I've recently been interviewing doctors and once you've got over the mental hurdle - I'm not really at the doctor's and I'm not sick - it's been fascinating. There are of course whole research companies devoted to interviewing doctors and I'd never really been attracted to it. In the research business doctors seem to have a bit of a reputation as cagey know-alls with out of control egos. I have come across a few egos but there's nothing wrong with a little bit of ego in the right context and for the most part I've found doctors to be imaginative and likeable.
The main problem seems to be getting the conversation out of robotic exchange in which the doctor aims to give the 'correct' professional answer. Usually this entails a recital of NICE guidelines or similar and not a muse on 'doctor as person' perspective that I'm really looking for. My conclusion has been that doctors are imaginative people but the challenge is getting them to use that imagination in conversation with a pesky researcher such as myself.
Usually in a one to one interview I expend much energy putting people at their ease and helping them understand the research process. This is all about redressing the power balance which at the beginning of a qualitative interview is typically all with the researcher. This is all unnecessary with doctors who believe themselves to be in control. They feel they are being consulted as experts and the interview set up can echoe the patient consultation experience itself. They are quick to control the conversation and second guess what you are trying to find out. I'm all for power to the respondent but none of this really accesses the creative part of the brain. I want witch doctor mode, not medic undergraduate trying to pass their viva.
Getting round this is difficult but I think creating an 'off the record' environment, interviewing in conjunction with nurses and observation in unexpected settings might help yield more lateral results.
