Issues and considerations

3.6.1 Gaining access and ethical issues

The research was designed in accordance with the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Framework for Research Ethics (2010) and the British Educational Research Association (BERA) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (2011). The design also passed the requirements of the School of Geography Ethics Officer and the School of Education Ethics Committee at University of Nottingham. All three participating schools were asked about their individual ethics procedure. If deemed necessary by the school, each pupil selected to participate in the focus groups, and a parent or guardian of each, would have been given a consent form to sign along with a participant information sheet. In fact, none of the schools required this step to be taken as the teachers and head teachers confirmed that general

109

parental consent was gained at the start of the school year for this type of situation. I wrote text to be placed in the school newsletter ahead of data collection taking place inviting parents or guardians to contact me with any questions. I collected signed class teacher consent forms as well as head teacher consent forms (Appendix A) (as all teachers engaged with as part of the research process are deemed participants by BERA), and teachers were informed that they could opt out of the research at any time prior to thesis submission.

Children were not taken out of the school environment to participate in the research, and I signed in and out of the school on entry and exit. On most occasions, a teacher was present with me or in a room next door, but having gained CRB clearance (which was checked by each school) I was allowed to talk to the children unsupervised within the research process. There was no risk of physical harm, and any other potential risks were only those that children are normally exposed to during the school day. The topics discussed in the focus groups and lessons were not sensitive, although I acknowledge that discussions which touched upon showering and bathing, or flushing the toilet, had the potential to make pupils uncomfortable, and where I sensed this was the case I moved conversation along. An example is discussed in Section 3.6.3. The questionnaire was anonymous and questions were not of a sensitive nature, although again bathing habits were touched upon, but a note at the beginning of the questionnaire asked the pupil to skip any questions they did not wish to answer. I reiterated this verbally upon introducing myself to the classes as I recognise pupils may view a questionnaire in a similar manner to schoolwork, which they could feel must be completed. A brief description of the research was provided along with the conditions under which data will be managed. If, after reading this, the participant went on to fill in the questionnaire, their consent was implied. Participants were also informed that they could opt out of the research at any time prior to thesis submission.

110

All data relating to minors was kept anonymous, and adults’ names were removed from the final thesis and any material seen by people other than the PhD supervisors. No financial compensation was given, in order to ensure that participants did not feel encouraged to give certain responses to questions. However, each student taking part in the focus groups was given a certificate and a small reward (University of Nottingham stationary) to thank them for their participation.

3.6.2 My role as the researcher

I was introduced to each class by their geography teacher as a PhD student carrying out research about water. The way the pupils viewed me seemed to depend upon many factors. The Chalksmere College students seemed marginally intimidated and concerned about giving the wrong answers. They tended towards quoting from their geography lessons and were not keen to ‘open up’. On the other hand, the Braveley School pupils were generally very confident and chatty. The Alfon School pupils were quieter but once they were doing an activity, were easier to engage with and did not seem to be concerned about the answers they gave.

Hennessy and Heary (2005) recommend that the researcher makes clear their role is not that of discipline but to hear about what the children think. Several authors recommend using one’s first name with young people in order to separate themselves from the teacher (e.g. Mauthner, 1997, Gallagher, 2009). However, this was difficult when a teacher or pupil would call me “Miss”, particularly at Alfon School. This was also the school where I was asked to help with some of the lessons rather than simply observe them, which placed me into a role of teaching assistant rather than purely a researcher. It is essential to consider that measurement is a change agent, and it is very likely that me sitting in the classroom will have had an effect on the experience. In particular at Alfon School, due to the layout and capacity of the classroom it was necessary for me to sit at the front, constantly in the

111

view of the pupils. At Braveley School and Chalksmere College I could sit at the back and became a much less visible observer of the lesson. Particularly in the focus groups, there was potential for the skewing of attitudes towards that which is seen as ‘good’ behaviour, which I as the researcher may have unintentionally encouraged through my responses or the questions I posed. Students may have then found it difficult to express a view which goes against this. On the other hand, younger pupils interviewed in some cases seemed to have a tendency to boast about their or their family’s water consumption, potentially promoting one-upmanship. Indeed, while there were a number of benefits to the focus group approach, a downside is that schools are a place where young people’s behaviour and schedule is managed by adults. For this reason, I was likely to be perceived as someone in control of the situation (Krueger and Casey, 2000). It is likely that this would have increased the children’s propensity to try to give the ‘right’ answers.

3.6.3 Focus group dynamics

Only two students attended focus group 2 at Chalksmere College, so the discussion took on much more of an interview format, as is recommended by Robinson (2012) for this kind of unanticipated situation. Three of the absent participants submitted written responses to the focus group topic guide via email; in effect altering the session to more of a structured interview or even a questionnaire. Clearly this was not ideal but it did enable opinions to be noted from as many of the initial focus group participants as possible. The other five focus groups conducted for the thesis research were in the traditional format described in Section 3.5.3.

The Braveley School focus group, despite consisting of generally very chatty pupils, was dominated by one very confident student whom the other pupils seemed reluctant to disagree with. Equally, when

112

discussions were being had about flushing the toilet, one pupil suggested this was not entirely necessary every time the toilet was used. This idea was met with mild disgust from the other members of the focus group, resulting in the first individual staying rather quiet for the rest of the session. Indeed, group dynamics can have a big influence on whether a focus group session goes well or not (Gallagher, 2009), or indeed, as I found, the time of day that the focus group takes place. My final session with the students at Alfon School was held at 9am on a Friday morning, as this was the most convenient time for myself and the teacher. The students were tired and appeared bored of the topic before the focus group had even begun! This, of course, will have had some effect on the richness of the data collected in this session.

Shyness can also be a particular barrier. At Alfon School, participants were chosen by the teacher instead of volunteering (the focus group took place during lesson time so the students did not have to give up part of their lunch break or a free period, unlike at Braveley and Chalksmere). However this may have meant that the selected Alfon School pupils felt they should take part in the focus group, which was certainly not my intention.