsaa, 2010). The selection of questions can be important with respect to the ability of informants to provide adequate responses. The interview structure is relevant in this context. Semi-structured interviews provide an opportunity to focus on predetermined topics and key issues that the researcher wishes to address during the interviews (Dalen, 2011; Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). At the same time, this approach provides a good opportunity for informants to deepen the discussion or to focus on other themes that they perceive to be significant. The criteria for a good qualitative interview are related to issues that are formulated to promote comprehensive and specific responses from the informants. However, it is not always possible to achieve this scenario when one is interviewing people with intellectual disabilities. In the interview study pertaining to the teacher–student relationship and student participation, this challenge was also an issue (Sigstad, 2013a, 2013b). Compared with ordinary interviews, the interviews in this study had the following characteristics: the students were taciturn; they provided many ‘‘I don’t know’’ responses; responses from the same informant were sometimes inconsistent; and they often chose to eagerly repeat the interview question. The different examples above show how the interviewer reformulates questions and repeats the interviewee’s responses to help the interviewee understand, providing an opportunity for the interviewee to present his or her understanding of the topic area. Finlay and Lyons (2002) emphasized the need for simple questions worded in short sentences, often associated with specific situations that are familiar to informants. Abstract questions may seem incomprehensible. In a student project in which adults with intellectual disabilities were interviewed about their hopes for the future, the choice of appropriate questions represented a particular challenge (Skipnes and Kambo, 2013). To encourage informants to describe their own dreams, questions were closely related to current topics. All forward-looking questions were related to specific, known venues with important, relevant issues that the informants had previously addressed. The focus on specific subjects appeared to help the informants to more easily describe their desires for the future. As we have shown, previous methodological research has focused heavily on informants’ yes responses or ‘‘acquiescence,’’ with various explanations of this phenomenon (Finlay and Lyons, 2002; Fujiura and RRTC, 2012; Heal and Sigelman, 1995; Ramirez, 2005; Rapley and Antaki, 1996; Sigelman et al., 1981a). Subsequent studies have indicated that there is not necessarily one simple solution to this phenomenon (Finlay and Lyons, 2002). The tendency toward acquiescence can be reduced by changing the questioning to short questions and simple sentence structure.

Conducting the interview Thorough preparation with an interview guide is a good starting point and may be an important tool for achieving a successful qualitative interview. However, a prerequisite for achieving satisfactory interaction between the researcher and informant is the participants’ confidence in the interview situation. The selection of an appropriate location for an interview can be important (Kittelsaa, 2010). For some informants, the home will be the place that seems safest, whereas for others, school or the workplace may be perceived as a natural setting for an interview. In the author’s study (Sigstad, 2013a, 2013b), all interviews were conducted at the students’ schools. Because observation was not utilized in this interview study, a significant amount of time

198

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 18(2)

was needed to become acquainted in advance of the actual interview. This time provided an opportunity for conversations with the students, in which they were able to discuss their daily lives both within and outside of school. Thus, they were encouraged to experience more confidence in the actual interview situation. Despite careful preparation, it is possible that the informants may not understand the questions. They may find it difficult to answer and may resort to simple answers to escape the situation. For a researcher, this situation requires an open and flexible attitude as well as the ability to identify the informant’s challenges, whether they are linguistic or cognitive challenges or are caused by the asymmetry that exists in the power relationship between the individuals. During the implementation of the author’s interview study, a substantial amount of time was allotted to ensure that the questions were understood (Sigstad, 2013a, 2013b). The interviewer attempted to show interest and curiosity toward the informants by asking alternative questions and sometimes repeating the informants’ answers, thus ensuring that the informants could expand the conversation by discussing their answers further and providing more details (Thorsen and Myrvang, 2008). Although an interview study is carefully planned, questions may remain regarding the extent to which it is possible to ensure that informants understand the questions and have sufficient time for processing. Because of cognitive and linguistic limitations, it is not always obvious whether the interviewer has grasped the original meaning of the situations that the informants attempt to describe (Guneriussen, 2010). It may be easier for informants to respond to questions that are linked to specific practical tasks. It is possible that the students in this interview study felt unsafe, that they were afraid to give a ‘‘wrong’’ answer, or that they wanted to please the interviewer. For the interviewer, these challenges could be addressed in the following ways: Sufficient time should be allotted to verify whether the students actually understand the questions; the responses of the informants could be repeated; or the interviewer could choose to ask the questions in a slightly different manner. The interviewer must be prepared for the possibility that open questions may require specific follow-up questions or suggestions that are directly conducive to follow-up discussion. When informants have difficulties expressing themselves, it may be necessary to assist them with suggestions for alternatives or to provide help with completing sentences. Thorsen (2005) emphasized the need to ask leading questions and guide the conversation in such types of interviews, employing types of questions that are not usually used in research. Conducive questions are also employed to verify or disprove an interpretation or to enable the interviewer to obtain more accurate answers. The use of repetition can be effective as both a question and confirmation of what has been said and can assist in furthering the conversation. The following example is taken from the mentioned interview study (Sigstad, 2013b) and shows a conversation that begins with a yes–no question related to well-being during break time. The interviewer then asks an open question and subsequently follows with questions related to specific activities during recess. By repeating the informant’s response at the end, the interviewer verifies the importance of what the participant wants to communicate: I: P: I: P: I:

Do you like having break time? Yes. What is good about having break time? The best thing is to be out. What do you usually do?

Sigstad

P: I: P: I: P: I: P:

199

Playing ping-pong, football and stuff like that. Yes. What did you do during your lunch break today then? Played ping-pong. Did you play ping-pong today as well? I do it almost all the time. You do it almost all the time? Yes, I enjoy playing ping-pong.

The affirmative question works here as both a question and a verification. Through the use of repetition, it becomes possible to prompt additional information from the informant while allowing the interviewer to confirm the importance of what has already been said. Thorsen (2005) explained that repetition also helps to create tranquillity in a conversation, which is necessary for participants to have sufficient time for linguistic processing, acquiring new ideas, and finding the appropriate words. In the study by Thorsen and Myrvang (2008), 20 parents were interviewed together with 5 of their adult children with intellectual disabilities. The study focused on life stories and showed obvious contrasts between the parents’ and the children’s narratives. The parents were able to provide rich descriptions of their children’s life stories, whereas the narratives of the developmentally challenged children were more present oriented. With help from the interviewers, the children provided short answers, and, in only a few words, they gave a much more condensed picture of the same stories. Their life narratives were presented either in chronological order or in the context of the life course that they were attempting to describe. This example illustrates the need in qualitative interviews to facilitate understanding of the informants’ context or to employ the assistance of someone close or service providers in the preparation and the implementation of the actual interview. Rather than seeking potential sources of failure that would otherwise be interpreted as threats to the validity of the findings, the interviewer should approach the informants with an inclusive attitude. Such an attitude involves attempting to understand what the informants are attempting to express, observing the ways in which questions are understood and answered, and providing support and good follow-up questions to enable the informants to provide additional information.

Conclusion This article focused on the methodological challenges of qualitative interviews with informants who have mild intellectual disabilities. Specific challenges were discussed in relation to the safeguarding of informants’ voluntary informed consent and the implementation of the research interview. The purpose of this study was to elucidate how researchers can best achieve good qualitative interviews in which interviewees with intellectual disabilities can be heard on their own terms. In previous studies, methodological challenges related to such qualitative interviews have been assessed as sources of error with respect to the quality of the results. Another understanding implies that this tendency is considered an example of limiting quantitative reasoning. The discussion in this article has shown that qualitative interviews with people with intellectual disabilities differ from ordinary interviews in that interviews with such individuals are characteristic of their nature as individuals. When people with disabilities are informants, it may be necessary to find other ways to address the interview situation.

200

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 18(2)

Obtaining satisfactory voluntary informed consent can be resolved by the interviewees and other familiar support persons together. Furthermore, the establishment of confidence is essential to create trust and communication in the interview situation. It may be necessary to assist the informants with suggestions for alternatives or to provide help with completing sentences using conducive questions or repetition. In this way, one can attain a higher degree of complementary and meaningful descriptions from informants, although this may require the use of alternative strategies and methods that may, in other contexts, challenge the traditional understanding of what is acceptable in research. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References Arscott K, Dagnan D, and Kroese BS (1998) Consent to psychological research by people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. 11(1): 77–83. Bigby C and Frawley P (2010) Reflections on doing inclusive research in the ‘‘Making Life Good in the Community’’ study. Journal of Intellectual and Developmenatl Disability 35(2): 53–61. Bigby C, Frawley P, and Ramcharan P (2013) A collaborative group method of inclusive research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 27: 54–64. Bogdan R and Taylor SJ (1982) The Social Meaning of Mental Retardation. Toronto, Canada: The University of Toronto Press. Boxall KK and Ralph S (2009) Research ethics and the use of visual images in research with people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 39(1): 45–54. Cleaver S, Ouellette-Kuntz H, and Sakar A (2010) Participation in intellectual disability research: a review of 20 years of studies. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 54(3): 187–193. Dalen M (2011) Intervju som forskningsmetode. [Interview as a research method]. In Norwegian. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Dennehy L and White S (2012) Consent, assent, and the importance of risk stratification. British Journal of Anaesthesia.109(1): 40–46. Dockrell JE (2004) How can studies of memory and language enhance the authenticity, validity and reliability of interviews? British Journal of Learning Disabilities 32: 161–165. Dusseljee JCE, Rijken PM, Cardol M, et al. (2011) Participation in daytime activities among people with mild or moderate intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 55(1): 4–18. Edgerton RB (1967) The Cloak of Competence: Stigma in the Lives of the Mental Retarded. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ellingsen KE (2009) Forskning pa˚ bestemte grupper, utviklingshemmede. [Research on specific groups, individuals with intellectual disabilities]. In Norwegian. Available at: http://www.etikkom.no/FBIB/ Temaer/Forskning-pa-bestemte-grupper/utviklingshemmede/Forskningsetiskekomiteer (accessed date 29 May 2013) Finlay WML and Lyons E (2001) Methodological issues in interviewing and using self- report questionnaires with people with mental retardation. Psychological Assessment 13(3): 319–335. Finlay WML and Lyons E (2002) Acquiescence in interviews with people who have mental retardation. Mental Retardation 40(1): 14–29. Flood S, Bennett D, Melsome M, et al. (2012) Becoming a researcher. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 41: 288–295. Folkestad H (2004) Institusjonalisert hverdagsliv: en studie av samhandling mellom personale og beboere i bofellesskap for personer med utviklingshemning. [Institutionalized everyday life: a study of interaction

Sigstad

201

between staff and residents of communities for people with disabilities]. In Norwegian. Rapport nr. 1/ 2004. Bergen, Norway: Avdeling for helse-og sosialfag, Høgskolen i Bergen. Fujiura GT and RRTC Expert Panel on Health Measurement (2012) Self-reported health of people with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 50(4): 352–369. Guneriussen W (2010) Samtale, spr˚akhandling og sosialt liv. Intervjuer en (begrenset) kilde til kunnskap. In: ˚ informanter har Gjærum RG (red) Usedvanlig kvalitativ forskning: metodologiske utfordringer nar utviklingshemning. [Conversation, language, action and social life. Interviewer: A (limited) source of knowledge]. In Norwegian. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 34–54. ˚ utanfo¨rskapet: om att vara annorlunda och delaktig. [From inside the exclusion – Gustavsson A (2001) Inifran where being different and involved]. In Swedish. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. Hartley SL and MacLean WE Jr (2006) A review of the reliability and validity of Likert type scales for people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 50(11): 813–827. Heal LW and Sigelman CK (1995) Response biases in interviews of individuals with limited mental ability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 39(4): 331–340. ICD-10: Den internasjonale statistiske klassifikasjon av sykdommer og beslektede helseproblemer: systematisk del, alfabetisk indeks (forenklet). 10. revisjon, norsk utg. (2011). [The international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems: systematic part, alphabetical index (simplified). 10th revision Norwegian ed.] In Norwegian. Oslo, Norway: Helsedirektoratet. Johnson K (2009) No longer researching about us without us: a researcher’s reflection on rights and inclusive research in Ireland. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 37: 250–256. ˚ Kittelsaa AM (2008) Et ganske normalt liv. Utviklingshemning, dagligliv og selvforstaelse. [A fairly normal life. Intellectual disabilities, daily living and self-understanding]. In Norwegian. Avhandling for graden philosphiae doctor, Institutt for sosialt arbeid og helsevitenskap, Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet. Kittelsaa A (2010) En dobbel utfordring a˚ intervjue unge med en utviklingshemning. [A double challenge to interview young people with intellectual disabilities.] In Norwegian. I: Gjærum RG (red) Usedvanlig ˚ informanter har utviklingshemning. In Norwegian. kvalitativ forskning: metodologiske utfordringer nar Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 162–189. Koenig O (2011) Any added value? Co-constructing life stories of and with people with intellectual disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 40: 213–221. Kvale S and Brinkmann S (2009) Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. [The qualitative research interview.] In Norwegian. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk. McCarthy M (1998) Interviewing people with learning disabilities about sensitive topics: a discussion of ethical issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 26: 140–145. Meyer J (2008) Sosial kapital og mennesker med utviklingshemning. [Social capital and people with intellectual disabilities.] In Norwegian. I: Bjørnr˚a T, Guneriussen W, and Sommerbakk V (red) Utviklingshemning, autonomi og avhengighet. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 58–70. NESH (2013) Guidelines for research ethics in the social sciences, law and the humanities. Norway: National Committees for Research Ethics. Published: 26 March 2010. Updated: 26 April 2013. Lasting Available at: http://www.etikkom.no/en/In-English/Committee-for-Research-Ethics-in-the-Social-Sciences-and-theHumanities/ (accessed 12 December 2013) Nierse CJ and Abma TA (2011) Developing voice and empowerment: the first step towards a broad consultation in research agenda setting. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 55(4): 411–421. Nind M and Vinha H (2012) Doing research inclusively: bridges to multiple possibilities in inclusive research. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. Epub ahead of print 2 January 2013. DOI: 10.1111/bld.12013. Olsen T (2009) Versjoner av arbeid. Dagaktivitet og arbeid etter avviklingen av institusjonsomsorgen. [Versions of work. Day activity and work after the termination of institutional care.] In Norwegian. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala universitet. Ramirez SZ (2005) Evaluating acquiescence to yes-no questions in fear assessment of children with and without mental retardation. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 17(4): 333–343.

202

Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 18(2)

Rapley M (1995) Black swans: conversation analysis of interviews with people with learning disabilities. Clinical Psychology Forum 84: 17–23. Rapley M and Antaki C (1996) A conversation analysis of the ‘‘acquiescence’’ of people with learning disabilities. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 6: 207–227. Sagen L (2011) Likeverd og deltagelse? En studie av skoletilbudet til utviklingshemmet ungdom. [Equal status and participation? A study of subjects offered to retarded youth.] In Norwegian. Avhandling for graden phd, Institutt for sosialt arbeid og Helsevitenskap, NTNU, Trondheim. Sigelman CK, Budd EC, Spanhel CL, et al. (1981a) Asking questions of retarded persons: a comparison of yes-no and either-or formats. Applied Research in Mental Retardation 2: 347–357. Sigelman CK, Budd EC, Spanhel CL, et al. (1981b) When in doubt, say yes: acquiescence in interviews with mentally retarded persons. Mental Retardation 19: 53–58. Skipnes I and Kambo I (2013) Framtidsdrømmer. En kvalitativ studie av mennesker med lett grad av utviklingshemning og deres drømmer for framtiden. [Future Dreams. A qualitative study of people with mild degrees of intellectual disabilities and their dreams for the future.] In Norwegian. Masteroppgave i spesialpedagogikk, Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet, Universitetet i Oslo. Sigstad HMH (2013a) Lærer/elevrelasjonen og medvirkning blant ungdomsskoleelever med lett utviklingshemning. [Teacher/student relationship and participation among secondary school students with mild intellectual disabilities.] In Norwegian. Spesialpedagogikk, 2, pp. 37–50. Sigstad HMH (2013b). Ungdomskoleelever med lett utviklingshemning. Inkludering og betydningen av jevnaldrenderelasjoner. [Secondary school students with mild intellectual disabilities. Inclusion and the importance of peer relationships.] In Norwegian. Psykologi i kommunen 48(6): 17–32. Sundet M (2010) Noen metodiske dilemmaer. Bruk av deltakende observasjon i studier av mennesker med utviklingshemning. [Some methodological dilemmas. The use of participatory observation in studies of people with intellectual disabilities.] In Norwegian. In: Gjærum RG (red) Usedvanlig kvalitativ forskning: ˚ informanter har utviklingshemning. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, metodologiske utfordringer nar pp. 123–137. Thorsen K (2005) Livshistorier, livsløp og aldring. Samtaler med mennesker med utviklingshemning. [Life stories, life cycle and aging. Conversations with people with intellectual disabilities.] In Norwegian. I samarbeid med Ingjerd Olstad. Tønsberg, Norway: Forlaget Aldring og Helse. Thorsen K and Myrvang VH (2008) Livsløp og hverdagsliv med utviklingshemning. Livsberetninger til personer med utviklingshemning og deres eldre foreldre. [Life cycle and everyday life with intellectual disabilities. Life Stories of people with intellectual disabilities and their elderly parents.] In Norwegian. Tønsberg, Norway: Forlaget Aldring og Helse. Tøssebro J (1992) Hvorfor s˚a negative? P˚arørendes syn p˚a institusjonsavvikling. [Why so negative? Carers’ views on the institution liquidation.] In Norwegian. In: Sandvin J (red) Mot Normalt? Oslo, Norway: Kommuneforlaget. ˚ 10 ar ˚ Tøssebro J and Lundeby H (2002) Statlig reform og kommunal hverdag: Utviklingshemmedes levekar etter reformen. [Governmental reform and civic life: Intellectual disabilities and living conditions 10 years after the reform.] In Norwegian. Trondheim. NTNU-rapport 33. Veenstra MY, Walsh PN, van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk HMJ, et al. (2010) Sampling and ethical issues in a multicenter study on health of people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63: 1091–1100. Wehmeyer ML (2005) Self-determination and individuals with severe disabilities: reexamining meanings and misinterpretations. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 30: 113–120. Wennberg B and Kjellberg A (2010) Participation when using cognitive assistive devices from the perspective of people with intellectual disabilities. Occupational Therapy International 17: 168–176.

Copyright of Journal of Intellectual Disabilities is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.