Interview Sites

This Section discusses the sites utilised for conducting interviews. This Section begins by outlining and discussing the interview sites utilised for the research, with Section 2.5.3.1 then outlining the changes made to the interview sites during the fieldwork process. A total of seven interview sites were utilised for the purpose of this research, as outlined in Table 19 below.

103 | P a g e

Private Meeting Room – Participants’ Place of Work, North-East England

1

Private Meeting Room – Young People’s Outreach Organisation, Scotland different sites across the north east of England and the central belt of Scotland. With a total of eleven participants, the primary interview sites were private meeting rooms within University departmental premises in both Scotland and north east England, which were pre-booked prior to each interview by the researcher through administration staff working within these departments. These sites were usually available to be booked by the researcher outside of academic term-time (during June, July and August 2012) when the rooms were least required by the Universities and, as a result, the spaces were both quiet and discreet for participants.

In the case of interviews with three participants, the interview sites were sourced and booked specifically to cater for the requirements of the individual participant. Interviews with one participant (Hayley) took place in a pre-booked private meeting space within their place of employment in the north east of England as they were unable to travel to the researchers’

104 | P a g e main interview sites due to personal and work commitments. Meanwhile, two interviews with one participant (David) took place in a private meeting room within offices of the organisation in Scotland that facilitates the gender-based violence young people’s group, of which the participant was a member. This interview site was secured and booked by the researcher in liaison with the manager of the organisation and the participant. A further two interviews were conducted with one participant (Lola) who was recruited through the same gender-based violence young people’s group in Scotland. This participant, however, was unable to travel to the organisations’ offices and so requested an interview site in a city nearer to where they resided. In this instance, the interviews were scheduled during academic term-time and so the University departmental premises were unavailable. Due to this, the researcher contacted a number of organisations (such as young people’s outreach organisations and gender-based violence charities) in order to secure and book a suitable interview site.

Following contact with a number of potential sites, the researcher was referred to a young people’s outreach organisation in Scotland who provided a private meeting space for both of the interviews with Lola. Following these interviews, the organisation was unable to offer further use of their space as their private meeting spaces were in high demand from both service providers and service users.

As indicated in the above table, interviews with two participants took place in participants’

private residences and interviews with a further two participants took place in the researcher’s private residence. These participants were recruited through colleague and peer snowballing, and the participants were therefore colleagues or peers of the researcher’s academic colleagues and peers. All four participants were given the option of using a private meeting space as an interview site, such as University departmental premises. The participants opted to be interviewed at their own residence or the researcher’s residence did so due to limitations of their time, ability to travel, and comfort levels regarding participating in potentially sensitive research in an unfamiliar environment. Informed by the University Fieldwork Risk Assessment undertaken prior to the data-collection phase of the research (as outlined in Chapter 2.4), an informal risk assessment was undertaken for conducting interviews in the participants’ or researcher’s private residence with participants that are already known to colleagues or peers of the researcher. As a result of this informal risk assessment, it was decided that conducting interviews in private residences with colleagues

105 | P a g e or peers of the researcher’s colleagues or peers carried low risk, provided that the researcher carried a mobile phone and informed a colleague (such as the researcher’s supervisor) of their whereabouts when conducting interviews.

Both the Risk Assessment discussed in Chapter 2.4 and conducting informal risk assessments when required were central to making decisions regarding interview sites. In one instance, the researcher had made arrangements to meet a participant for an interview at University departmental premises in the north-east of England. This participant was recruited via a University mailing list and had stated in their initial e-mail to the researcher that they were due to leave the country for a prolonged period the day after the scheduled interview, and therefore the scheduled interview was the only opportunity to interview this participant – which generated a sense of urgency, especially given the initially low rate of participation (as discussed in Section 2.3.1). Shortly before the interview was due to begin, the participant e-mailed the researcher requesting that the researcher attend the participants’ private residence for the interview instead of the pre-arranged site of the University departmental premises. The informal risk assessment informed the researcher that as the participant had not been recruited through snowballing (via academic colleagues or peers of the researcher), it presented a higher risk for the researcher to attend the participants’ residence. As a result of the risk assessment, the researcher contacted the participant and explained that they were unable to travel to the participant’s residence for the interview due to the short-notice of their request. In this instance, conducting an informal risk assessment was invaluable when making decisions pertaining to interview sites during the fieldwork process, in order to ensure the safety and comfort of the researcher.

2.5.3.1 Changes to Interview Sites

Changes were made to the interview sites initially planned for the empirical research, which occurred in tandem with the changes to participant recruitment sites as discussed previously in Chapter 2.3.1.1. As the research initially planned to recruit the participants from four main sites, it was generally intended that the sites from which the participants were recruited would also function as interview sites (provided the organisations and institutions were able to offer their facilities for this purpose). However, as some of the primary participant

106 | P a g e recruitment sites initially planned in the research could not be secured, changes to the interview sites were necessitated, particularly the interview sites in Scotland.

The lack of main participant recruitment sites – and therefore interview sites – in Scotland presented a real challenge to the researcher in terms of locating and securing appropriate private meeting spaces for conducting the interviews. Contact was made with a number of organisations and institutions in Scotland in order to secure appropriate interview sites, the result of which being that a University, a young people’s outreach organisation and a gender-based violence organisation across two Scottish cities offered their premises for use as interview sites. However, there were limitations on the researchers’ access to these sites, with the University offering their premises only during the summer vacation period (July and August 2012) and the young people’s outreach organisation being able to offer their space for two interviews only (during March 2012). As response to the call for participants was generally low due to the issues encountered in securing participant recruitment sites (discussed in Sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.4), the interviews were arranged and conducted as and when young people expressed a desire to participate (as opposed to all of the fieldwork being conducted during a set timeframe), which necessitated a need for interview sites to be available at any point as required throughout 2012. Despite the challenges that arose in securing interview sites in Scotland, every young person who expressed an interest in participating was interviewed during the course of the empirical research.

In the case of conducting interviews with participants based in the north-east of England, regardless of the participant recruitment site the primary interview sites utilised were University departmental premises, which was a site that offered private meeting rooms and was easily bookable by the researcher. Although the sample was gathered from Universities, community groups and calls distributed by academic colleagues in the north-east of England, the majority of participants were willing and able to attend interviews in the University premises.

107 | P a g e