3.3.2.7 Data Verification
The validity of the meanings being ascribed to qualitative data had to be tested for robustness and authenticity to make the step from the interview story to research output (Miles et al., 2014). Therefore, a research active colleague, who is also a qualitative researcher, was asked to assist in a verification step. An outline of the research was provided to the reviewer along with the methodology adopted, the methods used and all 26 transcripts. Brief outlines of each
participant were given using the background data from the online survey. The reviewer selected eight transcripts to use for the review; these are listed in Appendix D. The first cycle coding chart in Figure 3.2 was provided and the rationale for descriptive coding and the definition of each of the child codes was provided. The reviewer reviewed the transcripts in light of the coding in order to review what had, or had not, been coded and against what code, the process of code evolution, discussing them in a face-to-face meeting. For example, the code ‘Time for the Self’ was specifically explored with regard to whether this might be an instinctive mindfulness and whether further analysis of the transcripts in
Page 91
this area might be useful. This was later done. The reviewer also questioned gaps, for example, whether data had been collected on school type and whether students taking gap years or delaying entry to university had been identified in order to explore whether there might have been an impact on connectedness. As a result, aggregate school type data were later collected but it was not practical to collect data on which students had delayed entry or why, because, by the time the verification was being done, the finalists had left and second years were entering their placements.
3.4 Reflections and Ethical Considerations
This section reflects, firstly, upon the chosen approach and the researcher’s position in choosing this research methodology and, secondly, upon the ethical considerations of the research.
3.4.1 Reflections upon the Chosen Approach
A non-positivist approach has the disadvantage that the research cannot be generalised. The core research – the interview – was directed towards a better understanding of well-being in undergraduates and the depth of the data was more important than its breadth. However, the online survey, originally conceived as only a sampling tool, but with 164 respondents, provided an opportunity to consider two things. Firstly, there were data in the online survey which related to interviewees which could be extracted by case, for example, whether their parents were graduates, and it could be added to each case in the research. Secondly, these scales could be considered for use in a more generalised way, by the business school, to perhaps assess well-being, because the online survey had taken a more positivist stance and had a large proportion of respondents. The online data were added into each case and the wider consideration of the possibilities for the scales was used to address Research Question Three of the present study.
Students who left the university between the online survey and the interviews and students who chose not to participate in the online survey were considered. Five
Page 92
out of the 33 Lowers had left the university between the autumn and spring terms. The Lowers being interviewed were, therefore, only the Lowers who had
persisted. The second consideration was that students’ ability to take part, their willingness or ability to communicate effectively, was key to the study. In the analysis, the challenges for students with less fluent language skills came to be fully appreciated and, as with all research, the students who chose not to complete an online survey because they may not have wished to go on to be interviewed might have been the most informative study cases.
3.4.2 Reflecting upon Power and Politics in the Interviews
Any researcher’s beliefs, values, assumptions, previous experiences and professional views not only influence the design of the research but guide its conduct and interpretation (L. Cohen et al., 2011). Researchers are inextricably linked to the subjects of the research and may well interact with participants as the facilitator (Creswell, 2003). As a trained personal tutor, the researcher was used to communicating effectively and comfortably with similar aged undergraduates and was therefore able to listen, seek clarification, empathise and communicate, using the credentials of an insider, to support an effective qualitative approach. It may be argued that, being in this position, equipped with pertinent conversational and social skills, is a benefit and leads to more interesting and perhaps deeper research (Buchanan & Bryman, 2009). Conversely, existing beliefs and assumptions about the subjects from previous interactions with similar subjects would influence the researcher’s objectivity (Tarling, 2006), and such activity is not without ethical challenges because inviting and encouraging disclosure could run the risk of participant exploitation (Edwards & Holland, 2013).
Asymmetries of power exist in the interview process in conscious and
unconscious ways in qualitative interviews (Edwards & Holland, 2013) and the interviewer’s ability to generate an atmosphere of openness is accompanied by an ethical responsibility. The interview drew out details of interviewees’ friendships and feelings of belonging. Interviewees’ feelings of isolation, for example, might be heightened by discussing them. Conversely, the participant also had power –
Page 93
the power of their knowledge – and controlled what to reveal of themselves, having assessed the environment and circumstances of any revelations. Students could choose to deny or retain information and present it in any way they perceived it or wished it to be perceived.
The characteristics of the interview location were evaluated because it would affect the power and positionality of participant (Elwood & Martin, 2000). The interviews took place in the researcher’s office but, a small round table within the office, as opposed to a desk, was used for the discussions. Steps were taken to ensure privacy and to eliminate interruptions by using a ‘Do not disturb’ sign on the door. The researcher ensured that, should the interview exceed its planned time, an additional time buffer was placed in the researcher’s diary to facilitate any further post-interview discussion or support. The information sheet and the consent form were discussed briefly with the interviewee. Once they had signed the form, the interviewee was shown how to know when they were being recorded (a small light on the recording device) and the researcher announced when the device was being turned on and when it was being turned off. After the recording device was turned off, each participant was asked if s/he was satisfied with the conduct of the interview and asked if s/he wanted to ask anything further.
3.4.3 Ethical Safeguards for the Research
The present study was conducted only after formal ethical approval had been granted by the university based upon the Ethical Approval Form in Appendix A. Most importantly, the research instruments of the study were all chosen to avoid any clinically-based scales or measures relating to mental ill health because they should only be used by trained practitioners. Informed consent is founded upon the principles of freedom and self-determination (L. Cohen et al., 2011) and was especially important for the purposes of the present study because it was easily possible that it might be stressful for participants to discuss relationships. Two separate information sheets, to enable informed consent, were used: one at the start of the online survey, where it was impossible to complete the survey unless consent was given; and a second for the face-to-face interviews, where a signature
Page 94
was required. A cut-off date for withdrawal was set for six weeks after the
interviews and the date was reiterated in both the follow-up email after the online survey and the interview thanking participants. Confidentiality safeguards were built in to all administrative processes. Issues such as where the materials might be stored, who had access to them and for what period were all outlined in the information sheets and were strictly adhered to. Anonymity could not be offered because the students needed to be identifiable for the two different stages of the research.
It was standard practice for the researcher to be a personal tutor to a number of undergraduates in the business school and this was considered a conflict of
interest. Fortunately, all the researcher’s undergraduate students had graduated the previous summer and so none lost their personal tutor and the researcher was allocated only postgraduate personal tutees for the academic year of the data collection. The second issue concerned the potential for interviewees to become distressed when disclosing information and reflecting on personal friendships, as identified earlier. Advice from the Head of Student Well-being at the university – a qualified counsellor – was sought. The well-being service agreed that, should any student raise a personal issue which was outside the scope of the interview, the student could be referred directly to the well-being service by the researcher, providing that appropriate permission had been obtained from the student. This did become necessary during the research and three students were individually referred, with others being informed or reminded of the service provision.
Lastly, the Ethical Approval Form clearly defined the extrinsic rewards for participants giving their time to the survey. Students may currently be considered as an over surveyed group, suffering from survey fatigue at every level from module to programme to National Student Surveys. Offering a single extrinsic reward to attract participants to Stage One signified the value of their input, and giving each interviewee a voucher for their interview time signified the value placed on their time. Students were also made aware that, by participating in the research, the intrinsic reward of potentially helping other students who followed them into the university might also accrue.
Page 95 3.5 Summary
This chapter set out the methodology and philosophical framework for the study, the purpose of the study, the research questions, the method of enquiry, the research plan and the sampling approach. The second part presented: the cross sectional, two-step mixed method used to conduct the study; the online survey, initially to obtain data for purposeful sampling; and the semi-structured interviews to explore students’ connectedness lifecycle in depth and to compare the
characteristics and connectedness activity of students from the Uppers cluster to that of students from the Lowers cluster. The third part reflected upon the power and politics of the participants’ positions and the ethical considerations of the study.
Page 96