Focus groups

The investigator conducted focus groups to obtain an internal perspective on what factors contribute to employee exercise participation at the selected corporate fitness centre. The internal perspective referred to employees’ subjective lived experiences of constraints, negotiation, and motives to participate in exercise in the corporate fitness centre (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001). The literature review revealed a paucity of qualitative information on employee exercise participation, which encouraged the use of focus groups to fill this research gap.

A focus group approach is a useful method for exploratory studies in a range of contexts, such as education, health, policy, and sociology (e.g. Brinkmann, 2013; Bryman, 2012; Donley, 2012). Focus group participants discuss phenomenon and bounce their ideas from one participant to another (Minichiello et al., 2008). This unique feature enables participants to provide their own views and to create a diversity of perspectives that enhance the understanding of the focus group topic (Brinkmann, 2013). The rich understandings subsequently make focus groups suitable “for exploratory studies in little known domains” (Brinkmann, 2013, p. 26).

Focus groups have several valuable strengths that contribute to qualitative research outcomes (e.g. Donley, 2012; Minichiello et al., 2008; Patton, 2002). Cost-effectiveness is a strength, as data accumulates quickly, and is therefore beneficial for researchers under time pressure constraints (Minichiello et al., 2008; Patton, 2002). Group participants view phenomena differently, and these different views enable participants to discuss similarities and differences in their experiences, which improves understanding on the topic and the overall data quality (Minichiello et al., 2008; Patton, 2002). Focus groups are typically enjoyable experiences, which assist participants to create a unique group dynamic that facilitates data generation (Donley, 2012; Patton, 2002). These salient strengths encouraged the investigator to use focus groups as a key method to examine what factors contribute to employee exercise participation in corporate fitness centres.

Focus groups, however, are not without limitations (e.g Bryman, 2012; Patton, 2002). The time associated to transcription is a limitation, considering that the quick generation of data results in additional time resources to transcribe the data (Bryman, 2012). Furthermore, a single participant could dominate the discussions, where participants with strong views begin discussion and might not enable other participants to enter the conversation to provide either similar or differing views. This dominance focuses data to a single, or limited number of participants (Patton, 2002). Moreover, scheduling is another focus group weakness, given that arranging a specific time and meeting place for individuals is problematic and that everyone is on different schedules and have variable commitments (Donley, 2012). The three weaknesses require safeguards to maximise data generation.

The investigator incorporated different strategies to safeguard against limitations. The investigator commenced data transcription at the completion of each focus group to ensure time efficiency. Additionally, the investigator advanced his skills and attended focus group workshops to learn how to manage dominant participants. Finally, in terms of time scheduling,

there was ample forewarning to participants via the Facilitator when scheduling the focus group (refer to section 4.2.4.3). These safeguards helped to minimise the inherent limitation of focus groups.

In conclusion, the focus group is a commonly used data collection method in a range of social science contexts (Donley, 2012). The focus group provides rich detail about the lived experiences of phenomenon (Patton, 2002), and specifically fills a knowledge gap in relation to what factors contribute to employee exercise participation in corporate fitness centres. While limitations reduce focus group effectiveness, safeguards were employed to mitigate against the negative influences.

4.2.4.1 Focus group schedule.

The focus group schedule provided the investigator with an orientation and uniformity in data collection between each group session (e.g. Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015; Minichiello et al., 2008) (refer to Appendix E). The schedule comprised of five main questions. Question one eased participants into discussion, and to initially develop a group dynamic (Donley, 2012; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015) by inquiring about their thoughts on exercise, defined as “planned, structured, and repetitive” (Scott Lyons et al., 2016) physical activity to improve and maintain physical fitness.

Discussions segued from exercise into their perspectives as to what motivates their exercise participation in the corporate fitness centre. This was a positive inquiry to reinforce group dynamics in preparation for the negative question (Minichiello et al., 2008). This corresponded with the selective core code of motivation, which was informed by self- determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Probing questions were used to ascertain whether exercise participation in the corporate fitness centre was underpinned by extrinsic motivation or autonomy, with these questions aligning with external regulation, introjected regulation,

identified regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation axial codes (Biddle et al., 2015).

The next question was the negative inquiry on constraint to participation. Probing questions were prepared to determine whether constraints developed at either intrapersonal, interpersonal, or structural levels (Crawford et al., 1991). This was an effective transition into the next question on negotiation, as constraints are known to initiate negotiation strategies in corporate fitness centre contexts (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001). The investigator then further probed for cognitive and behavioural strategies as per negotiation theory (Jackson et al., 1993).

The concluding question inquired about other potential factors that contribute to exercise participation in the corporate fitness centre. The purpose was to provide participants a final opportunity to consider other factors that were previously undiscussed (Minichiello et al., 2008).

4.2.4.2 Sample size.

There are a range perspectives about recommended participant numbers per focus group (e.g. Bryman, 2012; Minichiello et al., 2008). Some researchers (e.g. Donley, 2012; Minichiello et al., 2008; Patton, 2002) recommend between six and 12 participants as ideal to generate rich data. Other researchers, however, suggest smaller focus groups, consisting of either three or four participants are beneficial for filtering voices during transcription, and when the researcher is an inexperienced moderator (Brinkmann, 2013). This guidance influenced the investigator’s sample size decision for two reasons. First, the researcher decided to keep focus groups to four to six participants, due to the investigator being new to focus group moderation. Second, this group size was a good compromise between the investigator’s experiences and sufficient data generation.

The recommended number of focus groups that are needed to generate valid and reliable data is ambiguous in the literature. Some researchers suggests conducting at least six focus groups to generate sufficient data (Minichiello et al., 2008). By contrast, other researchers indicate that focus groups should be continually conducted until thematic saturation. Thematic saturation is imminent when the moderator anticipates responses (Bryman, 2012). The researcher determined that obtaining enough participants to conduct at least six focus groups would be challenging, due to employee availability as described in section 4.2.4. Therefore, the researcher decided to conduct either up to six focus groups (Minichiello et al., 2008), or to continue until thematic saturation (Bryman, 2012) – which ever strategy was achieved first.

4.2.4.3 Data collection.

Data collection was a four-step process as per the Victoria University ethics protocol (HRE16-176). Step-one involved notifying, via email, the Facilitator that focus groups were ready to commence. The correspondence included emailing the Facilitator the focus group information pack (see Appendix F). The focus group information pack contained the following: an invitation and reminder email templates sent from the facilitator to employees, and an information to participants form and a consent form.

Step-two involved the Facilitator sending email correspondences to all organisational employees and contractors, regardless of either employee type or seniority level. The Facilitator used the email templates provided in step-one to invite employees into this research. The email also contained the information to participants and consent forms. Interested participants responded to the Facilitator, at which time, the Facilitator organised the timing and location at the worksite for each focus group.

Step-three involved gaining access to the organisation. The Facilitator organised site access for the investigator on three separate occasions, which involved notifying the security

staff of the investigator’s arrival and arranging a temporary identification card to enable access throughout the worksite. Step-four involved the investigator receiving the signed consent forms either via email or in hard-copy, prior to focus group commencement. Focus groups were digitally recorded, and the investigator transcribed each focus group verbatim.

Step-five involved data analysis (refer to section 4.2.2.2). Data analysis commenced after the investigator transcribed the first focus group and uploaded the data to QSR Nvivo Version 11. The focus group data collection procedures are illustrated in Figure 15. After focus group data analysis, the quantitative phase commenced.

1. Notify the Facilitator

2. The Facilitator emails employees

3. Organise site access

4. Receive consent forms

5. Data analysis