Qualitative data collection

Qualitative methodological approaches gather data on experiences of individuals or groups (Nagy Hesse-Biber, 2010), and examines the psychological attitudes of social behaviour (Sahu, 2013). The following five qualitative research methods employ an interpretivism paradigm:

o Phenomenology – whereby the meaning of a phenomenon is explored. Phenomenology provides very deep understanding through knowledge of particular lived experiences (Petty et al., 2012)

o Ethnography – the understanding of description and interpretation of ethos by employing participant observation methods or interviews (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009)

o Grounded Theory – the development of a theory on the basis of participants’ data who are experienced in the phenomena examined (Petty et al., 2012)

o Case studies - the examination of an individual case or multiple cases through data collection from multiple rich sources (Baxter and Jack, 2008)

o Narrative research – the written text or spoken text of chronological events (Czarniawska, 2004)

Qualitative research stems out mainly from the linguistic mode, where conversation is the most dominant and frequent method to produce data. Main methods applied are interviews, focus groups and case studies (Jonker and Pennink, 2010).

One-to-one interviews are the most suitable form of interviews if the researcher is trying to extract perspectives from individuals. One-to-one interviews are considered to be characterised by certain disadvantages. They are considered to be an intensive and intrusive to the participants (Frith and Gleeson, 2012) and are also considered as time-consuming methods of data collection (Matthews and Kostelis, 2011).

Case studies are considered as a useful method for the purposes of exploring variables and in considering new ideas (Siggelkow, 2007). This method has also various advantages in particular that of exploring phenomena, contextually and within real-life (Yin, 2009). Direct observations, one-to-one interviews and various

88

secondary sources are all sources of information that are associated with case studies (Yin, 2009).

Focus groups are a group of interviews whereby data is generated by a number of research participants (Kitzinger, 2006). Focus groups have the advantage that participants indulge into discussions elicited by the perspectives of the various participants, which are consequential to the interaction of the group where experiences can be similar or varied.

Data can be gathered in several ways (Guest and MacQueen, 2008) but within the context of this research data from elicitation methods or data collected from the visual techniques was excluded to prevent any bias on participants’ responses. Instead, the research utilised the most common form of data which is produced by means of in-depth interviews, focus groups and open-ended questions questionnaires.

5.3.2.1.1 Qualitative data collection: Use of one-to-one interviews

One-to-one interviews were carried out following the questionnaires employed during the first phase of the study. Bates et al. (2008) identifies three types of qualitative interviews as research methods for social sciences. Interviews can be ‘structured’, ‘semi-structured’ or ‘unstructured’. In the case of structured interviews, the interviewer follows pre-set, scripted questions which are followed rigorously without any deviation, without requesting further clarifications. On the other extreme unstructured interviews allow free flowing conversation, questions are initiated and discussed and the interviewer can add or delete any question. Semi-structured interviews are asymmetrical where the interviewer may answer for any clarifications and add or delete probes (Bates et al., 2008).

Qualitative interviews have various advantages and disadvantages within qualitative research. Bates et al. (2008) contend that conducting interviews are essential when the goal of the researcher is to acquire a thorough understanding from narratives, have a clear understanding of the experiences supporting expressed opinions or

89

concerns, obtain clarifications required from confusing statements and acquire explanation of any complicated events.

Outcome of the interviews does not depend only on the guide questions. Bates et al. (2008) highlight the importance of conversational skills and besides inform the researchers on differences between interviews and conversation. An interview differs from conversation in that research imposes a social role, active listening of participants and focus on particular topics and where the interviewer faces the challenge to obtain full responses (Bates et al., 2008). It is argued that interviewing skills are essential to aid conversation turn-taking, to know the appropriate time allocated to questions and when to move on to other topics or subject during the interview.

Reasons for considering one-to-one interviews in this research include:

o An interpretivist paradigm applying principles of phenomenological inquiry is appropriate so that experiences of current practices and policy development can be explored and examined.

o One-to-one interviews will allow participants to express their ideas and also express their experiences.

5.3.2.1.2 Qualitative data collection: Use of focus groups

Focus groups have been utilized in the concluding phase of this research. Following the questionnaires in phase 1 ‘A’ and the one to one interviews conducted in phase 1 ‘B’ and phase 2, an additional research tool was required to bring together the participants of all the phases in this research.

Published work on focus group dates back since 1926 when Bogardus, cited by Morgan (1997) described group interviews, which were later reported to be utilised post World War II as a tool to assess people’s social reactions (Kitzinger, 1994). Recent utilization of focus groups can be seen in works of Jochemsen-van der Leeuw et al. (2011) and Bassett-Clarke et al. (2012).

90

Discussion in focus groups can be stimulated through the different opinions of the group’s participants, allowing opinions to become more elaborate and discussed, which will help also in the appraisal of opinions. Frith and Gleeson (2012) argue that silent individuals are also encouraged to discuss their opinions while in focus groups and besides participants are generally more encouraged to engage in discussions even if the subjects can be embarrassing.

Focus groups have also several limitations. Some individuals are unwilling to participate, either because they find it very difficult to express their opinions with others or due to their busy lifestyle (Firth and Glesson, 2012). It could also be the case that participants in focus groups do not keep the subject matter in focus and deviate to discuss irrelevant topics in relation to the study under consideration. There could also be participants who are in minority or fear that their views will be viewed badly by others, and thus do not actively participate in the focus group (Firth and Glesson, 2012). Notably, in focus groups, the interaction amongst participants might undermine the researcher’s influence on the group. This can be considered both as a strength and as a weakness as whilst the researcher must not influence participants, it is crucial for the researcher to guide the discussion that remain relevant to the topic under research.

Reasons for considering focus groups for this last phase of the study include: o It advocates triangulation purposes.

o As an interpretivist paradigm applying principles of phenomenological inquiry, focus groups are appropriate to explore and further examine the experiences of current practices and policy development.

o Focus groups involve group discussion, where the principal researcher can take into account how participants approach the subject matters, how they engage in discussions and what is their reaction. Bowling (2009) contends that discussion in focus groups is encouraged by the group dynamics. It gains several insights where certain issues are pursued in depth. Interaction within a focus group also highlights attitudes of participants and the priorities that participants prioritize in

91

their discussions. This is always useful because attitudes emerge beyond and to certain extent independent of responses to direct questions (Kitzinger, 2006).