Qualitative interviews

The critical review identified gaps and issues in developing evidence-based tools to be addressed during stakeholder interviews. It was thus considered appropriate to use interviews to collect individuals’ experiences and opinions of the various forms of guidance, resources, and techniques that they currently use when designing for children (if any) and to explore their preferences and attitudes towards developing guidelines for design for young children’s safety. Furthermore, these interviews were used to find out what would be a useful design aid to better support them when designing for the identified age group. The interactive interviews in this study helped to define key components involved in their design processes; these particularly helped to identify the areas where further support might be required. The analysis from these interviews informed the initial understanding of requirements for the toolkit.

Each interview was conducted following a prepared procedure (see Appendix B4). Since risk-communication research has tended to focus on adults, with a lack of focus on young children, interview data with expert input was viewed as the most suitable form of information to supplement the existing findings and further refine the framework initially developed for older adults. Semi-structured interviews provide the ability to

119 examine topics of interest in varying degrees of depth, an approach that suited the exploratory nature of this study (Robson, 2002). The use of semi-structured interviews was further deemed most suitable to meet the aims of this study for many reasons. Firstly, the lack of empirical research into risk communication aimed at young children prevented the use of document analysis alone. Semi-structured stakeholder interviews were conducted initially within the UK; however, further ‘key informants’ were identified from America, including the author of one of the major sources: ‘Design for Children: Designing products and places for toddlers and teens’ (Lueder and Rice, 2008). This book was consulted to ensure stakeholders would represent a variety of disciplines and to assess the issues highlighted as important in designing risk communication tailored to the needs of young children and their carers. The in-depth interviews allowed respondents to adequately describe their personal experiences relating to design interactions and interdisciplinary collaboration.

5.3.4.1 Design of interview questions

A standardised interview schedule was designed, based on the findings and framework established in the critical review of resources in Chapter 4, where findings highlighted that there is a need to provide designers and other groups with more appropriate resources. Once the interview schedule was devised, it was piloted with an interviewee, and it was subsequently modified to form the final schedule (See Appendix B4). The final schedule included four sections: background, sources of information, the model and components, and design recommendations. Interview questions were designed to address the following topics:

• Part 1—Background: The interviews gathered information on the participant’s background, role experience, and involvement in the field of design for children aged 5–11.

• Part 2—Sources of information: Information on design and evaluation methods and processes participants currently use was collected. Information was gathered regarding participants’ knowledge of current tools available to support safe design for children, as well as tool format, how information is currently used in the design process, and effectiveness.

• Part 3—The models and components: The risk management model and its components were presented to participants, with design participants describing an example design scenario for how they might use the model in practice.

120 • Part 4—Design recommendations: Interview questions elicited participants’ opinions on the model and recommendations on how the model and its components could be improved, for example, with regard to the format in which they would like the information.

Any further issues or comments were discussed at the end of each interview. These areas were investigated to gather insights into whether the participants believed that current tools and methods benefitted the design process and what aspects were found to be difficult in designing for young children’s safety. Information was also gathered on what the participants thought the strengths and weakness of these tools and methods were, as it was felt that this information would be valuable when creating the resource. In accordance with university ethics, each participant was informed that they were under no obligation to take part. They could end the interview at any time, and company, employee, and project data would be kept anonymous. Interviewees, having agreed to participate, were briefed verbally about the nature of the research and supplied with written information; additionally, informed consent was obtained (see Appendix B2) and were informed of their right to request any data held about them at any time during the study. in written form from all stakeholders before questioning began. All interviewees were then asked their current role and prior experience. Interviews were recorded digitally (once permission was gained from stakeholders) and subsequently transcribed verbatim, each lasting approximately 30–90 minutes. An invitation was sent to all other participants requesting an interview. Due to the dispersed locations and time restraints of many participants, some of the interviews were conducted via Skype, as this medium allowed for face-to-face discussion without excessive travel. Where participants were unavailable for a skype call, a telephone interview was conducted instead.

To maintain reliability, all participants followed the same semi-structured procedure listed:

1. Initial contact by email or follow-up telephone call

2. Invitation to participate in face-to-face or Skype interview (depending on location and availability)

3. Interview conducted for approximately 40–60 minutes

The primary focus of this qualitative interview study was to bring together relevant information on considerations for child safety, determining the needs of designers, and

121 furthermore, the views of other stakeholders, with knowledge of the included disciplines.

Issues were discussed with each stakeholder to gain a better understanding of what information might be needed surrounding the factors considered significant in using design resources or tools to aid designers and other groups when designing for young children’s safety.

5.3.5 Analysis

The use of qualitative methods and data collection often results in large volumes of textual material that must be analysed and interpreted. Textual data in this instance included field notes from participant observation, transcripts from semi-structured interviews, stories or narratives, and existing resources and guidance. Initial analysis of the interviews identified the main problems with implementing human factors and ergonomics guidance. Interview transcripts were imported into the software programme NVivo 10 and used to aid the researcher in examining the possible relationships among the research themes. The frequency and distribution of codes were used as a means of making ‘connections’ within the interview transcripts, as advocated by Crabtree and Miller (1999, p.169).

In the preliminary analysis, the researcher read through the scripts to become familiar with the data. A few a priori codes, reflecting areas highlighted in advance as important to addressing the research question, were drawn from theory in the literature. Template analysis was utilised to ‘code and then rearrange the text from the semi-structured interviews’ as advocated by Crabtree and Miller, 1999, p.165. Template analysis characteristic of organisational research was used in this study to structure the qualitative data. In using the template, the researcher developed a template or codes from prior research and theory related to the research topic and applied them to the data before proceeding to the next phases. The template was constructed a priori, based on prior research and theoretical perspectives as advocated by King (1998). This researcher compiled a list of codes occurring in each transcript. The distribution of the codes within and across transcripts helped the researcher to draw attention to the aspects of the data that warrant further examination (King, 1998). The researcher also identified some emerging themes, in line with the original objectives of the study.

122 Three waves of interviews were planned, commencing with a semi-structured pilot interview based on the conceptual framework of the researcher. The use of one-on-one interviews is supported by Barbour (2008, p. 128), who states that one-on-one semi- structured interviews may be the most commonly used qualitative method and have become almost the “gold standard” approach. The second and third waves are interspersed with by phases of iterative analysis, facilitating the development of the template. Template analysis was used to specify the a priori themes used. Additional themes that emerged from the interviews are also discussed in this chapter. Template analysis was utilised to code and then rearrange the text from the semi-structured interviews (N = 30). To organise, analyse, and interpret the text, Crabtree and Miller (1999:165) describe that when using a template, the researcher should define a template or codes and apply it to the data before the phases of the analysis process. In this study, an a priori list of codes was drawn up based on a selection of child development and risk communication research from the field of human-factors adoption (McLaughlin and Mayhorn) and implementation research. King (1998) advocates compiling a list of codes occurring in each transcript, and the distribution of the codes within the transcribed interviews helped in drawing attention to aspects of the data that required further examination. Initial analysis of the interviews identified the main problems with implementing human factors and ergonomics guidance. Further analysis identified gaps in information and the knowledge needs of design practitioners and other experts. Initially, seven main themes emerged as a list of a priori codes from the resource review, showing the key findings of factors in design for child safety (see Table 5.1). During the analysis phase, patterns were found in the data, and the focus was on finding the key requirements of the knowledge needs of designers when prioritising young children’s safety. The researcher started with an initial coding template, which was then modified through data collection and analysis. A priori themes used in designing the interview questions are included in Table 5.1. Each of these emerging themes is discussed and further developed in the interview findings.