Phase 1: Delphi Study

3.8.1 Introduction

Phase 1 of the research took place during the summer of 2012/13, and aimed to investigate how library authorities in England were currently using volunteers from a Library Service manager perspective, in addition to exploring Public Library Authority Manager (PLAM) views on volunteer use.

As such they were initially invited to take part in a Delphi Study via e-mail. It was hoped that this would therefore, ‘obtain the most reliable consensus of opinion of a group of experts…by a series of intensive questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion feedback’ (Dalkey and Helmer 1963 in Pickard 2007 p.125). In addition, this research helped to plug the gaps in the literature identified in chapter 2.

Purposive sampling _{Phase 1} Triangulation Phase 2 Purposive sampling

39

‘Delphi may by characterized as a method for structuring a group

communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem’ (Linstone and Turoff, 2002 p.3).

A Delphi approach is particularly useful for ‘studying a problem or phenomenon when there is incomplete knowledge, the landscape is largely unknown, or there is limited consensus amongst groups’ (Kezar and Maxey, 2016 p.144), therefore as the public library environment is changing rapidly, and becoming increasingly complex, the approach was deemed helpful for obtaining a clear and detailed picture of the situation.

PLAMs were contacted initially through the Society of Chief Librarians, applying what is termed ‘judgement sampling’ (Corbetta, 2011 p.222), whereby participants are chosen on the basis of some characteristics that are highly significant to the questions being asked. The Society of Chief Librarians is primarily comprised of PLAMs, who have a strategic overview of service provision, including use of volunteers.

As such, they were in a unique position to provide the detail necessary for the first phase of this research. Judgement sampling is one of the many possible approaches to purposive sampling (Gorman and Clayton, 2005), and aimed to provide a rich and varied picture of the current situation, in order to establish as clear a consensus as possible (Cape, 2004, cited in Pickard, 2013). A total of 15 PLAMs responded to the initial contact (out of 151 library authorities in England (Department for Culture Media and Sport, 2015c)), and these formed the basis of the Delphi study. Full details of the research were included in the initial call, so that all participants were fully informed of the role of the research, and what would be required of them as respondents (Pickard, 2013).

The 15 English library authorities were diverse in terms of their location, size and political complexion, and will be examined in greater depth in the analysis chapter.

As the Delphi Study ensured anonymity from other participants, it was envisaged that this would encourage open and honest answers to what could possibly be a politically sensitive topic (Pickard, 2013).

40

Clearly this anonymity is compromised to some extent when the group of ‘experts’ are already known to each other, but membership of the Delphi Study was not revealed and at no point during the stages of synthesis were comments attributed to a particular individual. It is important to add that respondents chose to take part in this research and as such may have had particular views on volunteer use, therefore any results must be viewed in this context. There may have been an element of bias in their opinions, although it is important to note that the 15 PLAMs comprised both North and South of England library authorities, urban and rural areas, and different political complexions of authority, with varied use of volunteers from both ends of the spectrum (See section 4.2 for further detail of authorities selected).

The use of a Delphi Study also helped to build a relationship of trust between the researcher and participants, as the latter were required to commit time and energy to this survey (Pickard, 2007), in addition phase 2 participants were selected from this initial Delphi survey.

3.8.2 Data Collection

A questionnaire (see Appendix A for a sample copy) was emailed to the 15 participating PLAMs, this being the ‘only acceptable form of data collection within traditional Delphi method’ (Pickard, 2013 p.151). Written responses to specific questions provided the audit trail of interpretation which was necessary as the researcher synthesised the responses and ideas as they developed during the subsequent rounds.

A series of open questions concerning motivations for using volunteers, and issues surrounding their use were asked initially, that attempted to answer the original research aim/objectives and consider the key issues that required further investigation following the literature review (see section 2.11):

41

 The number of volunteers in their library authority  How they used Library volunteers

 How they currently recruited, selected and trained library volunteers  What they perceived to be the value of using library volunteers

 What they viewed to be the benefits of using volunteers for the Library service, paid staff, volunteers and the wider community

 What they viewed to be the issues surrounding the use of library volunteers  How volunteers worked with paid staff

 What their view was of a formalised policy regarding volunteers  The future of library volunteers

 Any other issues

After round one all responses were collated, summarised and sent out to respondents for validation and further comment. The second and third rounds of the Delphi Study summarised findings, and attempted to probe deeper into emerging themes, clarify any uncertainties, and gain consensus of opinion where appropriate. This ‘allowed the panel maximum opportunity to contribute their thoughts and ideas’ (Pickard, 2007 p.128). The final summary report of the findings was disseminated to all respondents (see Appendix B for final summary report).

3.8.3 Data analysis

The Delphi study data was analysed as the research was gathered, using Excel spreadsheets to amalgamate data, in addition to the creation of end of round summary reports to collate and explore further all panel responses that arose during the survey. The findings were then triangulated with phase 2 results to gain a richer picture of volunteer use perspectives.

42