Chapter 4 Research Methodology
4.4 Pilot study and interview schedule evaluation
Once ethical approval had been obtained, a pilot study was conducted with a critical friend enlisted through consultation. The aim of the pilot study linked into the advice of Cicourel (1964) and Dyson & Brown (2006) and served to ensure that the research questions, and associated interview schedule, were understandable. In line with the requirements of IPA, the questions were directed to meaning. Thus, questions were asked about the person’s understandings and experiences.
Smith, Flowers & Larkin (2009: 126) warn against research questions that impose too many theoretical constructs upon the phenomena being discussed. With this in mind, the pilot study implemented an interview schedule to facilitate a comfortable interaction between the researcher and the speaker, which in turn, enabled the speaker to provide a detailed account in response to the questions that were asked. Open-ended questions were prepared so that they were encouraged dialogue and reduced verbal input from the interviewer. Consistent with Smith & Osborn’s (2003) advice, the researcher attempted to steer the interview from sequences that were primarily narrative or descriptive, to those which were more analytic or evaluative in search of the phenomenological essence of the experience being recalled.
To establish the focus on the analytical and evaluative nature of the interview, the pilot study started with a broad question which allowed the speaker to recount a broadly descriptive account of lived experience. In this way, it was hoped that the speakers were enabled to feel comfortable whilst talking about their own memories. Once the broad description had been accounted, the research provided the speaker
87
with a number of invitations to be more analytical by using a series of follow up prompts that aimed to frame and specific focus the interview conversation.
In terms of the number of questions used during the interview, Smith, Flowers & Larkin, (2009:60) point out that ‘ten to eleven open questions will tend to occupy ‘between 45 and 90 minutes of conversation, depending on the topic’. Consistent with this framework, eleven open-ended questions, along with possible prompts, were used. To ensure that a sufficient amount of questions had been included, the pilot study also enabled the researcher to redraft, as necessary, develop, or drop questions. The final interview schedule that was used to guide all semi structured testimonial collection methods, following an evaluation of the pilot study, is provided in Table 4, overleaf.
To enable a more considered review of the suitability of questions asked, the results of the pilot study were analysed in full (as per the description below) and critically reviewed for limitation.
4.4.1 Contacting people who lived in care as children
The generally accepted term for contacting people and inviting them to participate in research is known as sampling (Flick, 2009). It refers to the practice of selecting people from a specific population for the purposes of research (Clandinin & Connelly, 1998; Denscombe, 2007). In qualitative research and in IPA in particular, the sampling procedures are often determined by the paradigm and research strategies used to guide and inform the enquiry.
The dominant sampling strategy for IPA is known as purposive sampling (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009). This method looks for people who are able to provide information that can be studied in-depth within specific categories such as age, culture, and experience; it is not thought to be random. Flick (2009) states that purposive sampling requires a deeper critical evaluation concerning population parameters that the study is interested in, and that sample cases are chosen carefully on this basis. Smith (2010) also indicates that the decision to use purposive
88
sampling generally influences the geographical locations in which information is collected.
Table 4 Final interview schedule
Semi Structure interview schedule
1. Can you tell me why you had to live in care?
Possible Prompts: How old were you? What do you think brought it about? Can you describe how you felt at the time?
2. Can you describe what it was like living in care?
Possible Prompts: What happened? How did you feel? How did you cope? 3. Can you tell me about your most memorable experience of being in care?
Possible Prompts: What happened? How old were you? How did you feel? How did you cope?
4. Can you tell me how life in care different was different to life with your family? Possible Prompts: What was different? How did you feel about that? How did you cope?
5. What does it mean to be a Traveller-Gypsy in care? Possible prompts: Identity, sense of self, separation, and loss.
6. Have your relationships with other people been affected by your experiences
of being in care?
Possible Prompts: partner, family, friends, and work colleagues.
7. Do you think your experience of living in care has affected you as an adult? Possible Prompts: in what ways? Does anything help? Does anything make you feel worse? How do you feel about these changes?
8. Do you think that you have been treated differently because you have been in
care?
Possible Prompts: partner, family, friends, and work colleagues. 9. How would you describe your experience of leaving care?
Possible Prompts: What happened? How did you feel? How did you cope?
10. Has you experience of being in care changed the way you think of feel about
yourself?
Possible Prompts: do you see yourself differently now than before you lived in care? In what ways?
11. What would be an alternative to the current care system?
Possible Prompts: What could be done differently? What help and support should you receive? What advice would you give to a child living in care now?
The main advantage of purposive sampling is that it can remain flexible, developing as the study progresses, and continues, as with grounded theory, until a point where a sufficient amount of information has been gathered to answer the research question (Glaser, 1978). Reflecting on this method, Marlow (2010) suggests that it
89
may therefore be impossible to specify the number of people required to achieve this aim at the outset of a study.
The key feature of purposive sampling is that it requires the researcher to know where people may be contacted, yet, within the present study, this type of determination could not always be guaranteed. To overcome this, the sampling strategy used to contact people who lived in care as children moved away from the paradigm of purposive sampling, and followed instead, an unorganised method known as snowball sampling.
Snowballing
The snowball sampling method was used to obtain information about people who might like to take part in the study from existing and developing networks. It is referred to metaphorically as ‘snowball sampling’ because as relationships are developed through consultation, more connections can be made through those new relationships, thus enabling the numbers of people who might like to take part in the study to grow organically over time (Hammersly, 2000; Thompson, 2002).
Babbie (2010) reports that the main advantage of this sampling strategy is that the accumulation of numbers is likely to be quick. Added to this, he explains that the researcher could approach new people, having been, in a sense, sponsored by the person who has named them. In terms of trust, this was seen as an advantage because the researcher was able to use the nominator as a reference, which Smith (2009) implies may have also enhanced his credibility, including that of the study. The snowballing sample used in this study developed by contacting a number of Traveller and Gypsy support groups who work to advocate for Traveller and Gypsy rights (see appendix D and E). Eight of the people who took part in this study became involved via snowballing and were referred to the researcher from independent organisations and opportunities related to the researchers own contacts. As the snowball sample was widely focused, the study was not geographically based or limited to a prescribed location. The people who took part in the study were from England and Ireland. Although this process initially identified
90
nineteen people at the outset, after an initial discussion about the aims of the project, nine people felt that they were unable to describe their experience as it made them remember parts of their life that they would sooner forget. It was the author’s view that to pursue this point to encourage participation would indeed have caused significant harm.
Limiting the sample to people aged eighteen and over
As chapter 2 has shown, there was little evidence to suggest that the social, emotional, and developmental needs of Traveller and Gypsy children are being recognised in the current care system. Consequently, the researcher made the conscious decision to limit the study to those who were aged eighteen and over, and who were no longer living in care. Notwithstanding the age limit, the criterion for inclusion was broad in that it included Irish Travellers, Romany Gypsies, Scottish Gypsy/Travellers, Welsh Travellers, and Occupational Travellers.
As news of the research project began to spread within the community, Travellers Times approached the researcher and ran two adverts for the study. Traveller Times is a quarterly publication which reports on news and events within the Traveller and Gypsy community. It has a reported readership of 300,000 people. The first advert was published in the 2010 spring edition of their magazine, and the second advert, which contained more information on the author (including a photograph), was reported in the 2010 autumn edition. Two people who took part in this study became involved via the Travellers Times magazine. Basic information on the people who did take part in the study is presented in Table 5, overleaf. To enable anonymity, real names and specific ages have been omitted. The inclusion of Mary’s disability has been added to this table at her request.
With regard to sample size, the previous chapter has shown that the primary concern of this study is to provide a detailed account of individual Traveller and Gypsy experience. The concern therefore was not given to the amount of people who took part in the project, rather the depth, and amount of information that they were enabled to provide (Hammersly, 2000). Acknowledging the complexity of human experience which has been described in detail by Giddens (1991), Smith & Osborn
91
(2003) recommend that this study should be idiographic concentrating on a small number of people. In the light of IPA’s requirement to focus on detail and depth of knowledge, the sample size is considered as being appropriate for the research strategy.
4.4.2 Collecting information on lived experience
The primary concerns regarding the collection of information were based on the principles of informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity. In ethical research literature, confidentiality is commonly viewed as akin to the principle of privacy (Butler, 2002).
92
Table 5 Information regarding the people who took part in the study
Pseudonym name Length of time in care Age Range Accommodation before care
Placement Type Ethnicity Geographical location of placement
Approximate dates of care experience Mary
(Mary has cerebral palsy)
17 years 40-50 Trailer
Roadside
Residential Home Irish Traveller
Ireland
1970’s – 1980’s
Helen 8 months 30-40 Trailer
Campsite
Residential Home English Gypsy
England 1980’s
Ruth 5 years 20-30 Trailer
Roadside
Foster Care Irish Traveller England 1990’s Josephine Adopted as a baby by non- Showmen 30-40 Trailer Campsite
Adoption Showman Hong Kong 1980’s
Peter 11 years 18-20 Trailer
Campsite
Residential Home Irish Traveller
England 1990’s - 2000’s
Michael 3 years, then adopted by
Traveller carers
20-30 Trailer
Roadside
Foster care Irish Traveller England in foster care then adopted in Ireland 1990’s
Laura 4 years 30-40 Trailer
Campsite
Foster Care and Residential Home
Irish Traveller
England 1980’s
Lisa 15 years 20-30 Trailer
Campsite
Foster Care with Traveller carers
Irish Traveller
Ireland 1990’s - 2000’s
Emma 16 years 18-20 Trailer
Campsite
Foster Care with Traveller carers
Irish Traveller
Ireland 1990’s - 2000’s
Sarah 13 Years 18-20 Trailer
Campsite
Foster Care with Traveller carers
Irish Traveller
93
This principle is integral to social work research and the values of empowerment and private autonomy, because, as Shaw (2010) explains to ensure confidentiality might mean that what will be discussed as part of an interview or research endeavour will not be repeated, or at least, not without permission.
Reflecting on this position, Smith (2010) argues that in the research context confidentiality makes little sense. For him, confidential research cannot be conducted because researchers report on the findings of their research. Research cannot do this, he contends, if the testimonials collected cannot be revealed. Instead, what researchers can do, according to Smith (2010), is ensure they do not disclose identifiable information about the people who have shared their experience and so to protect their identity through various processes of anonymisation. In this respect, Thompson (2002) and Van den Hoonard (2002: 8) explain that confidentiality can never be guaranteed. Consequently, considered care was taken to ensure that the people who took part in the study were not identified by their true name, or any other identifying information within this thesis.
In terms of informed consent, Thompson (2002) and Flick (2009), highlight the importance of ensuring that the people invited to take part in a study were enabled to understand what the research would entail. This included why they were being asked to participate in it, what would be done with the information they provided, and who would have access to it. For Thompson (2002) and Clark (2006a; 2006b), it is only after this information is provided can people willingly give informed consent whether to be involved or not.
In the pursuit of informed consent the researcher was able to visit eight people in the days leading up to the interview so that information about the study, including the opportunity to be interviewed by a Scottish Traveller woman could be presented, and any potential concerns regarding this discussed. Despite being offered the opportunity to speak to a Scottish Traveller, this invitation was not taken up by any of the people who took part in the study.
The researcher spoke to two people about the research project at a restaurant, four in their homes, one person at a park and another at a train station. The two people
94
who the researcher was unable to visit were spoken to over the telephone. During these meetings, the researcher provided each individual, in person or via post, a copy of the research schedule and invited them to look at it again prior to the interview, or prior to providing a written response. In order to include the point of confidentiality, the researcher explained that the information they provided might be used within the final report, either in the form of direct quotations, or by way of the inclusion of their stories or poems. He explained that although direct quotations would be used, pseudonyms would be used to protect identity. He also explained that anonymisation of the extracts used in future published works would extend to specific geographical locations, dates, ages and any other features which may potentially yield a breach of confidence.
The pre-interview meetings were managed in this way because Thompson (2002) advocates that speaking to people prior to the interview could enable a relationship to be developed in a way that could potentially reduce anxiety. This close collaboration was also seen to enable people to nominate the location for their interview. Based on the request of those taking part in the research, three interviews were conducted in people’s homes, whilst the others were conducted in open public places such as parks and hotel reception areas.
Pre-interview planning
Prior to each interview, the researcher was aware of the growing evidence that the issue of continued informed consent could take on an added significance when conducting research with Travellers and Gypsies (Okley, 1983; Hawes & Perez, 1996; Kenrick & Clark, 1999; Acton, 2000; Cemlyn, 2000b; Richardson, 2006a Greenfields & Smith, 2010;). This was particularly significant since there has been little consideration given to the implications of interviewing Travellers and Gypsies in social work research (Brown & Scullion, 2010). To overcome this, the researcher incorporated the advice of Steele & Hunt (2008) and Hunt, Steele & Condie (2008) who argue that when conducting research with ‘hard to reach groups’ such as Travellers and Gypsies, the traditional role of researcher as an ‘expert’ can expose issues such as power, difference, gender, and status. If perceived, Yates (2002) and
95
Jordan & Brown (2007) argue that this can lead those being interviewed to develop a strong impression that something specific is required of them, thus potentially distorting their accounts of their situation or positioning themselves in passive acquiescence. If accurate, this could suggest that some people might feel obliged to suppress feelings of anxiety or concern regarding the in-depth nature of IPA in order to humour a researcher. The risk of the perceptions regarding power differentials within an interview environment was understood to pose a significant ethical challenge.
For Eisner (1991) this dilemma could only be absolved through unending reflective research practice that required the researcher to assume a dualistic role of investigator and moderator:
‘...researchers have an ethical responsibility to serve in a dual role: first, as researchers with a project aimed at satisfying their research purposes, and second, as advocates...raising questions that the researchers know should be raised in order for (people) to make a competent assessment of the risks’. (Eisner, 1991: 217).
Taking this position was important as, Clark (2006b) argues, the potential to be insensitive to wellbeing of the people taking part in the study could have been compounded with the additional responsibility of the researcher to produce a study in order to attain higher degree status. However as the advice of Eisner (1991) was taken seriously, the personal ambition of the researcher was offset by the emotional welfare and safety of the person being interviewed. This took precedent at all times.
Conducting the interview
Prior to each interview, the researcher informed each person again why he, or she, was being interviewed, and what aspects of his or her experience the researcher was interested in. The researcher made clear that their contribution to the study would be anonymous in accordance with data protection legislation (Data Protection Act, 1998) and explained there are no right or wrong answers. The researcher
96
reassured every person that they should only answer questions that they felt confident, and comfortable, to answer. He reminded them that a digital Dictaphone would be used to record the interview, with their consent. People were also advised that they could stop the interview at any time. For those people interviewed via the telephone, permission was sought to put the conversation onto ‘loudspeaker’ for recording. As literacy was never assumed, once each person stated that they were happy to commence the interview, the researcher started the digital audio and read aloud the information sheet (see appendix A) and the consent form (see appendix B). Each person was then asked to state that they had understood the information sheet and that they had given consent to be interviewed.
The one to one interviews, group interview, and telephone interviews commenced with the researcher completing a set questionnaire with each person (see appendix C). As the interviews were semi structured, the questionnaire enabled the researcher to gather the same basic level of information regarding each person. This, according