Focus Groups

A total of 6 focus groups, with 29 participants, were conducted across the thesis (see Table 3.2 for details on who took part in each focus group), and were used in data collection points 2, 3, 4, and 11 (see Appendix H). Focus groups lasted between 43 and 70 minutes (x_̅ = 54.3 SD ± 8.9). A research focus group is defined as an ‘interview with a small group of relatively similar people on a specific topic of interest’ (Carey, Asbury & Tolich, 2012). Using a focus group methodology has a number of advantages. First, the type and range of data generated through the social interaction of the group are often more profound and richer than those obtained from one-to-one interviews (Thomas, MacMillan, McColl, Hale, & Bond, 1995). Patton (2015) highlights that focus groups are cost-effective data collection, and have the possibility to highlight diverse perspectives and differences of opinion. A further

advantage is that collecting research via a focus group methodology allows for multiple perspectives rooted within the context to explore and illustrate the problem of interest (Creswell, 2013; Lewis & McNaughton Nicholls, 2014).

As the current research focused on understanding the perceptions and experiences of UK university student-athletes, and the views of stakeholders, focus groups allowed an exploration of participants’ thoughts and opinions. Collecting data from stakeholders and athletes via this method allowed for different perspectives from different roles and points of view to be examined. For example, the head football coach had a more direct form of

interaction with transitioning student-athletes than the director of sport does, who oversees the roles of staff supporting this process. This difference in level of contact means that they may have had different perspectives on the same process, and may give a greater overall

understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Additionally, the interactions and learnings in the group can constitute learning among the participants, and there is possibility to engage in problem solving (Wiebeck & Dahlgren, 2007). This problem solving occurred in the current study, because during the focus groups, stakeholders began discussing how they could improve transition experiences for student-athletes.

3.3.3.1 Focus group interview schedule detail. A total of 4 focus group schedules were created for the focus groups with student-athletes (n=1) and stakeholders (n=3). Questions across all focus groups were related to Wylleman and colleagues (2013) holistic athletic career model, Stambulova’s (2003) athletic career transition model, and previous literature on student-athlete transitions (e.g., MacNamara & Collins, 2010; Fuller, 2014). At the beginning of the focus groups with student-athletes, each participant was asked to provide relevant contextual information (e.g., their age, sport, academic course, year of study, length

Table 3.2.

Focus Group Participant Information.

of time competing in sport, sporting level). The student-athlete interview schedule focused on the transition into university, and included questions such as; “what do you feel are some of the challenges you faced immediately following the transition to university?” Stakeholder focus group interview schedules began by asking participants to describe their roles and how long they had either been supporting student-athletes or had a role that involves providing provision to student-athletes. Stakeholder focus groups included: (a) athlete support staff - focus on the transition into university (e.g., “what do you currently do to help facilitate a smooth transition for student-athletes into university?”), (b) Academic staff - focus on the transition into university (e.g., “do you have contact with student-athletes before they make the transition to university?”), and (c) Athlete support staff - focus on the transition out of

Focus group Number of

participants

Participant information

Athlete support staff 6 Director of sport, performance sport manager, sport scholarship manager, strength and conditioning coach, 2x head coaches.

Athlete support staff 6 Sport scholarship manager, 2 x head coaches, student development and activities manager, student sport group co-ordinator, vice president of activities in the student union. Athlete support staff 7 Director of sport, performance sport manager,

sport scholarship manager, strength and conditioning coach, 3x head coaches, coaching and competitions manager. Academic Staff 3 2x lecturers in exercise physiology, 1x

lecturer in sport psychology.

Student-athletes 3 2x first year student-athletes, 1x postgraduate student-athlete.

Student-athletes 4 2x second year student-athletes, 2x postgraduate student-athletes.

university (“what skills do you perceive that student-athletes need to successfully adapt to the transition out of university?”).

Although focus groups were used within the current thesis, there are some limitations to this method that ought to be acknowledged. First, Patton (2015) discussed that facilitating and conducting a focus group requires group process skill that is beyond simply asking

questions. The moderator must manage the interview so that it is not dominated by one or two people and all participates have the opportunity to share their views (Patton, 2015). To

improve my skills at conducting focus groups, I conducted a pilot focus group at my table tennis club with four county-level athletes. During this pilot focus group, I recognised that some of the members taking part were not contributing as much as others. To combat this, I actively asked questions to these members when they had not contributed for a while. By doing so, I gained experience of facilitating a focus group and was able to bring these skills into play when conducting the groups for the current thesis. A further limitation is that the focus group is beneficial for the identification of major themes but not so much for the micro- analysis of subtle differences (Krueger, 1994). To combat this limitation, I used two one-off semi-structured interviews (outlined above) to discuss in detail some of the major themes that emerged from the focus groups. Finally, focus groups typically have the disadvantage of taking place outside the natural settings where social interactions normally occur (Madriz, 2000). Although difficult to entirely eliminate this limitation, efforts were made to conduct the focus groups in settings that were familiar to the participants. For example, the athlete support staff focus groups were conducted in a room within the sports centre that they work, and the academic staff focus group was conducted within a teaching room.