Demographic group selection and justification

Parents with children up to age 11 were the chosen demographic group. This group was chosen because they spend more time in the residential environment and use it extensively due to personal and social circumstance (including use of the residential environment expansively for child care duties). The rationale for choosing a group such as this is because it is believed that by studying this group, rich information regarding the way people in general use the residential environment to interact with each other will be captured (Patton, 2002). Choosing this group followed from a careful comparative analysis with other groups.

Another group which have been characterised as spending more time using the environment are the elderly and pensioners, because they are seen to have ‘free time’.

Bearing in mind that this research is about health, research work on the elderly and how their use of the built forms affects their wellbeing has been extensively carried out (Brown et al., 2008, Barnes, 2002, Gehl, 1987, Burton, 2010, Burton and Sheehan, 2010). Children are another demographic group who extensively, intuitively and innovatively, use their environment. The use of space by children and also how it affects their social health/life/development has been well researched (Corcoran et al., 2009; Kytta, 2011 and Bould, 2003). Children are creative with the way they use space and hence use spaces extensively and intensively. The meanings they attach to the use

91 of space could provide an insight into how friendly spaces could be created. So though this group have been studied, there might still be scope for further studies on how children use their environment. However, consideration was given to the stringent ethical procedures that accompanied the studying of this demographic group. In considering all these, parents with aged 0-11 years were chosen instead. As at this current time, it is not yet known if any study has examined residential space use by this specific group, i.e. ‘parents’ as a sample and particularly how the residential built layout impacts on positive interaction which is health enhancing (mental wellbeing or happiness).

There is the argument that to justify a sample means knowing all there is to know about the universe, and this is impossible (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). Despite this, it was imperative to select a group from which authentic space use information could be derived. One might argue that the outcome of the research will then be beneficial only to this group, because as Yancey (1972) warns no one architectural style will have the same effect on all social groups. Choosing carefully however, allows for the outcome of the research to be useful to an extent in designing residential environments in planning practice.

Recruitment Process

30 individuals were recruited for the study and all of them are parents and each individual was from a different household. A sample of 30 plus was proposed with an average of 7 to 8 cases being studied for each dwelling type (semi-detached, terrace, 4-in-a-block and tenements). See chapter 6, table 6.2 showing sample proportions for each house type across the two study areas so in effect, 30 different dwellings were investigated across the two study areas. For all the dwellings, different blocks were looked at across the two areas. It is important to note that there was no intention to recruit numbers in order to strive for representativeness or statistical robustness and significance, because this is not feasible in a qualitative study. However it was important to achieve data saturation in order to understand space use behaviour within residential environments.

92 The respondents were contacted or collected using a number of mediums. Flyers were made at the initial stage to invite parents to take part in the study. Flyers were left at supermarkets, all nurseries, toddler groups, primary schools with permission from head teachers, community centres and libraries within the Currie and Restalrig case study areas. Flyers were also handed to parents at school gates, at supermarkets and on local streets as well as put in letter boxes in the study areas. The letter box approach was used on several occasions for these dwellings with the attempt to recruit participants.

Information sharing media were also used in the recruitment process. The website called

‘Netmums’ was also used to advertise the study and recruit participants¹⁴. Local newspapers, namely ‘Speaker’ and ‘Currie News’ newsletters were contacted and asked to advertise the study. The snowballing recruitment technique was also adopted at a point in time. A limited number of participants (4) were recruited via this method. This was useful so as not to affect the information gathered and the outcome of the analysis.

Some participants mentioned people they casually knew who fit the selection criteria and not necessarily friends they interact with. The snow balling method was used in instances where certain dwellings were under represented. Participants were asked if they knew of parents living in those dwelling types who might be interested in taking part in the study. All dwelling types (the four named) had a good representation from all the recruitment sources (see chapter 6, table 6.2). It may be argued that being able to find participants living within all the dwelling types shows, how successful the recruitment method was. The most successful recruitment method was the use of flyers to advertise for participants.

Participants were given a £15 shopping voucher for taking part in the study. Apart from being a thank you gesture, the £15 could also be described as an incentive as this was advertised on the recruitment flyer (see Appendix D). There is a contentious and also ethical issue concerning the giving of incentives in research. Some see it as a way to

‘buy’ research participants or give them a reason to take part in your research, i.e. an

‘undue influence or coercive offer’ (Grant and Sugarman, 2004). Incentives can be problematic when the participants are: in a vulnerable position and have to rely on these incentives; are hard to reach groups who will only part take in research where incentives are offered; are persuaded with the incentives to partake in the research and as a

14 This website is made up of a group of mothers who shares common interest about childcare and motherhood. http://www.netmums.com/.

93 standard to extracting information from them, i.e. bribery (Grant and Sugarman, 2004).

In the case of the latter, it becomes a power tool for manipulation. On the other hand, it is considered to be innocuous and is just a way of appreciating the time participants give to take part in your research. Incentives should not be seen as benefits but as a compensatory measure for the participant’s time and inconvenience. To enforce this compensatory role, the incentive should not be over emphasized in the recruitment material Frederick (2009). In the case of this research study, the incentive was used as a way of appreciating the time¹⁵ and commitment given to the research by participants. A good amount of information, i.e. interview data, visual cognitive data and an activity diary were asked of the participants who as parents may be busy with childcare duties.

Such commitment had to be rewarded somehow. Some participants however turned down the incentives because they were simply interested in the research topic and just wanted to take part.