Conversational Space

I did not want to give the impression that any focus groups would be difficult for any person to engage with nor that the participants would be embedded within a particularly noted research space, rather I wanted a welcoming and interactive conversational space. The desire for a conversational space against perhaps a specifically experienced researched space had some bearing not simply upon how questions may have been delivered - perhaps following comments within the groups - but also on the usage of the focus group space itself. For instance thinking of the specific distinction between researched and conversational space, I gave some consideration into introducing particular representations relating to Irishness into each focus group and decorating each room with national representations - Irish flags, themes of rurality, pictures of historical and contemporary Irish figures etc. - but it was felt that decorating the room with such representations would dramatically alter the engagement I was asking of young people. I did not want young people to feel researched and embedded within a researched space where the environment may have suggested that the researcher was intimately examining, judging and categorising all their words, gestures and reactions regarding their engagements within the focus group. I felt that undertaking such an approach, transforming a familiar school space into an unfamiliar research space, would place too strong a barrier between myself and the other group members. The potential would have been to formally fix the discussion within the idea that people were being researched and that might possibly lead to a lack of complete or honest engagement with the issues raised, as young people may have been unwilling to express their views in the knowledge that perhaps a judgemental barrier existed between the researcher and

the researched. Studying young people in the context of their everyday schooled environment was hoped to allow greater openness towards Irishness than engaging participants in suggested researched settings that might potentially lead „to contrived findings that are out of context‟ (Creswell, 1998:17). Though the recording equipment - a mini-disc - was visible it was always placed beside me so as not to appear an intrusive recording devise. The groups were conduced in a circle and obviously placing the mini-disc in the centre of this circle would have allowed clearer recorded comments but I felt that this would have emphasised the formality of

the interview and taken away from the conversational space I desired. Similarly, though I was taking notes throughout the focus group I attempted to make this seem like a very casual thing to do, as if I was cross-checking with comments already said or considering raising another question. This emphasis upon naturalism did, however, cause a problem most particularly regarding monitoring the recording of focus groups. There was a recording problem with the mini-disc in a number of groups, which was only realised after the groups had concluded. The first group in A1 School was not recorded, nor was the first group in B2 School and the second recording from B2 School was very low and inaudible. If I had paid more attention to the malfunctioning recording equipment I would have spotted the mistake earlier but to have been monitoring the recording equipment would have highlighted that I was researching what people were saying.

To encourage dialogical engagement, and try and emphasise a conversational space in each group I would introduce myself and then ask each member from the group to offer their names and a short introduction about themselves - this was a ploy not simply to apply better identification of the participants voices when transcribing each focus group but also, importantly, it was hoped that such space to express something of the personal individuality would allow the interviewees to be more relaxed in the company of both a stranger and a researcher. After we had all made our introductions I would generally read out the following statement:

What we are going to try and consider today is what it means for you people to be Irish. Asking you what it is to be Irish may seem easy and straight-forward but when people usually start thinking about their national identity it‟s often a very difficult thing to start expressing your feelings about. I hope the questions are not too abstract and if something needs explaining just ask. A lot of the questions have come from responses to a questionnaire that I have been distributing to schools for about 18 months, so these are questions that in many ways have come from people your own age group and sharing similar circumstances. What I need today is your honest views about what you feel it is like to be Irish. Whatever is said is totally confidential and no person will in any way be identifiable in the finished research, I won‟t be approaching anybody‟s teachers or parents, so please speak your mind.

Before I would begin any focus group properly I would again generally emphasise what we would be discussing, so endorsing the SAI Research Ethics guidelines that research participants be fully informed about „what the research is about‟ ("http://www.ucd.ie/sai/saiethic.html") and the confidentiality of the discussion we were about to have. I was also mindful that views expressed by participants might be said solely for the benefit of the researcher, following the expectation of what is the right thing to say in this particular moment. I hoped to counteract this by emphasising that the focus group was about them, and they should express what they felt confidentially.

Though one accepts Denscombe‟s (1998) distinction between an interview and a conversation - interviews are recorded, lead by the researcher and consented to - I strove to develop a group environment that would suggest itself to young people as rather more of a

conversation with somebody than a hierarchically formalised focus group interview conducted

within a researched space with the researcher leading and directing all avenues of discussion. It was important, for me, to build a relaxed environment for the expression of viewpoints as it was felt that a relaxed environment was more conducive to interactive conversational space where people can be more themselves. I had no problem using my own life experiences to develop some picture of who I was in the hope that the young people might reciprocate my honesty and show me some of who they were and engage honestly in the discussion. Gaining the trust to allow, it was hoped, an open and frank expression of the views of young people was an important feature within the focus group settings. Accepting that the focus group dynamics would be „affected by the personal identity of the researcher‟ (Denscombe, 1998:116) I strove to be as natural in disposition as possible and I attempted to address people on an equal footing, hopefully deconstructing any barriers between the notion of the researcher and the researched. Denscombe, in highlighting the reflexivity embedded in particular methodical approaches, points out that:

A researcher can never stand outside the social world he or she is studying in order to gain some vantage point from which to view things from a perspective which is not contaminated by contact with that social world. Inevitably, the sense we make of the social world and the meaning we give to events and situations are shaped by our experience as social beings and the legacy of the values, norms, and concepts we have assimilated during our lifetime (1998:240).

If I could not be natural - shaped by my own social experience and with „the legacy of the values, norms, and concepts‟ that I may have „assimilated during‟ my own „lifetime‟ - how could I expect young people to engage organically - in a language and manner that they felt comfortable expressing themselves with - on the topic of Irishness? Though I accepted that „it is very difficult to reach a situation in which the power relationships between the researcher and the researched are equal‟ (Harvey et al., 2000:130) I consciously strove to remove any hierarchical barrier „between the researcher and the researched‟. For instance I decided that I would, when possible, make efforts at opening a common identification with group members - be it through sport or through music or other interests - when possible to show that I too can enjoy the same activities as they can. For instance in A1 School, which has a long history of rugby sporting achievements, I offered some commonality with some in the groups on the basis that I was a member of a rugby club and just like some of them I attended certain rugby games. Even though introducing myself revealed certain class distinctions, I could still emphasis a commonality based around sport with some students in A1 School. The same would often apply to other school groups when music was raised as a point of interest when students introduced themselves. When music was offered as an interest I could often questions the interviewee and find some commonality we could each claim together. Even if I could not project a commonality - or could joke about our uncommonality - I could at least encourage the student to talk about their interests and hopefully be more at ease with the focus group environment and hopeful more at ease with the researcher and comfortable to respond to any challenging questions raised within the group.

However though I may have desired a non-hierarchical engagement with the people involved in this research this, of course, may not necessarily be how young people may have perceived my position or each other‟s position within the groups. Denscombe highlights that „the

sex, the age and the ethnic origins of the interviewer have a bearing on the amount of

information people are willing to divulge and their honesty about what they reveal‟ (1998:116, italics in original). Something of my power - as simply an adult perhaps - was seen during my time at A1 School. After their lunch break students at A1 School must sign an afternoon roll call and I was struggling to get through a very congested volume of human traffic in the corridor. When students saw it was a non-student who was trying to get through - an adult, perhaps a teacher, perhaps a parent or perhaps a guest - they apologised and usually informed the person beside them or in front or behind them that they should make room for my movement. This

somewhat shows that although I may have attempted to be non-hierarchical towards young people they might not necessarily be able to approach me in such a manner.

Accepting Denscombe‟s view that approaching a focus group as a conversation can result in the researcher being „lulled into a sense of false security‟, I remained conscious of the „sensitivity to the complex nature of interaction during the interview itself‟ (Denscombe, 1998:110). I understood what I was enquiring into - identity - and I kept somewhat within the themes I wanted to discuss but also allowed some flexibility towards what the young people wanted to discuss. If respecting this „sensitivity‟ meant sacrificing time to allow students to enter conversational tangents or encouraging people be themselves I felt this was the best way to essentially allow freedom of expression and promote, as natural as possible, an open interactive conversational space for young people to engage with the issue of identity. Certainly on a level of conversational engagement some focus groups unquestionably point to succeeding in getting young people involved in the consideration of the topic. For instance with some groups it was agreed with students that they would last only forty minutes in duration when in fact they often went on for an hour - indeed some groups went beyond what was recorded on the mini-disc. It may be easy to dismiss this engagement as young people wanting to stay out of class longer but some groups actually went into break time, suggesting some level of genuine interest.

Avoiding, or at least trying to avoid, any suggestion that the focus group was a formalised interrogative space not only addressed the „sensitivity‟ of group interactions - the importance that I was not seen as judging peoples‟ identity or viewpoints on identity in a interrogative manner - but also the potential „sensitivity‟ of the topic itself. Again if the notion of

race was a way some young people negotiated their own or other people‟s Irishness I needed

people to be confident and comfortable enough to express that and be prepared to explain such views. If some young people were uncomfortable, as some were, with the notion of a multicultural Ireland then I needed young people to feel they were in an environment that could allow their feelings to be spoken. Though I may have hoped that all people within the groups would engage in the conversation not all of the young people did speak. In saying not all young people were engaged with the research I can only point to one individual, Paddy from A3 School, who essentially dismissed themselves from discussing Irishness, who after introducing himself did not once raise any comments about identity throughout the entire session. However in considering the entirety of focus groups most people offered something about either self or

collective identity and most people made some level of engagement - it was often the case that some people would be more considerate on issues or themes that seemed to arouse personal interest. But it should be emphasised that some groups proved somewhat dominated by particular individuals. Staying with A3 School in Group 2 the four male students within the group - Andy, Terry, Ruari and Darragh - were not as engaged with the topic as either Janet or Niamh, though it was not necessarily that they did not express views towards Irishness, it was rather that Niamh had a particularly strong personality and was fully committed to the issues raised and it seemed to intimate the four male students. Generalising it could be claimed that Niamh had a very positive modern understanding of Irishness and any challenge upon her fixed notions of Irishness, one could foresee, would be challenged veraciously by Niamh herself.

Denscombe (1998) points out that a potential limitation with group discussion is that they can lead towards group‟s consensus with some individuals not being prepared to step outside what may seem the norm of the group‟s view. The questionnaire results showed a diversity of understandings towards Irishness and one can assume that facilitating this diversity was how the questionnaire was both individualised and carried out confidentially allowing young people to write whatever they wanted. Obviously focus groups can be more constrained - people might not say whatever they want perhaps limited to a group norm - as participation within a dialogical group setting may have comments challenged or indeed reinforced or asked to further explain what they may mean. However I feel the technique of approaching the groups as conversational space directed by a semi-structuring discussion encouraged dialogue - and importantly coupled with having the very good fortunate to be working with very able young people who seemed to generally be comfortable with engaging in the consideration of Irish identity - placed many people in an environment where they could freely speak. My impression is that people spoke openly about their sense of both self and collective identity, allowing a great deal of honesty to be expressed outside any potential group norms. This can be heard in the groupings themselves, on the responses to „sensitive‟ issues like race, religion, the Irish language or immigration, where students expressed conflicting views to other members and often challenged other members on something that they may have said. Though of course group or social norms may have been evident, as in the operation of ideology with rather what was not said or perhaps how certain things may have been said, I feel that young people were willing, and able, to express different views outside of a group norm.

Though most people may not necessarily approach their identity as anything other than a naturalised understanding of who they are, and so may not overtly question their identity until perhaps asked, I found that the young people when questioned, seemed to be at ease and very open about addressing identity, self or collective. Approaching the groupings as conversational settings seemed to have encouraged this freedom of expression and openness towards addressing questions. Though of course the area of identity can be highly sensitive it seems that when considering the broad compass of Irishness - what may have been discussed within the groups - young people were quite prepared to voice their views. Though there may have been times when I had to pull discussions back into the domain of Irishness I would try and do this humorously rather than aggressively or necessarily formally so the conversations within the groups could continue. Though I would have liked to consider in much fuller detail certain elements around identity - such as the commodification of Irish identity and specific youth cultures - presenting the activity of the focus groups as a conversation did limit me in how I could try and introduce topics of discussion, but, I feel, it also importantly allowed a straightforward sense of engagement for the participants. It will be seen when the commentary within focus groups is considered young people appeared to respond very articulately to the conversation we were having around identity.

3.6 Conclusion

Individual identity articulation and overlapping collective identification can be difficult factors to encapsulate and the full extent of any meaning towards a particular identity may not necessarily be adequately explained or explored through the exclusive use of either a qualitative or quantitative format. Using a dual approach, employing both qualitative and quantitative methodology, to help capture meanings of identity for young people, was felt to help describe more fully how Irishness could be understood - both in its generality and in an individual context. By utilising both a qualitative and quantitative approach it was hoped that the research would pass Denscombe‟s test for „Good research‟:

Social researchers rarely, if ever, rely on one approach [qualitative or quantitative] to the exclusion of the other. Good research tends to use parts of both approaches (1998:173).

Though the questionnaire had its limitation - the subjective reading of Symbols of Irishness for instance - it could at least offer an opportunity to begin characterising and generalising Irishness. This generalising of Irishness also of course has its limitation, the focus on Dublin for instance within the context that Ireland is a changing society. How some young people addressed the open questions within the questionnaire certainly suggested a specific sense of identity, which could be explored more fully at an interactive focus group level.

The approach taken towards the focus group was to attempt to promote a dynamic space allowing for a multiplicity of views and understandings around notions of Irish identity. As well as the potential diverging views arising within each focus group I could use information and details from the questionnaire results and other focus groups to suggest how some other young people may have differently negotiated and interpreted Irishness. Because I was well acquainted with the themes and comments from the questionnaire and focus groups I was in a position to