Qualitative methods: the city-based case study

To complement and build upon the documentary analysis, an empirical and geographically-based case study investigation was undertaken during the second year of the study. A single locality was selected as a case study site in which to conduct the empirical study. This strategy was considered the strongest in terms of generating the ‘richest’ understandings of the operationalisation of vulnerability within welfare and disciplinary interventions for young people. A mixture of qualitative methods were selected for the case study investigation, including immersion in the local infrastructures of vulnerability-related services, 15 semi-structured interviews with key informants and 25 interviews with supposedly vulnerable young people.

Qualitative methods seemed appropriate for the study, particularly as they are associated with the celebration of ‘nuance, context, multi-dimensionality and complexity’ (Mason, 2002; 1). The semi-structured interview was selected as the basis for the empirical investigation with young people due to its numerous benefits when researching ‘hard-to-reach’ groups, largely related to its flexibility (May, 2001; Noaks and Wincup, 2004). Semi-structured interviews tend to be viewed as well-suited to taking account of subjects as competent and active

‘storytellers’ and also as organisers of the meanings they convey (Holstein and Gubrium, 1995; May, 2001). This makes them well suited to discovering how

‘marginalised’ groups construct and frame meanings, identities and experiences (Noaks and Wincup, 2004), especially of more ‘intimate’ or ‘private’ spheres (Birch and Miller, 2000) as would be required with a study of young people’s

‘vulnerability’. Qualitative methods were also selected for generating

understandings of how ‘official’ systems relating to ‘vulnerability’ operate, as they are considered to offer particular benefits in terms of exploring interactions, contradictions and conflicts, and uncovering subtle shades of meanings at work in complex and multi-faceted processes (Duke, 2002; Hertz and Imber, 1995).

Where research involves children and young people, techniques such as more formal interviewing have been accused of emphasising the unequal power relationship between the adult researcher and the young person researched

(Maunther, 1997; Conolly, 2008). I was aware that this power imbalance had the potential to be further exacerbated given the ‘vulnerable’ nature of interviewees in this project. Qualitative approaches seemed to me to offer the means to adopt a more ‘informal’ approach in the interviews with young people, allowing the researcher to work in ways that were conducive to maximising mutual

understandings and shared language as far as was possible. ‘Task-based’ or ‘task-centred’ approaches were selected, where a range of activities are undertaken to elicit responses which can be analysed in themselves or which can be used to generate conversation which is then analysed (see Punch, 2002; James et al, 1998;

Harden et al, 2000). The task-based approach was a particularly distinct aspect of the methodological approach used in the research and is discussed in further detail later in the chapter (see 4.4.6 and 4.4.7).

A large northern city (population around 750 000) was decided on as the case study locality, for two key reasons. Firstly, the city had a large local authority with a varied infrastructure in place for supporting vulnerable children and young people. At one point within the local authority’s governance arrangements for children’s services, there had been a ‘Vulnerable Groups Commissioning Partnership Board’²³. Although the board was no longer active at the time of the study, core elements of

frameworks generated by the group were still in place; some services were

explicitly targeted at ‘vulnerable’ children and young people and senior strategists within the Local Authority had formal roles related to vulnerability, such as ‘Lead Commissioner for Vulnerable Groups’. From initial information gathering,

vulnerability seemed to be a key concept within children’s services in the case study city, from strategic level through to service delivery. Secondly, the particular city selected for the case study offered me the opportunity to utilise my understanding of the local context which had been generated though previous work, as well as to take advantage of established contacts within local agencies working in children’s services within that area. I felt that the selection of this case study site would help

23 This had had around 30 members, and had aimed to deliver an ‘integrated’ joint- commissioning programme for ‘vulnerable groups’ of children and young people.

me to gain access to research participants and would also be useful in enabling the gleaning of more subtle and tacit processes.

A substantial amount of ‘scene-setting’ and pilot work in the city was fundamental.

Throughout the first year of the study, I undertook meetings with various

practitioners in children’s services in order to discuss their possible involvement in the fieldwork stage of the project. These conversations generated insights into how practitioners saw vulnerability, as well as discussion of examples from their practice, and were particularly useful in the design of practitioner interviews. I had stayed on in employment in a part-time capacity for the first four months of the study, which created opportunities to discuss the scope and nature of the research with

colleagues and for me to gauge reactions to my approach and generate ideas.

When fieldwork commenced, two ‘pilot’ or ‘pioneering’ interviews were conducted prior to the main interviews being undertaken, and were subsequently included in the data analysis. These were transcribed and reflected upon with supervisors and colleagues, with a watchful eye on how my insiderness had functioned within the interview situation. The pilot of the young person’s interview was one of the most challenging interviews I undertook, which helped with preparation for the rest of the fieldwork. The young person fell neatly into the practitioner identification of

‘vulnerable’ (she was living in emergency hostel accommodation and was an ex-asylum seeker), but she did not respond at all to the idea that she was vulnerable, or had experienced particular difficulties. The conversation was stilted and I

struggled to connect with the young person. This proved invaluable in the design of the other interviews as I then worked at designing a process that took better account of where similar problems might arise. The practitioner interview pilot was also an informative exercise. The transcription showed that in places I had lapsed into the role of ‘fellow practitioner’. As I wanted to generate findings which would give insights into practices which were in some respects deeply ingrained, I

reconsidered the treatment of my insiderness with key informants with the aim of being more ‘detached’ (see 4.5).