Recruitment Method

Contact regarding the research, prior to obtaining ethical approval, was at a Director/ CEO level within the organisations. Contact was made prior to ethical approval to ensure that there were sufficient numbers who met my inclusion criteria within these organisations. They were sent copies of all the research information including the proposal outlining the inclusion criteria (see Appendix 2). Several discussions took place via telephone with the CEO in Provider 1 to ensure they fully understood the aims of the research, what it entailed and what I required from them as an organisation. A similar discussion took place, and in person, with Provider 2, with a Director.

Gatekeeper

Gatekeepers were used in the recruitment of participants. These were senior staff that had regular contact with the participants. Gatekeepers had direct knowledge of the participants due to the level of contact and involvement they have with these individuals and, therefore, were able to recommend to me appropriate people to be involved based on their knowledge. The gatekeepers were the individuals predominantly responsible for meeting the needs of the participants as identified in Maslow’s theory and presented in Figure 1 A. It was possible that there could have been some bias in relation to the gatekeepers: for example, there was a possibility that gatekeepers could have only offered the research to participants who they felt highlighted their organisation in a positive way. The research was anonymous so it had no impact on the company’s public profile, but they may not have wanted to have shared participants’ stories which did not highlight the organisation in a positive light with another social care

73

professional. This, however, seemed unlikely due to the participants sharing both positive and negative stories. The risk of gatekeeper bias was deemed acceptable as without them it would not have been possible to gain access to such a vulnerable group, to gain ethical approval and to ensure the appropriate individuals took part. In relation to Maslow’s theory, gatekeepers were utilised to ensure peoples’ ‘safety and security needs’ were met, ensuring that only psychologically robust people participated and that people were supported prior to interview to understand what was involved in taking part in the research.

There was an issue surrounding a gatekeeper in Provider 1 as one participant who relied on staff support to organise appointments did not take part in the second interview. Despite sending a letter and calling the agency it was not possible to get a second interview. It was unclear if this was a communication error between the gatekeeper and myself or if the person chose not to take part. There were also two participants who chose not to take part in the research despite showing an initial interest. As I never met with these individuals to discuss this it was unclear what led them to change their mind.

Ethical Approval

I secured ethical approval via my university ethics board. More information on this is provided in the Section on informed consent (3.7).

Provider 1

Once ethical approval was obtained, contact was made, via the CEO, with a senior manager within a southern regional office. She would serve as the gatekeeper for the research for Provider 1. The gatekeeper was sent copies of all the research information including the proposal outlining the inclusion criteria. The research criteria and ethical concerns were discussed via the telephone prior to the identification of participants.

The gatekeeper approached people in relationships via their staff, asking who initially enquired if they were interested in participating. Contact was initially made with interested parties via the Team Manager to arrange meetings and to discuss the

research with each person. Ten potential participants were identified and eight met with me to discuss the research, either individually or as part of a couple. One person declined to take part in the interviews and did not engage in the pre-meeting. One person initially declined to take part as he was not going to be paid but changed his mind on the day of the interview.

74

The pre-meetings were an opportunity for people to meet me and establish if they would feel comfortable discussing topics which were personal, sensitive and emotional. It was also to establish if their verbal skills met the required level and their relationship experience was romantic/ intimate in nature and they were able to give informed consent to take part in the research (see Section 3.7.4 on informed consent).

Participants were given the opportunity to ask questions and raise any concerns they had about the research. Participants were reassured that they were free to decline taking part and could do this at any point. I did not feel that participants had been pressured to take part as some of those initially identified went on to decline taking part. Some participants asked questions: one person wanted to know if I was going to film the interviews and I explained I was not and another person asked what would happen if she did not want to answer a question. I explained that this was fine and she was free at any time to say that she felt uncomfortable answering.

One couple was spoken to via telephone instead of a face to face meeting. They were given the same opportunities to discuss and ask questions as those who had face to face meetings. Their pre-meetings were conducted this way as these participants joined the research later, which posed time constraints. They lived in a different

geographical location to all other participants and this was considerable distance for me to travel.

Following the pre-meeting, all of the participants were asked again, via the team manager, if they were happy to take part. No-one declined at this stage and meetings were arranged directly.

Provider 2

Once ethical approval was obtained contact was made, via a Senior Manager, with a Team Manager who had identified potential participants. She would serve as the gatekeeper for the research for Provider 2. The gatekeeper was given copies of all the research information including the proposal outlining the inclusion criteria. The

research criteria and ethical concerns were discussed in person prior to the identification of participants.

The gatekeeper approached people who they were supporting and who were in relationships and enquired if they were interested in participating. I had met with the Team Manager and some participants prior to this during some contact work I was employed to undertake within their organisation. I had no direct contact with potential participants. Five potential participants were identified. One person was deemed

75

unsuitable for the research as his only relationship experience was in an abusive

relationship. Despite his interest both the gatekeeper and I felt it would have been too traumatic for him to take part. Another person was excluded from the research as she recently ‘assaulted’ an ex-partner’s girlfriend. The gatekeeper was concerned that discussing this relationship may increase her aggressive behaviour. The gatekeeper fulfilled their obligation of protecting the ‘safety and security needs’ of both the person who may have found the interview too traumatic as well as other individuals who could have been at risk from aggressive behaviour had they participated. Three people agreed to take part. As with Provider 1, all of these participants had a pre- meeting to discuss the research. Following the pre-meeting participants were asked again, via the Team Manager, if they were happy to take part. No-one declined at this stage and meetings were arranged directly.

In document Experience of Partner Selection and Relationships for People with Learning Disabilities (Page 80-83)