Facebook Group
“Facebook groups are the place for small group communication and for people to share their common interests and express their opinion. Groups allow people to come together around a common cause, issue or activity to organize, express objectives, discuss issues, post photos and share related content” (Hicks, 2010).
The nature of Facebook groups can vary in terms of privacy settings and this has implications for how the group can be shared with Facebook users and the extent to which the content of the group can be seen by non-group members. Currently a Facebook group’s privacy settings can take one of three forms: public, closed and secret.
In both a public and closed group anyone on Facebook can search the group, request to join and see certain features of it. In a public group, prior to joining, all the content can be seen, in a closed group
79
only certain features can be seen: the cover photo, the number of members, the group admin and the ‘about’ section which the group admin creates to inform non-members of the groups purpose. With a secret group in contrast the group cannot be searched or seen by none-members, individual Facebook users can be selected to be ‘invited’ to the group at which point they can see certain features of it such as the about section and its members, and upon joining they can then see the remaining content. I elected to create a closed group. To ensure the group was as private as intended, I created an additional personal account from which I could attempt to view the group from the outside, which confirmed what could and could not be seen by non-members. By electing to design a closed group it was possible to ensure the participants anonymity, by shielding their participation to non-members, whilst still being able to share the details of the group with large numbers of potential participants. The ability to provide a link to the group where students could then read the ‘about’ section and if they so wished could immediately click a button to request to join, was a valuable tool in sharing my research project with potential participants and recruiting them while their interest was peaked. I suspect if I had simply explained the premise of the research without being able to share a link to the group as would be required with a secret group, the extra layer of interaction may have stifled momentum and reduced enthusiasm to participate. King, O’Rourke and Delongis (2014) suggest immediacy and the opportunity to draw prospective participants directly to the study, to be an integral advantage of combining social media recruitment and online data collection.
In the group’s about section I wrote the following: “Hello
Thank you for taking the time to look at the group. This closed group has been set up as part of a Human and Health Science research project. If you are a *university name* Computing and Engineering student and you are currently participating in a placement you are invited to participate.
My aim in this research is to learn about your experience of University and to hear all about your placement experience.
Please take the time to read the documents I have uploaded, if you then decide you no longer want to take part in the study you can leave the group whenever you like. Thank you for your interest, it's very much appreciated!
80
Students began joining the social media group from July 2015. As the process of recruitment was ongoing, in July I monitored the group frequently to accept joining requests and to regularly update those who had joined on the progress of the project. Typically, this would involve welcoming newcomers, explaining that the process of recruitment was ongoing and that the project would begin in August. During this period, I made efforts to direct the newcomers’ attention to the group rules and asked them to access the information sheet and consent form which I requested they complete and return via email or private message.
During the month dedicated to Facebook group recruitment 30 students requested to join the group, with requests to join slowing significantly toward the end of the month. Initially I began with introductory questions to gauge levels of participation, build rapport and to allow time for any final students to join before the main placement related discussions began. Only eight additional students joined the group in this period. During this introductory phase I asked questions pertaining to where the students were currently in their education and career, what they hoped to achieve from their studies and their short-term and long-term goals. As I posted these preliminary questions I also offered my own answers in a bid to build familiarity and rapport and to address the power imbalance that might stem from my position as researcher where inevitably I would volunteer less information about myself over the course of the study than the students would be asked to volunteer about their own lives.
In the course of conducting the Facebook groups the topics raised were designed to follow a timeline consistent with the students’ current placement experiences. Where they were in the initial stages of placement for instance questions pertained to the transition. Where they had been working for a significant period, questions explored how things had changed and their progression, and so on. A sample of the topics raised can be found in the appendices (Appendix 1). I would post a new question each fortnight, and the participants would post their answers using the ‘reply’ function. Where desired students could also reply to other students’ responses, which a small number of students elected to do on occasion. The process of collecting data from the Facebook group spanned from August 2015 until November 2016, this meant it was possible to capture experiences starting from the early weeks of placement right up until the early weeks of returning to university.
Interviews
In total 14 students agreed to be interviewed as part of the research project, however two subsequently elected not to participate taking the total number of interview participants to 12. While recruiting the participants, I indicated that the interviews were anticipated to last around 60 minutes. Yeo et al (2014) suggest that an interview generally requires at least an hour to gather a good level of
81
depth, but more than two hours can negatively impact a participant’s concentration. The majority of the interviews lasted around one hour as anticipated, with the average duration being 57 minutes. Throughout each interview I tried to be mindful of timing and would consistently try to gauge whether the student was genuinely happy to continue with our discussion or whether it might be a good time to begin winding the interview down.
As per my agreement with my university ethics committee, the interviews took place within a university building in a small, private room that was designed to function as a space in which to conduct research. This space had the advantage of being quiet and private in addition to being neutral ground easily accessible to both myself and the study participants.
Recruiting participants to interview typically involved sharing a public post, followed by a private message interaction from which the participant was able to gain more information and we could arrange a suitable time and date at which to meet. Whilst arranging to meet the participants I attempted to be as flexible as possible consulting with the participants as to which days and times would work best for them, which typically meant arranging the interview to occur between or after their scheduled lectures, limiting the need for participants to travel.
During these private message interactions, I made use of the chat facility’s ‘attachment’ function to provide the participants with a copy of the information sheet and consent form so that they might have an opportunity to read both in advance and begin to formulate any questions they might have. I also ensured to bring an additional hard copy of both forms and took the time to go through each with the participants in person, before gaining their written and verbal consent to participate.
Upon explaining to the students that they did not have to participate, that they could end the interview at any point and that they could choose not to answer any question I then endeavoured to explain the format of the interview.
In each interview I loosely followed an interview schedule, found in the appendices (Appendix 2). Yeo et al (2014) suggest that the structure of an interview should be sufficiently flexible to allow the researcher to raise issues, to probe and prompt participant responses and to discuss topics in an order most suited to the participant. Though the questions included in the schedule were not followed rigidly, where possible I attempted use the broad topic areas as a guide which organised the conversation to flow as a timeline, beginning with an exploration of the students’ pre-placement university experiences, followed by the application and interview process, the transition to the workplace, experiences and progression over the course of the placement year and finally the return to study. I wanted the discussions to appear conversational, and flow naturally to make the
82
participants feel comfortable, and to generate insights beyond the pre-determined topic areas, so I elected not to adhere rigidly to the topic guide, but would steer back to it where the discussions appeared to be navigating away from issues of relevance, or where a natural break occurred in the discussion ready for a new line of questioning to begin. Over the course of conducting the 12 interviews I gradually amended the interview schedule to include additional questions relating to issues that had arisen in former interviews and Facebook discussions, which I sought to explore further. Throughout the interviews I attempted to use open, non-leading questions and engaged in active listening, described by Atkinson and Hammersley (2007) as trying to hear the meaning of what is being said, understanding where subtext must be explored, considering what hasn’t been said and exploring the nuances of the participants account.
The manner in which the interviews were conducted was aligned with the process described by Yeo et al (2014) who recommend six stages to interview process.
Stage One: Arrival and Introductions.
Yeo et al (2014) suggest that at the point of introduction the interview effectively begins. These initial minutes they argue, are crucial for establishing rapport. The initial introduction they suggest will involve the typical greetings and small talk of two people first meeting, which should then be followed by a signal that the interview is ready to begin by for instance taking out the topic guide and checking where the interviewee would prefer the interview take place. Typically, the interviews in the current project would begin with an introduction and an exchange of niceties. I would check that the room was at a suitable temperature and offered to adjust the heater.
Stage Two: Introducing the Research:
At stage 2 Yeo et al (2014) suggest the interviewer should begin to introduce the research topic, explaining the aims and objectives of the research, its purpose and the areas to be covered, to helps the participant to begin thinking about the topic and set the context of the questions. Following, any introductions I would ask the participants if they had managed to read the information sheet and would take the time to go through it with them before then asking if they had any further questions. I would then explain the format of the interview and reiterate that it would be recorded. We would subsequently read through the consent form, clarify any further questions and at this point I would gain verbal and written consent to continue, I would then request their permission to turn on the recorder signalling the start of data collection.
83
Yeo et al (2014) suggest that the opening questions of an interview are an opportunity to ask important contextual information. Typically, in the current project this would entail asking the students on which course they studied, when they completed their placement year and where they were currently in their education or career.
Stage Four: During the Interview
In stage four of the interview process the researcher must guide the participants through key themes, both anticipated and emergent (Yeo et al, 2014). I did so by using open questioning and active listening to demonstrate to participants a desire for them to talk openly.
Stage Five: Ending the Interview
As the end of the interview is drawing near Yeo et al (2014) suggest the researcher can signal that the end of the interview is approaching, which might encourage the participants to raise any issue they had not yet discussed and to assist the participant in returning to the level of everyday social interaction. To ensure the participant is not left feeling as though they have left anything unexpressed, an opportunity to share any final thoughts of comments should be offered. Typically toward the end of the interviews with the participants I would seek to ask round-up questions that signified the interview was coming to a close, such as asking what had been their favourite thing about placement overall, were they glad that they had elected to do it and what advice would they give to someone else about to begin a placement year. This not only served to demonstrate that questioning was winding down, but also ensured that the students’ final thoughts were to focus on the best aspects of their experience in a bid to ensure they could feel they ended the interview on a positive note. Stage Six: After the Interview
At the end of the interview Yeo et al (2014) suggest it is important to thank the participant, explain what will happen next with the data and provide a chance to ask any final questions. They also suggest that at this stage participants should be provided with any contact details they might require and information for support services where needed. In only one case did I become concerned that a participant might require support following the interview. One participant suggested that his experience of placement had been quite negative and that there was a culture of bullying within his workplace. Though he spoke about his negative experiences quite matter-of-factly, and suggested that overall, he was glad to have had done the placement, I still felt it important to check whether he felt he might want some support following our interview. I was reassured in this conversation that this was unnecessary, he explained that he had had a full debrief with the placement team following his placement, and it had been a few years since his placement took place and as such he was not at all
84
distressed by anything discussed. As each interview ended, I thanked my participants for taking the time to speak with me and asked if they had any questions. Typically, any questions asked tended to err on the side of small talk such followed by a final thank you and expression of my gratitude for their participation.
Ethics
Approval from the school research ethics panel was obtained to conduct this research following a successful ethics submission which can be found in the appendices (Appendix 3). While conducting the project I adhered with the BPS code of ethics and conduct (2009).
Participants were provided with an information sheet detailing the purpose of the research, the method of data collection and their potential involvement in the study. The information sheets varied slightly dependent on the data collection opportunity. The variants of the information sheets in addition to consent forms can be found in the appendices (appendix 4-7).
In addition to gaining permission to conduct this study from my own academic department’s ethics panel I also sought permission from the focus university’s head of computing and engineering. And I additionally gained permission to access one placement related guidance document, and placement related lectures from the head of the computing and engineering placement team who was in charge of running the sessions and oversaw the creation of the guidance document. Both the document and the lectures were used to build up an initial understanding of the placement process in the university of focus but were not used as data collection opportunities.
Throughout the project I endeavoured to integrate ethical considerations into the decision-making process and used these considerations to inform my ongoing actions. In this chapter I have attempted to demonstrate where I took measures to conduct my research in an ethical manner. In addition to providing the ethics submission and corresponding documents in the appendices, below I have summarised where I have addressed matters of ethics throughout the project.
Anonymity
Participants were informed that their data would be anonymised in a manner that did not reveal their identity or that of their peers, colleagues, employers or lecturers. While writing up the project I provided participants with pseudonyms and changed the names of anyone else that they mentioned. I also censored the names of workplaces, products and locations where it might otherwise have compromised anonymity. Censoring the names of workplaces in particular was an important caveat in gaining permission from the computing and engineering placement team due to the sensitive relationships they had built with placement employers. Whilst anonymity was assured in the write up
85
of the project, confidentiality was not offered due to the intended dissemination of the data across multiple formats. Whilst in the Facebook group, members could see one another’s replies I did offer participants the opportunity to post their response to me directly through use of the private message function and also recommended students create a new account with a pseudonym for the purposes of the research should they desire a greater level of anonymity in this element of data collection.
Right to Withdraw
In both variants of the information sheets I offered students the right to withdraw their data until the specified date that analysis was scheduled to begin. Students were made aware that their