Focus groups do not provide the detailed exploration of personal experience available in individual interviews and any intimacy could be undermined by group
117
dynamics, particularly in a work-base context. There is also the potential for group
conformity leading to a reduction in diversity of ideas (Smith, 2004). Due regard was given to pressures on staff time and the need to facilitate the willingness of the school to
participate in the research, however. The ARB was under-staffed and staff members had no non-contact time available to be interviewed individually. (It had been noted that the teaching assistants were not paid to attend staff meetings, and were, therefore absent).
The choice of a focus group for ARB staff was also aimed to facilitate both new thinking about the topic via group dynamics, and more in-depth discussion from different perspectives as the CYP has access to more than one member of staff (Cresswell, 2013). One of the strengths of a focus group approach is the facilitation of interactive discussion and the sharing of perspectives. A semi-structured schedule was followed to ensure that the data generated was able to answer the research questions.
Morgan (1997) advised that, practically, a range of 6 – 10 participants is advisable, as below six it can be difficult to sustain discussion. Whilst there were only four staff members participating in the research, all of whom agreeing to be in the Focus group, sustaining discussion was not a problem. It was noted that the Head of Unit and one of the teaching assistants were far more vocal than the other two members of staff, such that the quieter two needed some encouragement to contribute, however. This provided a useful insight into staff group dynamics. The researcher acted as moderator and the discussions were audio recorded.
Data Analysis Methods
The focus of data analysis was to identify and explicate 1) the significant outcomes associated with the sensory intelligence intervention and, 2) the elements of the physical and social structure and relevant contextual factors that interacted to generate the
mechanisms to produce these outcomes. By focussing on the significant outcomes, it is possible to avoid getting overwhelmed by the data, whilst enabling the researcher to unearth evidence of the causal chain underlying the process, leading to the observed
outcomes, as perceived by the participants. As Sayer (1992) indicated, the aim is to explain what it is about the structures operating in that particular setting, which produce the
118
The data set for each child consisted of the following: • Age of child and formal diagnosis.
• Adolescent-Adult Sensory Profile analysis. • Sensory Profile Checklist Revised analysis. • Sensory Matrix analysis.
• Parent interview. • Child interview.
• Staff focus group interview. • Child review product.
• Formative and summative evaluation comments noted from staff, child, and/or parent (s) relating to the individual child incorporated in ‘pen pictures’.
• Field notes.
Analysis of interview data was initially conducted holistically, using Thematic Analysis, to identify main and sub-themes regarding the multiple perceptions of the
Sensory Intelligence programme in the ARB. This incorporated analysis of themes relating to individual children to compare and contrast relative benefits and unintended
consequences in the light of their individual profiles, and to aid the generation of working hypotheses regarding the underlying mechanisms involved. The formulation of case study ‘pen pictures’ for each child were used to assist in this process.
Table 26 provides an outline of the sources of data and the data analysis methods used to address each research question.
Table 26
Research Questions, Data Gathering and Analysis Methods.
Research Questions Data gathering Data analysis methods PRIMARY:
What C-M-O configurations are required for the successful implementation of the
programme in this context. Intervention content Field notes Child interviews Parental interviews Staff focus group.
Thematic analysis and interrogation of the literature.
119
CONTINUATION: Table 26
Research Questions, Data Gathering and Analysis Methods.
Research Questions Data gathering Data analysis methods SECONDARY:
What are the sensory-perceptual profiles of the children attending a
secondary ARB? AASP SPCR Sensory Matrix Acquisition of: Standardised scores Non-standardised scores Non-standardised scores
What are the potential benefits and limitations of the ‘Sensory Intelligence’ approach for this population?
Field notes Child interviews Parental interviews Staff focus group
Case Study ‘pen pictures’.
Thematic analysis
Which sensory-perceptual profiles, if any, might benefit most from the ‘Sensory Intelligence’ approach? AASP SPCR Sensory Matrix Field notes Child interviews Parental interviews Staff focus group
Case Study ‘pen pictures’. Acquisition of: Standardised scores Non-standardised scores Non-standardised scores Thematic Analysis
What is the impact on the students of the ‘Sensory Intelligence’ approach?
Field notes Child interviews Parental interviews Staff focus group
Case Study ‘pen pictures’
Thematic Analysis
What is the impact of parental involvement?
Field notes Child interviews Parental interviews Staff focus group
Case Study ‘pen pictures’
120
CONTINUATION: Table 26
Research Questions, Data Gathering and Analysis Methods.
Research Questions Data gathering Data analysis methods Can this intervention be delivered
effectively to children in Years 7 – 11 attending an ARB?
Field notes Child interviews Parental interviews Staff focus group
Case Study ‘pen pictures’
Thematic Analysis
What do the participants suggest could be improvements to the ‘Sensory intelligence’ intervention programme?
Field notes Child interviews Parental interviews Staff focus group
Case Study ‘pen pictures’
Thematic Analysis