Phase 3 of data collection

Phase 3 of the data collection consisted of a similar format to that of phase 1; comprising both a survey and individual telephone interviews (see Appendix 3 for surveys and Appendix 4 for interview schedules). The target cohort for this phase of the research was PE teachers who taught at schools located within the three local authorities responsible for the LACYP participants in this study29_{. An electronic survey was sent to all secondary,}

special schools and Pupil Referral Units within these three counties, totalling 139 institutions. The survey consisted of demographic questions to begin with, followed by a mixture of open and closed questions concerning the respondent’s awareness of LACYP and their experiences of delivering PESS for LACYP. Sixteen responses were received and four of those participants were willing to take part in a follow-up interview. Despite contacting all four participants, only two were available for telephone interview (see Table 5).

29 _{Data collection with LACYP was originally secured through three separate local authorities, however one}

Table 5: PE teacher interview participants30

Name Job Title School Name Region of _England

David Andrews Head of Physical _Education Lushington Secondary _School East Midlands Mark Jones Head of Physical _Education Sandcove Secondary _School South West

Both interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes31 _{and, like phase 1, explored lines of}

inquiry from the survey in more detail. The number of participants who took part in this final phase of the data collection was disappointing and unduly influenced the breadth of data generated. Nevertheless, it was felt to be important to include the data from this phase in the overall data set, as it offered important insight from an alternative perspective. Kennett (2006) and Fowler (2009) suggest that the response rate to surveys is often dependent on whether the respondents are interested in the subject matter or consider it relevant to them or their experiences. In the context of this study, it is interesting to consider whether the lack of awareness of LACYP within schools, the relevance of LACYP issues for PE teachers, or the broader confusion over ‘whose responsibility’ it is to support LACYP’s access to PESS/sport/physical activity, might also have played a role here (see sections 7.4, 8.1 and 8.2).

In essence, this study remains representative of a small sample of participants; thus, the intention here is not to produce generalisations, but rather to focus on producing rich and in-depth descriptions of social life that can help readers to understand what it would be like to be someone else, and indeed experience the world from their position (Gomm, 2004). Having outlined the methods of data collection, I now move on to discuss how the process of consent, privacy and confidentially were addressed during these aspects of the research process.

30 _{For ease of reference, this table can also be found in Appendix 5.} 31 See Appendix 2 for the timeline of data collection.

4.7 Consent

Informed consent insists that research subjects have the right to be informed about the nature and consequences of their involvement within the research; participants must agree voluntarily to participate with such agreement based on full and open information regarding the research (Christians, 2005). Within this study, for those taking part in the online surveys (phases 1 and 3), information was provided ahead of completing the survey and participants were made aware that consent would be assumed upon their completion of the survey (see Appendix 3). For the telephone interviews, information regarding the study and the process of participating in it were explained at the outset and verbal consent was received.

For the second phase of the study, an information sheet (Appendix 8) was provided to the gatekeepers involved in the research and a modified more ‘young person-friendly’ sheet was used for all young people involved. Both sheets contained the necessary information as required by Loughborough University’s Ethics Approvals (Human Participants) Sub- Committee. The youth participants’ understanding was also checked through verbal communication prior to any data collection taking place. Consent forms were used for participants to sign once they had agreed to take part and once it was clear that participants fully understood the extent of their involvement (see Appendix 9). For the young people involved who were under the age of 16, an adult with parental responsibility was also required to sign to the agreement of the participating child. This was done in line with the university’s ethical guidance and BERA’s (2011, p.7) guidelines, which states that researchers are required to seek approval from “those who act in guardianship (e.g. parents) or as ‘responsible others’” (i.e. those who have responsibility for the welfare and wellbeing of the participants e.g. social workers).

In the context of LACYP, it is important to remember that approaching parents for consent may not be appropriate or in the best interests of the child, since “there is a possibility that they [looked-after children] have been placed there because of abuse by parents, or because there has been a breakdown in relationships in the family” (Kendrick et al., 2008, p.88). Gaining consent for such young people is a particularly difficult process, since the parental responsibility varies for each child depending on their care status. The process of gaining consent for the young participants in this study, was therefore

negotiated on a case by case basis. It has been argued that the process of acquiring consent assumes that consent is just a standalone procedure that is done prior to any data collection taking place; often accepting that the one-off piece of information is sufficient for participants to understand all that is involved in the research process (Sparkes and Smith, 2014). However, it has been suggested that seeking informed consent is, or should be, an on-going process (Flewitt, 2005; Hill 2005) and therefore the young people’s understanding (in phase 2) was constantly checked throughout the research process with frequent opportunities given to ask questions or seek clarification.