Educational Intervention and ‘Focus Groups’

As has already been mentioned, this study fell into two separate stages. The first addressed the first three research objectives and provided the data required to carry out the second. Having analysed the data from the interviews of the twelve participants who had experienced early pregnancy loss, this was then presented to three groups of ministers as an educational intervention/resource for their ministry. This was done through the vehicle of ministers fraternals. It followed the plan as per Appendix 12 and had as its aim: to learn of current practice, educate about the need for support and explore how current practice may now change. In order to facilitate these aims I identified three outcomes for each session:

• ministers should become more aware of the frequency of early miscarriage.

• ministers should recognise the support needed following early miscarriage.

• ministers should reflect on their future practice in light of what has been learned.

In the context of my research, the fraternals functioned as ‘focus groups’ in that I asked members to reflect upon their current practice and the impact of my educational intervention. I also asked members if they were motivated to

change their current methods of supporting grieving families in the light of what they had encountered and learned.

Focus groups are considered a socially orientated process and a, “form of group interview that capitalizes on communication between the research participants in order to generate data” (Kitzinger 1995, 299). A focus group generally consists of seven to 12 individuals who share certain characteristics relevant to the focus of the study (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Focus group interviews are becoming increasingly popular within qualitative research as they explore what individuals believe or feel in addition to why they behave in the way they do (Rabiee 2004, 655). Focus group research is quite simply a way of collecting data by utilising a small group in discussion which is focused around a particular topic or set of issues (Wilkinson 2004, 177). Focus groups are often supportive by nature, particularly when they are composed of people with similar concerns. Rosaline Barbour indicates that such groups offer participants a relatively safe

environment in which to share their experiences and also address any power imbalance between the researcher and the participant by taking advantage of the naturally occurring peer group (2005, 743). The focus group sessions were approached using the same ethical principles as per the interviews and a

‘Research Ethics Risk Assessment and Management Plan’ was prepared for them (See Appendix 11).

The whole educational intervention session was audio recorded, not just those parts where participants were specifically asked to contribute, as questions or comments at other times would constitute data in their own right. It was also useful to issue an evaluation form which provided me with guidance, suggestions

and perhaps more data which would assist in presenting future educational interventions.⁵¹ In designing the form, I kept in mind that this was an evaluation of the session and of whether the learning outcomes had been met. Francis Quinn and Suzanne Hughes (2007, 185) are of the view that learning outcomes and assessment of learning are inextricably linked, in that assessment normally requires the student to demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes. To do this using little time after a short session required the evaluation form to be easy to answer, as a lengthy questionnaire with open questions would take too long to complete, may not get the attention it deserves, and be difficult to analyse (Reece and Walker 2007, 413). In addition, I was aware that if the participants’ expectations of what it was they were being invited to participate in had not been met, it would be useful to have feedback as to why not. This would serve as an indicator that my communication, in advance, was lacking.

An opportunity was also given for general feedback. At the end of the evaluation form, I left space for any other comments the participants felt would be helpful for the planning and delivery of such a session to future groups.

Like the one to one interviews, the data generated by the focus groups were transcribed and analysed. This proved to be very time consuming, and with the benefit of hindsight it would have been beneficial to have someone to moderate the group sessions allowing me to concentrate on taking notes while watching the dynamics of the interactions between group members. Indeed, the data gathering process would have been much improved if the sessions had been video recorded as it proved very difficult to adequately note who was speaking at any given time as well as watching for body language cues.

According to Krueger (1994, 77), rich data can only be generated if individuals within the group are prepared to engage fully. To this end, he advocates the use of homogenous groups. This was the case for this research study as the focus groups members were all parish ministers from within a limited geographical setting, and who were known to each other. They consisted of varying levels of

51 See Chapter 4 and Appendix 18.

experience in ministry, were of mixed ages and sexes. However, on average two thirds of the fraternal members were female. This raised the question as to why?

Even though there is an increasing number of women entrants into ministry (now making up more than half), there is still a historical predominance of male ministers. Were male ministers disinclined to take part? Did they view the topic under discussion as something not relevant to them? This would take further research to identify the reasons. However, it was disappointing as this research study was about improving one’s practice as a minister and being better

equipped to offer a more appropriate pastoral response.

Another disappointment within this stage of the research was the difficulty of getting ministers’ fraternals to agree to take part. I had initially set out to use six fraternals to present my educational intervention. Contact was made via my local Presbytery which has eleven fraternals within its bounds. Despite there being an initial positive response, only one actually agreed to take part. I made direct contact with colleagues in other geographical areas with whom I have a personal relationship to ask if they would arrange for their fraternal to take part. This resulted in two other groups being arranged. One of these groups consisted of several students in training for the ministry. The difficulty in obtaining six focus groups was personally disappointing in that colleagues were not prepared to help with my research, while at the same time learning

something that may be beneficial to their ministry. The lack of clergy response in relation to miscarriage research was commented on by Puneet Singh, Kearsley Stewart and Scott Moses who were examining the role of ritual via a mailed survey and received a response rate of only 4.6% (2004, 52).⁵²

Despite setting out to present to six fraternals, after discussion with my

supervisor and extending my request to three other Presbytery areas without a positive response, we agreed to settle with three.

52 Singh, Stewart and Moses quote Therese Baker who claims that a mail-in survey would typically have a 50% response rate, improving to 70% with rigorous follow-up (1999, 216). Their own response rate was 4.6% from 500 surveys issued with follow ups.

2.2.10 Section Summary

In summary, this section has reviewed the methods employed and their suitability for allowing the participants an opportunity to tell their story.