Qualitative research methods

I was interested in utilising a focus group approach to both mental health service users and mental health workers. The number of participants who took part in the focus group needed to be limited to make it more productive. Waldegrave (2003) believes that focus groups work best with groups of between six and twelve people. As I was also conducting the research alone I did not have the resources to interview large numbers of people in the research. I had anticipated that the groups would meet twice. Although a second interview did not take place, three mental health workers from the original group met with the researcher and discussed what else could be

achieved from the original focus group. This group meeting led to the setting up of the interview with the chair of ACHT.

Focus groups are usually made up of people who have a similar interest or an understanding of the topic. A focus group interview occurs “with the primary aim of describing and understanding perceptions, interpretations, and beliefs of a select population to gain understanding of a particular issue from the perspective of the group‟s participants” (Khan & Manderson, cited in Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005, p. 76). The role of the researcher is to act as a facilitator and not as an interviewer, so detailed information can be gathered through the group‟s discussion without them being directed by the researcher (Davidson & Tolich 2003; Sarantakos, 2005). Through the researcher encouraging debate people‟s differing experiences and opinions are expressed so enriching the research data (Barbour & Kitzinger, 1999). Another reason for the utilisation of a focus group is that it lends well to the action research approach and is frequently used to support marginalised groups such as people with disabilities, the poor, and minority groups (Liamputtong and Ezzy, 2005).

5.2.5.2 Limitations of focus groups

Sarantakos (2005) identified some possible limitations to the focus group. In a group situation participants may not express their real opinions. However, in the group of mental health workers it was apparent the people were able to express their opinions freely. Another limitation can be that some members of the group may dominate the conversation and the direction of the discussion so some may not participate in the discussion. While the direction of the discussion was facilitated by the researcher and kept on track there were a number of people that dominated the conversation. The facilitator encouraged all members of the group to participate but, as in all group situations there tends to be some people that express their opinions more than others. Another limitation to be considered is that the information gathered is from a perspective of those that take part and therefore subjective. Another possible limitation is that the researcher‟s values and beliefs are imposed on the participants so that the outcomes reflect the researcher‟s interests rather than

the participants (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005). As the researcher I find it hard to determine whether these limitations applied in this situation. However, the data collected through this process was useful and detailed enough to provide sufficient information for this research.

5.2.5.3 In-depth individual interviews

The interviewing process requires careful consideration with issues such as the topic, the interviewer, the presentation of questions and expected responses, and where the interview takes place. There are several tasks for the interviewer through the interviewing process including approaching and arranging the interviews, taking the interview session, facilitating the interview, not influencing the interviewee, using audio tapes for accurate interviewing and observing ethical requirements (Sarantakos, 2005). Oishi (2003) recognises the benefits of in-depth interviews:

Interviews do not happen in a vacuum. They occur in physical environments, in social spaces. Interactions – between the researcher and respondent, between the respondent and others – can dramatically illustrate key issues; provide an opening for development of particular issues, or alert the researcher to issues of which he/she was unaware (p. 246).

An unstructured interview method was used with all participant groups. The interviews were taped and then transcribed at a later date. The benefit of using a tape recorder was that it provided accuracy and allowed the facilitator to engage more with the participants (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005). Unstructured interviews were considered to be the most appropriate way to gather sufficient and useful information for the research (Kumar, 1996). Unstructured interviewing is “…closer to a guided conversation (set of questions) where the researcher‟s goal is „to elicit from the interviewee rich, detailed material that can be used in qualitative analysis‟” (Loftland and Loftland cited in Kirby et al., 2006, p. 134). Preparation for the unstructured interviewing resulted in the development of a framework that had a number of general questions and an idea of what direction the interview would take (Kumar, 1999; Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005). The line and format of questioning

was developed depending on the responses during the interview process (Kirby et al., 2006).

5.2.5.4 Telephone interviewing.

Contact was made with the respondents prior to the research interview taking place. The telephone interviewees were provided with the information and consent form so they were aware of what the research was about, the reason why I was interviewing them and had an idea of what questions would be asked. Therefore some of the limitations of interviewing did not eventuate for this research. As Sarantakos (2005) states, telephone interviewing has:

…the same structural characteristics as standard interviewing techniques, except that it is conducted by telephone…questions have to be constructed in a way that will allow a clear understanding of their content when presented over the telephone (p. 282).

5.2.5.5 Limitations of in-depth interviewing

It is important to acknowledge the influence of the interviewer on the interview process. With unstructured interviewing, the interviewer is also participating in the discussion within the interview session and can therefore be charged of bias (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005). However, bias should not be seen as an entirely negative thing. As Liamputtong & Ezzy (2005) state, “the method of the active interview grows out of an attempt to constructively respond to the problem of subjectivity in interviews rather than to pretend it can be avoided” (p. 57). So rather than pretending there is no bias in an interviewing setting, it is important to acknowledge the researcher‟s agenda will have an effect on the data.

The gathering of data very much depends on the researcher in terms of skill and is difficult to do well (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005). Unstructured interviewing relies on flexibility around the questioning and therefore there may be difficulty in comparing, coding and analysing the data as it may have been gathered in different ways. It is also important to recognise that the researcher avoids editing the data to suit the researcher‟s agenda and own prejudices thus losing ones objectivity (Kumar, 1999; Sarantakos, 2005).

Unlike focus groups the information gathered in terms of peoples experiences and points of view are gathered in separate interviews and therefore the interaction with others, which may have stimulated discussion, is absent (Liamputtong & Ezzy, 2005). The participants in the research provided relevant detailed information that was able to be used when analysing and interpreting the data. All participants had an interest in the topic and this assisted with both the interview and the quality of information gathered.

Summary

The use of a Marxist methodological approach is justified as it gives an understanding of the struggles that mental health service users have in accessing affordable housing. The reason for wanting to use action research was discussed. It complements the methodological approach to this research and is supported by Freire‟s argument that changes of structures can only be achieved through reflection and action. Although it was disappointing that this research did not utilise an action research approach, two reasons for this were given. Not using an action research approach did not affect the quantity or quality of information gained from interviews. Neither did it affect the methodological approach or the research methods used. The research methods complemented the methodological approach and both the quantitative and qualitative methods used were discussed in detail.

Chapter Six – The Data

Introduction

This chapter describes the data collected through statistical information and through information gained from interviews with the participants. There are five themes to this chapter - Barriers to housing due to income, Barriers to housing due to affordability, Barriers to accessing HNZC houses, Barriers to accessing social housing and Barriers to housing due to discrimination. The five themes have been created in response to the data gathered and also to provide clarity of the data.