Recruiting members

A flyer requesting voluntary study circle members was developed and circulated by mail, fax, notice boards, and personally to numerous organisations and groups during February and March 1998 (appendix 5.1). These included:

• Case management organisations in Footscray and Sunshine;

• Centrelink at Footscray and Newport;

• Melbourne City Mission, Footscray;

• Footscray CES, Footscray;

• Western Melbourne Institute of TAFE (WMIT), Footscray44 ; • Victoria University, Footscray;

• Bridging Education and Training (BEAT), Footscray;

• Victorian Unemployed Workers Coalition, Melbourne;

• Council of Adult Education, Melbourne;

• Footscray and Newport Skillshares;

• Uniting Church, Williamstown;

• Williamstown Coffee House, Williamstown;

• Brotherhood of St Laurence, Carlton;

• Breaking the Cycle, Newport;

• Yes West, Sunshine and Footscray;

• Welfare Rights Unit, Collingwood; and

• Unemployed Workers Support Group, Melbourne.

44

A media release (appendix 5.2) was also developed and information was placed in two local newspapers: the Williamstown Advertiser and the Western Independent (appendix 5.3). A brief presentation and request for members was also conducted with students in two LMPs at WMIT. Finally, the local state ALP branch was also kind enough to include a flyer in its monthly mail out. This type of approach is supported by Reason as he suggests that “action research groups are often set up through some form of advertising to a likely population” (1990:22).

Volunteers started telephoning in mid March 1998. Two saw the flyer though the Brotherhood of St Laurence, two from Newport Skillshare, one from Footscray Skillshare, one from WMIT, three from the Victorian Unemployed Workers Coalition, one through word of mouth and one from the local newspaper. In all a total of ten inquiries. Once this prescribed number of interested participants of five or more was achieved, a date was set to commence the study circle season.

This response rate was disappointing considering the extent to which notification was circulated. Although open to conjecture, reasons for the low response rate could be attributed to several factors. Firstly the word “study” in study circle possibly reflected a negative image to some people who have had ineffective experiences with education (as discussed in Chapter two). At the time this was briefly discussed with AAACE staff and even they were considering altering the name in some way. However it was decided to stay with the “study circle” term as it was believed that with the popularity and publicity of the Aboriginal Reconciliation study circle effort, some may make a positive connection. A second reason for low response could have been due to the recommendation in study circle instructional literature that a sponsoring organisation oversee and endorse study circle initiatives to assist in promoting and recruiting (SCRC 1989:4), for example church,45 _{community groups, public and private organisations or}

businesses. Perhaps the absence of an official alignment with a specific organisation caused the reduced effectiveness in recruiting members (although Victoria University was

45

noted on flyers). Thirdly, a separate but related issue is that of personally contacting prospective members. The literature suggested that this was an effective method in recruitment strategies (SCRC 1989). Although this approach was done on a small scale, with the two presentations at LMPs, it could have perhaps been broader. Fourthly, at the time of conducting this research the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES), Centrelink, training providers and case management were going through massive changes in response to new Commonwealth Government legislative changes and the formation of the Job Network and Employment Services initiatives.46 _{Many LMPs were being wound}

down and it could be argued that during times of change many people may have been preoccupied, pensive in relation to change, and reserved in taking up new commitments. The fifth reason for low numbers could also have been that the study circle was directly related to academic research. Perhaps this was intimidating on its own and furthermore, those who withdrew for various reasons after being briefed about the study may have felt that they were under scrutiny or investigation with the notion of signing consent forms, offering personal information and having themselves questioned and recorded. This is often the case with welfare recipients as they constantly feel under surveillance from beauracracies (Winefield et al 1996).

Finally, the literature had informed that often “fear of new experiences” could be reason to withdraw from a study circle just before commencement (Oliver 1987). All these causes are open to conjecture. Some, all or none may be accurate, however it is relevant to reflect upon these possibilities as part of the research process and may assist in flagging possible challenges that other study circle initiatives may face. Nonetheless, the required minimum number of five or more members for commencement was achieved, and the possible problem of selecting a diverse sample from many applicants was also alleviated.47

46

The Job Network has since replaced the former CES. Job Network members include three hundred private and community organisations as well as Employment National, which is government owned. Job Network providers receive government funding on a contractual basis to assist the unemployed into work (Rance 1999).

After initial inquiries, potential participants were firstly mailed a kit containing:

• A letter (appendix 6.1).

• The flyer (appendix 5.1).

• A copy of “Guidelines for Effective Study Circles” (AAACE 1995).

• Victoria University Consent Form (appendix 7).

• A Participant Information Form (appendix 8).

• A Background Information Form (appendix 9).

• A copy of the pre interview questions (appendix 10.1).48

After a few days individuals were recontacted to confirm if they still wished to participate. One declined at this stage. A meeting was arranged with the nine that accepted to check what days and times for the study circle sessions suited each participant. Individual pre study circle interviews were then planned at various locations for individual participants49. All interviews (including mid and end) were conducted at a location preferred by the participant. As Fetterman states: “In order to help the interviewees feel more comfortable and at ease…the interviewer should meet the individuals … on their own “turf”” (1991:12).

A site for study circle season was organised through Victoria University at the Institute for Youth, Education and Community in Footscray. After contacting all participants and establishing a time and day that suited them all, a two hour session was arranged to commence on April second, 1998 at three fifteen p.m. Scheduling of further meetings would be organised according to the collective wishes of the membership. This (two hours over eight weeks) is the frequency of study circle sessions and duration of season recommended by Gibson (1998).

47 _{The issue of samples will be addressed later in this Chapter.}

48 _{Rationale elaborated upon later in Chapter.} 49

Details in relation to the content of these interviews are discussed later in this Chapter. The locations of all interviews are noted on all transcripts (appendix 11, 18 and 19).

Each pre interview meeting with applicants progressed in the following manner:

• Discussing the research and study circles.

• Answering any questions the potential members may have had.

• Reconfirming their wish to participate.

• Completing Victoria University Consent Form and Participant Information and Background Forms.

• Conducting pre study circle interview (tape recorded).

• Informing participant that transcripts would be forwarded to them to check, change, edit and confirm.

• Clarifying first session time, date and location.

Following these interviews participants were sent a letter and copy of their interview transcript for checking and editing (appendix 6.2 and 11.1 to 11.5). This exercise constituted the first individual “loop” of experience and reflection at an individual level (Reason 1990). As the participants were able to edit their own transcript it was also envisaged that this would create an initial feeling of collaborative trust (Burns 1995; Lather 1991).

During this initial pre study circle individual meeting a number of issues emerged which were considered to need addressing prior to the season commencing. Several members asked various questions, wanting to know more about the research, my background, why I was interested in unemployment and more about study circles. A further letter was therefore sent out on March thirty to address these questions and concerns, and also to again to remind participants of the study circle commencement date, time and location (appendix 6.2). Although participants had combinations of different concerns, it was appropriate to address all issues raised in the individual interview sessions with all participants via the letter (aside from any confidential matters). It was important to start off with openness, demonstrating how the experience would be shared by all. As Lather

suggests; “… self disclosure on the part of the researcher … encourages reciprocacy” (1991:60).

Prior to the first meeting, four posters were prepared and displayed on the wall. One was entitled “Members’ Guide” with the abridged ten key principles for effective discussion taken from “Guidelines for Effective Study Circles” (SCRC 1995) (appendix 12). Another poster was entitled “Issues”, but not filled out (appendix 13, completed version). This was intended to act as the focus for what the group decided were important issues to tackle during the season. A third poster entitled “Objectives” intended to cover what individuals wanted from the experience, included two initial objectives: “To become effective study circle members and leaders” and “to explore the issue of unemployment in a democratic and participatory manner” (SCRC 1995) (appendix 14). A fourth poster entitled “Groundrules” encompassed how the group would operate and guidelines on how members would interact on a personal level with each other (appendix 15).

Although nine potential participants were met and interviewed, eventually only five of the original nine decided to participate. The reasons for this attrition have been discussed previously. This made a membership of six altogether including the researcher. Victoria University Human Research Ethics Committee guidelines required that all participants select a pseudonym of their choice to be used in all interview and session transcripts as well as in the final thesis.