Phase two data collection

The purpose of Phase Two was to gain feedback from staff working within Shakespeare School based upon the findings from Phase One. It also provided a final opportunity to explore the thoughts, feelings and beliefs of participants (Vaughn et al. 1996), exploring their underlying knowledge (Silverman, 2006) and gaining valuable feedback. A focus group was organised with participants from the interviews invited and specific invitations to the senior manager with responsibility for inclusion and teaching assistants. The deliberate sampling of the member of SMT and teaching assistants was to gather feedback from members of the school who had not been represented within the interviews, with a focus group recognised as useful in accessing views of such underrepresented groups who may have been intimidated by speaking alone to a researcher (Liamputtong, 2007).

As it had been some time since the launch of the research a participant information sheet was provided. Ten members of staff attended, with two SM, two T, four HLTA and two TA participants, therefore the group was small enough to enable participation but large enough to generate and facilitate discussion (Morgan, 1997). I had considered running separate focus groups to limit the potential impact of any differences in authority or status between participants. However, on reflection I rejected this idea as I considered a mixed group provided me with an opportunity to potentially witness the collaboration and interaction between participants, a noticing that I had identified as relevant from the interviews (Morgan and Kreuger, 1993). Prior to the focus group all participants received a participant information sheet for this phase of the research (Appendix Seven) and completed a consent form (Appendix Eight). I also highlighted the confidentiality aspect of the form at the start of the discussion group, reminding participants that whilst the topic could be discussed afterwards in general, the research would not attribute specific comments to specific people and as participants neither should they.

3.5.2.1 Focus group

The use of a focus group in research has been recognised as useful for collecting data from participants (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1999; Farnsworth and Boon, 2010). Braun and Clarke (2013) highlighted the advantage of its use in that it provides data from a number of participants at the same time, and that it provides an opportunity to observe the interactions within the organisation (Silverman, 2006). Parker and Tritter (2006) recognise an additional advantage, in that if the researcher takes the role of moderator, as opposed to interviewer, it

55

passes power over to the participants and the peer support within the group. The moderator is therefore interested in asking questions for the group to discuss, with the resulting social interaction between participants recognised as central to the process. For this reason, face to face focus groups are recognised as the most effective way to organise discussion within complex social situations where participants interact, ask questions, challenge and agree (Hollander, 2004). Through the use of a more conversation like approach, focus groups can therefore be seen as gaining more naturalistic data compared to interviews (Wellings, Branigan and Mitchell, 2000). I was particularly interested in using this method, as the advantages were pertinent to the research question and understanding how this school negotiated the meanings of terms such as inclusion and progress, as well as their support of it. The focus group provided an opportunity for the negotiations and group dynamics to mimic an example of school life (Wilkinson, 1998), highlighting the role of leadership within the school that had been identified by participants in interview as valuable. The focus group was therefore regarded as a useful opportunity to both collect feedback on the Phase One data and provide a final opportunity to gather unanticipated data from new participants. (Braun and Clarke, 2013).

There are a range of approaches in preparing for a focus group as a facilitator. Krueger (1998) suggested a maximum of two to five questions, with Vaughn et al. (1996) recommending the elimination of questions in favour of prompts to elicit further information regarding participants’ thoughts on the subject. Sapsford and Jupp (2008) argued for an even greater level of group ownership, with the participants directing their own discussion and minimal direction provided by the researcher. As this was an opportunity for feedback on Phase One data, I adopted the approach recommended by Kruegar (1998) and prepared for my role as facilitator as being distinct from controller of the group (Bloor et al. 2002). I planned for the focus group by producing a visual model of the analysis undertaken in Phase One, in relation to the research question. I produced a set of five questions, beginning with a starter question and followed by a set of three open questions using the three themes of the model and a final suggestion question (Appendix Nine). Prompts were also prepared in order to elicit discussion should it have been required. The final closing question was a check that the participants were leaving without any unresolved concerns. The discussion in the focus group was recorded using an audio recorder and in order to aid the later transcription I took notes identifying who was talking and when.

Having conducted two sets of interviews I was not seeking detailed narratives, often seen as a disadvantage of focus groups, and in order to ameliorate for the other recognised disadvantages of logistical inconvenience of travel and time I organised with the Principal to

56

hold the focus group in school during the school day. Transcription of the focus group data again can be regarded as time consuming for the researcher, so I booked annual leave for immediately after the group in order to support the transcription and analysis of the data in a timely fashion.