AR Cycle 2: Step 3 – Taking action

The third step of Cycle 2 was to hold the focus group, which was personally fulfilling as it showed our hard work and what we had achieved together. I began my presentation on a positive note with these words. The progression began with a discussion by the accreditations representative on the first two slides. I ensured no single person monopolised the conversation, and that all parties had an equal say and, therefore, input. What was interesting is that initially I wanted two students so that they would not be overpowered by the other members who were in high positions in employment, and was concerned that because I had only one graduate he would

not be comfortable enough to provide his opinion. I was pleasantly surprised when he had a considerable amount to say, and particularly appreciated how he gave an example to justify his discussion. It was most beneficial to start with members representing the various groups.

The focus group was in English and all interviewees were confident for discussion to take place in this way. However, groups with interests or perceptions from various perspectives were represented, as mentioned in the methodology chapter. This was evident in the progression of the focus group session, as there was a general concern for improved tourism education that would meet the requirements of sector, students and accreditation. The focus group allowed for a culture of work ethics, as a result. Whilst in the interviews the accreditation representatives were focused on the hard factors of the micro environment, the focus group allowed for a discussion of the sector’s soft factors at macro-environment level. This allowed for a common understanding and appreciation of what was required by all stakeholders. It is worth mentioning that I received comments to the effect that, if the state did something similar to my research then it would be a more sustainable environment in the labour market because they could appreciate why and what, now. There were many instances when the professionals in the focus

PLANNING ACTION: Preparation of venue, questions, moderator and design of focus .

Invitation of stakeholders to focus group

TAKING ACTION:

Hold focus group

EVALUATING ACTION:

CONSTRUCTION:

Justification of designed programme

group tried to bring the discussion to the lack of government input regarding some issues in tourism education, but I wanted the group to concentrate on our research objectives and, more importantly, to be ethical. Providing space for discussion about what the government could do better was unethical, because there was no government representative to justify or discuss; neither was it acceptable, as this was not the aim of my research. Without upsetting anyone, I explained that because we did not have anyone from the government present it was not fair to have this discussion, and I believe this was within the ethical framework of my research although I did not consider its possibility in the ethical framework in Chapter 3. My leadership in this respect was important for the ethical progression of this research, and my main concern at the start of discussing ethics was my position in GAU and my students. This is why I invited graduates for the focus group that I moderated. My second concern was that the sector, accreditation representatives and students have different interests and therefore potentially contradictory values and intentions regarding the apprenticeship part of the programme. Consequently, although the programme should be a reflection of the views and experiences from all stakeholders, I decided to reflect the common themes to be fair to all, and therefore ethical. This outcome was achieved in this way, although I had not been prepared for the professionals to discuss the lack of professionalism at state level, and had used my leadership to stop this at an early stage of Cycle 2, Step 3 – the focus group interview.

The focus group took 2 hours 30 minutes, but the main discussion was during the presentation of the content of the professional learning curriculum (APPENDIX 3 p.187, slide 17). This is when the discussion of the focus group took the shape of what I wanted to achieve, specifically different opinions of what should and should not be included. For example, names of courses to which had been added the word “management” were agreed by all stakeholder to be dropped, as this is to be a programme that teaches the student the “doing” part, not “managing”. The revisions that were discussed were highly relevant to the research results from Cycle 1, and I

learnt that I did actually foresee some of the highly important points outlined, thus the benefits of Cycle 2 were appreciated instantly. The discussion of the curriculum content was the main topic and 70 minutes of the focus group was spent this way. These revisions and findings are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

As a result of the focus group, I can confirm as I had outlined in my methodology I wanted to pursue a focus group to be transparent with my project in the presentation of my results with the stakeholder’s representatives and also confirm a robust study that accurately meets the requirements of all. My objectives were achieved.