Obtaining multiple perspectives and methods overview

Given the lack of previous in-depth research, the primary focus of this study was to explore the meanings of sleep for children and young people with CP, their siblings and their parents. Starting from a broadly interpretive sociological

94 standpoint my research aimed to meaningfully involve all family members in the research and to allow participants to explore and describe their lived experiences and views on sleep from their own perspectives.

Harden et al. (2010) advise that researcher’s who explore the views of more than one participant within families in qualitative research should examine their motivations for doing so. For my research the seeking of multiple family member perspectives, in relation to sleep, was related to my overall research objectives. Firstly, I wanted to hear directly from children with CP about their sleep and as Harden et al. (2010) comment ‘multiple perspectives’ research with families is one way to ‘ensure that the voices of a particular group are heard alongside others’ (p441). I also wanted to build an understanding of sleep within the family context and analyse the family practices that surround and encompass sleep. I hoped that multiple perspectives would provide a more

‘rounded’ picture of individual family member’s sleep and the sleep of the family as a whole. An individuals’ own sleep is inevitably difficult to self-report on so multiple perspectives can be useful. Furthermore, I wanted to compare and contrast the views of different family members with regard to their own and other family member’s sleep.

Harden et al. (2010) discuss that broadly identifying a researcher’s motivations behind choosing to seek multiple family member perspectives will inevitably lead them to ask ‘what meaning do we attribute to the term ‘multiple perspectives’ in family research?’ (p441). This is not necessarily straightforward as there are several different, and not entirely separate, dimensions related to multiple perspectives which can inform a researcher’s analytic focus. Ribbens McCarthy et al. (2003) describe several different dimensions of multiple perspectives including between individuals within

‘families’ and between ‘families’, as well as between standpoints across different families such as according to gender and generation. As Harden et al.

(2010) comment researchers may choose to focus on one particular dimension or may explore several perspective dimensions, both within and between families. As discussed in more detail in the data analysis section of this chapter (Section 5.10), I explored several perspective dimensions as my initial analytic

95 focus was on the family group and the views and perspectives of family members, starting with the child with CP. However, because of my interest in children’s perspectives and wanting to, specifically, hear the voices of children with CP with regard to their experiences of sleep my analytic focus shifted to comparing the standpoints across families based on generation, e.g. children compared to parents, and age, so younger children compared to older children.

I also compared standpoints within and between families based on disability and severity of CP, for example, children with CP compared to those without CP (i.e. siblings) or children with severe CP compared to those with mild CP.

A qualitative approach was adopted using semi-structured interviews with children with CP, their siblings and their parents. Supplementing this approach, and in line with child-focused methodology and research involving disabled children (as discussed in Chapter 4), was the use of task-based methods. All the children in the study (children with CP and their siblings) were asked to take photographs of aspects related to sleep using a provided disposable camera. Additionally, all participants (children with CP, siblings and parents) were asked to complete daily sleep diaries for two weeks and could choose to do this by audio recording with a Dictaphone, hand writing or word processing their diary entries. During this two week period, participants were also asked to wear an Actiwatch and to complete a one-off sleep questionnaire.

The information collected via these activities was used to facilitate, and prompt, discussion in the semi-structured qualitative interviews.

The primary qualitative approach was decided upon to explore in-depth the concept of ‘doing’ sleep and to examine the factors that ‘surround, inform, induce and influence’ sleep (Williams et al. 2007:4.5) for children with CP and their families. This is in recognition of the importance of the socio-cultural aspects of sleep and that sleep is a sociological concern, as well as a biological and psychological one (Williams, 2002). This approach also mirrors that used in the work of Moran-Ellis and Venn (2007) and Williams et al. (2007) in their explorations of the experience of sleep from children’s own perspectives. The qualitative interview is also a method commonly used in family research as Mason and Tipper (2014: 55) explain:

96 Interviews can enable research participants to ‘report on’ aspects of family life that take place outside the interview setting, as well as enabling interviewer and interviewee to ‘co-construct’ or evoke the contexts and practice of family life through an interactive exchange.

Mason and Tipper (2014) advocate the use of interviews to explore aspects of family life as opposed to participant observation because, they argue, family practices and connections are not always conducted ‘face to face in physical spaces at particular moments in time’ (p155) which makes it difficult for researcher observations to take place. This is further emphasised when considering sleep within the context of the family. As Williams et al. (2007) state:

Participant observation, for example, is a non-starter if it is sleeping we are interested in… (para. 4.4)

Because the night-time and sleep is considered a fundamentally private time for families it is not easily or ethically accessible for observation by a researcher.