Holistic Experiences and Strategies for Conducting Research With Couples

Abstract

In this article, we outline methodological considerations for conducting research interviews with couples. We draw from two qualitative men’s health studies, both developed to explore social interactions between men and their partners of either sex in relation to their health practices. We utilized a combination of separate interviews and joint couple interviews. From these studies, we offer insight into our experiences of using both types of interview styles, addressing four key areas which span elements across the research project journey: (a) choosing a mode of interview, (b) ethical concerns in couple research, (c) the interview as a platform for disclosure, and (d) analyzing data from couple research.

Living Life and Doing Things Together: Collaborative Research With Couples Where One Partner Has a Diagnosis of Dementia

“…Written and verbal consent was collected from people with dementia and partners and all data were kept confidential (World Medical Association, 2013). Despite the information of voluntary participation, underlying power structure within the relationship may influence choice (Braybrook, Mróz, Robertson, White, & Milnes, 2017). It is, therefore, important that the researcher is responsive and applies a “process consent” method (Hellström, Nolan, Nordenfeldt, & Lundh, 2007), whereby the researcher enables participants to make informed decision from the point of initial contact to completion of the study (Dewing, 2008).…”

Conducting dyadic, relational research about endometriosis: A reflexive account of methods, ethics and data analysis

“…This was partly practical, due to the size of our sample (n = 22 couples, 44 interviews) and the resource implications of focusing in such a detailed way on a data set of this size, but mainly this related to the ontological and epistemological tensions that this approach presents (Bjørnholt and Farstad, 2014; Manning and Kunkel, 2015). Seeking to explore the interpretive or ‘hidden meaning’ in the accounts was not in keeping with the constructivist philosophical position we had adopted in the research more generally (Braybrook et al, 2017). We proposed that the cultural repertoires which people draw upon are important in understanding illness experiences and therefore decided to keep our analysis of overlaps, contrasts and omissions at the textual and descriptive level in order to compare the ways in which couples discussed and presented their experiences and perceptions in the interviews, but not to attempt to ‘go beyond’ these representations in our analysis.…”

A Valuable but Demanding Time Family Life During Advanced Cancer in an Elderly Family Member

“…Family group interviews will therefore provide data at various levels Mehta et al, 2009;Sterling & Peterson, 2005). Interactions present between participants in the family group interview will also provide data about family dynamics (Braybrook, Mróz, Robertson, White, & Milnes, 2017;Donalek, 2009;Norlyk et al, 2016;Sakellariou et al, 2013).…”

“…Family group interviews are a little-used data collection method, and there is limited literature about family group interviews as a method (Bjørnholt & Farstad, 2014;Braybrook et al, 2017;Donalek, 2009;Polak & Green, 2016). Like other family researchers Åstedt-Kurki et al, 2001), we have therefore turned to the focus group methodology for inspiration.…”