Phase 2 of data collection

While the first phase of data collection focused on the adult perspective, the second phase was concerned with hearing the voices of LACYP. It has been recognised that making space for authentic youth voice can provide different perspectives from those of practitioners and policy makers who have so often been consulted on in research on behalf of children and young people (Holland, 2009; Quarmby and Pickering, 2016). Holland (2009) for example, reported a consistent finding of the differences between children and

adults in their understanding and prioritising of key issues; emphasizing the need for facilitating youth voice within research. Including interpretations from both practitioners and LACYP within this study, therefore, enables for an enriched understanding of the complexity of these individuals’ lives. The following table provides an outline of the interviews that were conducted with the LACYP participants, which precedes a narrative explaining the data collection process.

Table 3: LACYP interview participants

Access to LACYP was initially attempted through the local authority contacts established in phase 1 of the research; following advice received in the scoping interviews suggesting that this was the best way to access participants. However, none were particularly forthcoming, with most directing me to go through local authorities’ Children in Care Councils26_{. Following additional requests, just one local authority in the south west of}

England allowed me to conduct research with this particular group. This local authority invited me to carry out data collection at a pre-established event. The event was initially

26 _{A group of LACYP who meet to discuss matters concerning all LACYP which all local authorities are}

required to have in order to listen to the youth voice (see section 3.4).

Name Type of interview Location of interview Date of interview Length of interview (minutes) Shannon, Jamie, Megan Group Pre-organised local authority event 26.10.2015 59 Chantelle,

Bradley, Lucy Group

Pre-organised local

authority event 26.10.2015 58 Shannon Individual Fast food restaurant 02.12.2015 47 Fast food restaurant 12.12.2015 97 Jamie Individual

Coffee shop 03.12.2015 56

Coffee shop 17.12.2015 87

Coffee shop 22.02.2015 83

Luke Individual Participant’s school 11.12.2015 65 Mia Individual Participant’s school 11.12.2015 41 Kalaya Individual

Participant’s home 11.12.2015 58

Coffee shop 17.12.2015 61

Coffee shop 23.02.2015 61

planned to last two days; however, the first day was cancelled due to a shortfall of attendees. On the second day, six LACYP attended, all of whom were happy to take part in the research. I coordinated with the gatekeeper on how the data collection would take place, and it was decided to split the group into two, according to their ages. This allowed me to conduct two group interviews, both consisting of two females and one male. The first consisted of young people aged between 13-16 years (Bradley, Lucy and Chantelle) and the second comprised of young people aged 17-19 years (Jamie, Shannon and Megan).

The decision to select group interviews as an initial data collection method with young people was based on a number of reasons. Firstly, since access is notably difficult within the LACYP field, I had to be creative and flexible with the access that was granted. As noted, I had been invited to a pre-established event and given the opportunity to speak with young people; in this context, using group interviews was the best way to fit in with their existing itinerary. Secondly, speaking to the young people together, reduced any power relations that may have been more prominent in a 1-1 scenario (Eder and Fingerson, 2003), particularly since this was the first time of the young people meeting me. Having the opportunity to share their experiences with one another may also have helped them to open up or draw upon certain experiences that they may otherwise not have thought of. This is since group contexts have been noted as sparking discussions that enable both shared understandings and differences in opinion and experience (Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999). As with all methods of data collection, however, there are limitations that must be acknowledged. For any type of interview there is the risk of participants giving socially desirable answers in an effort to please rather than be truthful (Greene and Hill, 2010). This challenge is recognised by Bryman (2016) who highlights that participants are more likely to conform to culturally expected views when in a group context. Additionally, participants may feel a pressure to conform or may even be ‘silenced’, particularly when there are notable dominant members (Heath et al., 2009). They may also feel hesitant and withhold experiences due to other participants being present (Sparkes and Smith, 2014). For this reason, it was important that I also conducted individual interviews with the young people where possible.

Initially, four of the six young people involved in the group interviews said they were willing to be interviewed again individually, affording me the opportunity to explore

interesting points made within the group discussions. When arranging the follow-up interviews, however, two of the six young people did not respond to me and so that left two young people; one male (Jamie, 19) and one female (Shannon, 17), who subsequently took part in a number of interviews (see Table 3). The age of these two participants meant that they could give consent, eliminating the need for third party involvement such as gatekeepers. This made the follow-up interviews far easier to arrange. Jamie and Shannon were given a choice of when and where these interviews would take place, to allow them some anatomy over the interview proceedings (Greene and Hill, 2010). Other strategies used to minimize the power imbalance during interviews included valuing the participants time by thanking them (O’Kane, 2000), and minimizing the authoritative image of the interviewer by using informal language (Hill, 2010). Interviewing on more than one occasion was helpful since it allowed me to build rapport with the participants and generate lines of questioning based upon the previous answers they had given (Bryman, 2016). Certainly, these young people appeared more comfortable in discussing their experiences within places of their choosing, as evidenced by the data revealing a deeper insight into their lives (see Chapters 5-8). Conducting multiple interviews also meant that Jamie’s and Shannon’s voices appear louder within the data than the other participants.

In addition to Jamie and Shannon, a further four young people from a different local authority also participated in the research, with access being facilitated by a local authority survey respondent who acted as the gatekeeper. Two of these participants, Luke and Mia, were of school age and so the gatekeeper accompanied me to their school for the interviews to take place. The gatekeeper chose to be present whilst the interviews took place, which could be considered both as a strength and a weakness. On the one hand, it meant that the young person was familiar with the professional as someone who visits the school regularly; allowing them to perhaps feel more comfortable with the situation. On the other hand, this familiarity could also mean that socially desirable answers - or the holding back of information - was more likely to occur. In addition to the school visits, another young man, Nathan, 16, was interviewed at a place chosen by him (a local pub restaurant) one afternoon. Again, I was accompanied by the gatekeeper, making the introductions far less daunting for the individual. Lastly, a young woman, Kalaya, 17, was interviewed at her foster carer’s house. The gatekeeper accompanied me to her house, but did not stay in the room as the interview took place. This particular young woman was also happy to take part in follow-up interviews (without the gatekeeper present) and so three

further interviews were conducted at a time and place convenient for her. All these interviews with Kalaya were conducted at coffee shops (see Appendix 2 for the timeline of data collection). To provide additional context to the data collected in phase 2, the following table consists of a short vignette for each LACYP participant who took part in the study.

Table 4: Personal profiles of LACYP interview participants27

Name Personal profile

Bradley Male. 15 years old. In year 11 at secondary school. Happy to chat during the group interview. Chairs his own PEP meetings at school. Appeared focused on his education. Enjoys participating in various sports.

Chantelle

Female. 16 years old. In year 11 at an alternative education provision. Came into care at the age of 15. Currently in foster care. Excluded from secondary school due to disruptive behaviour. Expressed a dislike towards school in general. Vocal during the group interview.

Jamie

Male. 19 years old. Care leaver. Currently in college studying Performing Arts and an ambassador for the local authority. Under a care order from birth. Went into foster care at the age of 16. Attended a Pupil Referral Unit at the age of 11. Most of secondary school education was spent at a residential school. Disclosed that his parents were alcoholics and his mum was violent (domestic violence). Also mentioned self-harming from the age of 13-18 years old.

Kalaya

Female. 17 years old. Currently in college studying Art and Design. Came into care at the age of 15 and is currently in foster care. Moved placement once during this time. Born and lived in Thailand with her aunties until the age of 6. From the age of 6, her mum decided to move to England with her. Disclosed that her mum was violent towards her as the reason for entering care.

Lucy Female. 13 years old. In year 8 at secondary school. Appeared shy during group _{interview. Expressed that she wants to do well at school.}

Luke

Male. 13 years old. Year 9 at secondary school. Came into care at the age of 4. Has attended 4 schools and has spent time in different residential homes. Moved secondary school due to placement moves. Disclosed having anger issues and received anger management at his last school. Appeared happy to chat and draw a life map, although tended to go off subject easily during the interview.

Megan Female. 19 years old. Care leaver. Currently works and is an ambassador for the local _{authority. Quiet during the group interview.} Mia Female. 12 years old. Year 8 at secondary school. Currently in foster care. Has had 3 placements since she was 8 years old. Appeared quiet and shy to begin with. Creating a

life map appeared to help put her at ease.

Nathan Male. 16 years old. Studying Art and Design at college. Held back a year at school due to placement and school moves. Moved homes (and school) 3 times in 3 years during secondary school.

Shannon Female. 17 years old. Currently doing an apprenticeship in Business Administration at her local authority council and is also an ambassador for them. Went into care at the age of 14. Disclosed that her parents were illiterate, her mother is dyslexic and disabled, so her father cared for her whilst she helped care for her mother. Both parents had/have drug and alcohol addictions and referred to herself as a “drugs mule” for her parents. Spent much of her education in alternative education provisions, for example Pupil Referral Units. Bullied at school and took illegal drugs from the age of 11. Had two foster placements since coming into care. During the study, she turned 18 and moved from her foster carer’s home to independent living. Appeared willing to share her experiences and was particularly dominant during the group interview. Constantly sought reassurance that I understood her during the interviews with her use of “do you see my point? / do you know what I mean?” on many occasions. Her use of the word “mate” directed towards me and use of swearing suggested she perhaps felt like she could speak freely.

In total, the second phase of data collection consisted of two group interviews and 11 individual interviews with 10 LACYP28_{. I did not access any of the participants’ formal}

data held within the local authority, which limited any assumptions I might make regarding their experiences (Munro, 2001). This also meant that I was reliant on their own narratives during the interviews. The interview agenda (see Appendix 4) was based on a number of broad questions around issues relating to PE, school and extra-curricular activities (with the research questions also serving as a foundation for some of these). Further probing questions, which sought to identify their experience in relation to any benefits, barriers and challenges to participating in PESS and school activities, were also asked during the interviews. In order to engage the young people and stimulate conversation, the use of young person-friendly participatory activities such as the creation of timelines/life maps were used within some of the interviews (see Appendix 7). It is suggested that methods such as these, i.e. that combine art and craft work or photography, can open up young people’s responses and their intense participation in research (Alderson and Morrow, 2011).

It has been recognised that young people are less keen on research methods that involve sitting and talking to an adult (Bagnoli and Clark, 2010). For example, Mannay et al. (2015) noted that during their research, allowing LACYP to lead the interviews through discussions of their visual data changed the dynamics from the traditional interview setting that can be associated with social workers and other agencies. The life-map and timelines (noted above) were chosen following the scoping interviews, after their usefulness in conducting interviews with vulnerable and/or looked-after children had been noted. The timeline for example, is considered a simple way to interpret the influence that different contexts and time have on an individual’s current life (Thomas and O’Kane, 1998a; Deacon, 2006) and has been used in previous sport-related research with young people (e.g. Enright and O’Sullivan, 2012; Quarmby, 2014). Engaging a child in a drawing activity (such as the life map) is suggested to be a powerful way of eliciting their views, particularly when children can answer questions whilst participating in another task (Einarsdottir et al., 2009). This can help to create a relaxed environment for children and young people to engage in research (Bagnoli 2009). However, it is argued that one of the drawbacks of employing a drawing activity (such as life maps) is that participants may feel anxious in

being seen to be doing something too childlike by their peers (Johnson et al. 2012). In an attempt to eliminate this, I decided not to do the life map activity or timeline with the older participants who were over the age of 16. Despite timelines having been used successfully with adult participants (see Adriansen, 2012; Mannay and Creaghan, 2016), the decision not to use these with the older young people was because most of the conversations took place in public spaces such as coffee shops. Therefore, since the use of participatory methods were not used during all interviews, their purpose was to encourage LACYP voice during the interviews, as opposed to facilitate the creation of visual data.

All the individual interviews conducted with the young people were (with their consent) recorded with a Dictaphone and lasted between 45 – 90 minutes. Although mostly identified with ethnographic studies (Bryman, 2016), field notes were also made following each interview to document the context and in case there was an issue with the recording device. As in phase 1, all interviews were transcribed by myself since it is felt that this stage of the research forms an important part of the analytical process.