Conducting the fieldwork

Stakeholder interviews

In 2011, initial interviews were carried out with nine stakeholders from the two case study areas to gain an understanding of how different professionals working with these places viewed the employment, housing, and community context. Although data from these interviews is largely confined to Chapter

86

Seven, in which the Nearthorpe and Eastland are described in depth, stakeholder interpretations are not privileged as ‘truths’ but used to increase understandings of the professional narratives that surround places. Initial contacts were identified through local authorities and voluntary and community sector organisations and snowball sampling was used where individuals provided additional contacts. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, with the exception of one telephone interview, and lasted around an hour. The stakeholders in Sheffield were:

• Rachel, a Local Authority manager working with communities in east Sheffield

• Katie, a Local Authority manager with a focus on skills, training and employability

• Sarah, a manager at a local charity focused on training, skills development and employability

• Joanna, a manager at a local charity focused on training, skills development and employability

• Tom, a Local Authority employee working in planning and regeneration The stakeholders in Grimsby were:

• Louise, a Local Authority employee working on policy

• Rosie, a Local Authority manager with a focus on housing and communities

• Chris, a manager at a homelessness charity

• Faye, a Local Authority employee working in regeneration

In addition, short telephone interviews with six estate agents were also conducted to elicit their view of local housing markets. Where possible stakeholders signed consent forms, but for telephone interviews participants provided verbal consent. An information sheet about the research was sent to stakeholders (this was posted to estate agents in advance of the call) and discussed at the start of the interview. Information sheets, topic guides and consent forms can be found in Appendices Three to Five.

Research pilot

The initial aim was to recruit ten households per area, enough to enable themes to emerge and a range of different households to participate, whilst also

87

allowing for an in-depth, multi-interview approach. As there was no gatekeeper through which to recruit participants, consideration was given to different approaches. Snowball sampling was one method of recruitment, although as Smith (2005:14) noted, this promotes a relatively homogeneous sample within social networks. For the research presented here, a more heterogeneous sample, covering a range of different criteria, was preferable. Carrying out a survey to generate a population from which to draw a sample was also considered, but discounted on cost grounds.

The pilot tested an alternative approach, hand-delivering a flyer (Appendix Six) about the research to 50 households in Nearthorpe (Sheffield) in November 2012. This approach relied on people contacting the researcher by phone, text, or email, to express an interest in participating. A telephone-based 'screening survey' (Appendix Seven) was designed to gather key details to facilitate sample selection. The aim was to interview two households that – if successful – would be the first participants of the study, whilst enabling adjustments to be made to the research design.

After three days, no participants had come forward. The flyer was simplified to be one-sided, provide a landline, and highlight home-based interviews (Appendix Six). 150 flyers were printed for hand delivery. Half were put in envelopes hand written 'To The Occupier'; half were folded. A small poster (Appendix Six) was posted at local shops and community facilities. The same day, three people got in touch having seen the flyers and two were selected.

In terms of learning from the pilot, the simplified flyer in an envelope was used in the main research as a more effective way of recruiting participants.

Conducting the interviews also revealed that it would be unrealistic to expect participants to deliver complete timelines for their life histories, as they struggled to recall specific dates or locations, especially where histories were complex.

Understanding the meanings and motivations that participants gave for their behaviour were more important. The combination of interview and transcription time confirmed that the target of 20 households was appropriate given the timeframe of the research.

88

Recruiting participants to the main research

In November 2012, an additional 300 flyers were delivered to addresses in Nearthorpe, giving a total of 500 target households (including the pilot). In total, 16 people expressed an interest in participating (a 3.2% response). The nine selected households were drawn from a possible set of 15, as one potential participant could not be contacted. Including the pilot, interviews were conducted between November and January 2012.

After these interviews were complete, recruitment started in Eastland (Grimsby) in February 2013. 400 flyers were delivered, however due to a low response rate an additional 500 flyers were delivered in April 2013. The lower response rate in Eastland may partly have resulted from a higher proportion of empty properties and greater population turnover. 15 people expressed an interest in taking part in the research (a 1.7% response). The researcher was unable to make contact with one person, and in another case someone opted out due to the time commitment. Screening surveys were conducted with the 13 remaining.

One household was unable to fit into the fieldwork schedule due to work commitments. Contact was lost with another person, and one participant withdrew before the first interview because they had started a new job. As a result, potential participating households shrank from 13 to ten; interviews were conducted with nine households in February and April 2013. Given the low response rate, one limitation of the research is potential response bias, as there may have been something unique to the people who responded, and something could have been missed from not having generated more potential participants.

Sampling

The low response rate meant that sampling played a limited role, especially in Eastland. The main characteristics of interest included:

• Age

• Employment status

• Tenure

• Length of time at current address

• Number of moves in previous ten years

• Past work-related mobility and future mobility intentions

89

The screening survey also collected information on the reasons for moving to their current address and potential future mobility. The aim was to achieve a purposive sample which included unemployed and employed people, long-term residents and newer arrivals, frequent movers and more stable households, a mix of tenure types, and – if possible – some people who had previously moved, or wanted to move, for work reasons. Brannen (in: Baker and Edwards, 2012:16) argued that for qualitative studies it is not sample size per se that is critical, but the inclusion of a particular case. Although a mix of the desired characteristics was achieved, this was largely a function of who had expressed an interest in participating. However, there was 100% retention for households who started the research. Once the research got underway, it also became clear that a large amount of data was being gathered from households, and the final sample comprised 18 households with 25 individuals.