Data entry and analysis

Data from all completed questionnaires were entered into SPSS v. 11 using a coding booklet. Open-ended questions were coded after all responses had been returned. School identifiers were the same as those used in HBSC data entry, to allow the easy comparison of the two data sets. Due to school drop-out and the recruitment of replacement schools, these numerical identifiers were not consecutive. These data were then used to inform the telephone interviews (see below). During data entry, any problems or decisions made regarding coding individual data were recorded in a log.

Despite the success of follow up in raising the response rate, the failings of the market research company in implementing the questionnaire meant that the use of the survey data in the project necessarily altered in order that i was not totally discarded. Initially, an analysis of survey data from all schools participating in interviews was to be undertaken in order to strengthen the comparison of qualitative and quantitative data within these schools. However, 28% of the schools that agreed to participate in interviews had either none, one or two questionnaires received from them. As having less than three questionnaires for a school raised issues over validity and reliability and would undermine the ability to assess inconsistencies in reporting, it was decided not to incorporate any statistical analysis of survey data into school- level analysis. However, as Table 1.1 illustrates, these were still used to inform the

interviews, allowing the generic interview schedule to be particularised for each schooL In those schools where there was any survey data, before each interview, SPSS was used to produce a Frequency report on the survey data received from each school. This report was then visually checked for inconsistent reporting in each of the survey variables or for any other interesting points. Anything worth following up was noted on the interview schedule. The open-ended questions were then analysed and any interesting points raised by the data, or conflicts within the data, also noted on the interview schedule to follow up in the interview. By doing this, the survey data was still allowed to inform the interviews. This process is exemplified for Schools 40, 18 and 04 below.

In School 40, this analysis revealed that staff smoking on the premises was a key area to follow up in the interview. Ihe visual check o f the Frequency of responses given for each variable in the two teacher surveys received for the school, found that while both respondents stated that staff were not allowed to smoke outside on the school premises, one reported this happened at least once a week and the other reported that it happened about every day. A check of the questionnaires revealed that the latter respondent had added a note to their response saying that this was in a car. In addition, analysis o f the open-ended questions revealed that both teachers reported that there was some smoking behaviour by staff in their cars. This was noted on the schedule and followed up in the interview which confirmed this behaviour and linked it to a fire in the school (caused by staff smoking on site) which meant that staff did not smoke on site, as this was no longer allowed, but some did smoke in their cars.

In School 18, the Frequency report revealed some confusion about staff policy, with two respondents reporting that they did not know whether was a staff smoking policy, one reporting that there was no policy and one reporting that there was an informal policy. This apparent lack of policy dissemination to the whole school was reinforced by one respondent who wrote of policies in general that “I have ticked a no. of ‘don’t know’ boxes simply because I am unclear whether the school does have written policies on a number of issues

raised here”, going on to imply that senior staff may be the people who know. A note was made to explore this in the interview which conformed that while staff were not allowed to smoke on the school site, policy dissemination was clearly very weak.

In School 04, several issues were identified from survey data to follow up in interviews. Two o f the main issues concerned staff smoking. One of the four survey respondents stated that staff had been known to smoke on school trips while one stated that this never happened and the other two said that they did not know whether this had ever happened. This was added as a note to follow up. Also, one respondent said that staff were allowed to smoke outside on the school promises, and three reported that staff were allowed to smoke within sight of the school, as long as it was outside the school boundary. In each of these places, one respondent reported that staff smoked in them about every day. These were also followed up in the interview.