Part 2: Qualitative design, method and sample for focus group

4.4.1 Participants

Part 2 of the study used focus groups for data gathering and adopted a purposive sampling model. Focus groups consisted of sentenced and non-sentenced veteran prisoners from Scottish prisons. As in Part 1 of the study, the UK definition of a veteran was adopted; veteran prisoners had to have been fully enlisted military personnel, including conscripted if not from the UK, in any branch of the military service, since 1970. Additionally, participation in the focus group was also open to former Reservist or Territorial Army personnel who had served at least one tour of duty in a combat or peace keeping zone since 1970. This was to allow for an examination of whether the perceived experiences of civilian living, military service and prison differed between reservists and regular service personnel. Such an examination, however, did not occur as only prisoners who had been regulars in the Armed Forces volunteered for Part 2 of the study.

4.4.2 Recruitment

It was planned that at least one, but no more than four, focus groups consisting of between 4-10 group participants would take place. The minimum number of participants required for Part 2 of the study was four and for pragmatic reasons, prior to commencing the study, the maximum number of focus group participants was to be capped at 40. Low participant response rates, cancellations and withdrawals meant that only one focus group, located in a single prison, took place but this was sufficient to allow IPA analysis. The focus group discussion was programmed to last approximately 90 minutes, with an additional 30 minutes allocated to complete introductions, demographic questionnaires and meeting closure but in reality the meeting was restricted to 90 minutes by SPS operational requirements. This however, proved sufficient to complete the discussion.

88 Prior to the commencement of Part 2, the local VICSO or designate was provided with Part 2 research packs. The VICSO was asked to forward a copy of the research pack to veterans who had indicated that they wished to participate after taking part in Part 1, hearing of the study via word of mouth, or via poster advertising. Part 2 research packs contained a Participant Information Sheet and a two part consent form.

4.4.3 Consent

Participation in Part 2 required signed informed consent and obtaining informed consent was a two-stage process. Stage 1 followed receipt of the research pack which summarised the research project and provided specific details of Part 2 of the study. Participants were asked to sign the first section of the consent form if they agreed to proceed further. At this point, participants were consenting to attend a focus group and have their names shared with the prison VICSO. There was no obligation to participate after signing the first section of the consent form and potential participants were able to withdraw. Stage 2 of the consent process involved meeting with me, immediately prior to commencing the focus group, and signing the second section of the formal consent form. Participants were also given a final verbal offer to withdraw prior to the groups formally proceeding.

4.4.4 Data collection

Data was gathered through the use of a facilitated focus group involving four participants. Although each participant was asked to complete a basic demographic questionnaire, the principal means of capturing data from focus group was through the recording of the group discussion on a portable digital recorder. The recording was transcribed verbatim maintaining the accented dialect of the participants to enable capture of colloquialisms, and group and cultural specific references, including slang and jargon.

89 Smith and Osborn (2007) note that transcribing for IPA is done at a semantic level where all the words spoken need to be recorded. This needs to be done with “meticulous

accuracy” including mistakes, mis-hearings, pauses and other speech dynamics

(Biggerstaff and Thompson, 2008:8) so one can make sense of the words used and of the person using them (Smith, 2007).

The general structure of focus group discussion was guided by a number of key questions, some of which included supplementary or follow up enquiries where required (Appendix 6). These key questions were supported by introductory and linking questions to facilitate a conversational approach, whilst moving from broad general discussions to the specific key areas of interest. Once the focus group had commenced, comments made or data provided could not be withdrawn from the study and participants were made aware of this prior to commencing.

After the focus group was completed, a backup digital audio file was transferred and placed in a password protected encrypted file and the original version entered into an NVivo password protected project file, which again was stored on a password accessed university networked computer. Transcribing of the focus group audio file was done by a contracted transcriber who had signed a confidentiality agreement before commencing. The transcribed records were up-loaded into NVivo and stored as described above.

4.4.5 Data analysis

Transcriptions from the focus group discussion were entered into NVivo software. Scrutiny of the qualitative data used IPA. IPA has traditionally been used whilst conducting 1:1 in-depth interviews and the methodology has been discussed in detail in Chapter 3. Within this research, the purpose was to explore and gain a greater understanding of how veterans in prison, when together in a group, perceive their

90 experience of incarceration. Using a group format acknowledges the ‘in-group’ status, or military identity, of veterans and the supportive nature of ‘comradeship’ to facilitate discussion (Hunt and Robbins, 2001). The aim of this approach was to encourage veteran prisoners to discuss their pre-prisoner military experience as well as their veteran prisoner experience. The use of IPA with focus groups is novel, and while the multiple voices and interactional complexity of the group may appear less suitable to this model of inquiry (Smith and Osborn, 2007), the potential benefits and challenges that this approach brings has also been identified (Tomkins and Eatough, 2010). Palmer and colleagues (2010) developed a protocol which they suggest other researchers can use as a prompt, rather than a ‘recipe’, when reflecting on focus group data. Tomkins and Eatough (2010) discuss methods of balancing the ‘part-whole relationships’ between the group and the individual, and the interplay between real time discursive and post hoc thematic sense- making, when analysing the data and constructing themes. The approaches and recommendations from both papers were used as a guide when analysing data from this study.

Transcribed data was entered into NVivo and the software was used to support annotation of the transcript, the initial analysis and identification of sub-themes. Limitations within the software, such as the inability to create tables of themes with transcript references, which have been commented on by others (Wagstaff et al., 2014), however, prevented IPA from fully being carried out within NVivo. Manual analysis was then carried out grouping together and reviewing sub-themes and the development of sub-ordinate themes through to super-ordinate themes.

91