Research Methods Used and Justifications for the Selected Research Methods

qualitative research methods of observations (non-participant and participant), focus groups and face-to-face individual interviews. Thus, the research methods selected were determined, not only because of their appropriateness to the research question, but also with regard to their practicalities, in terms of access, the sensitivities of the client group and also the time available to me in view of my full-time employment. The justification for the selected research methods are explained and explored below.

3.7.1 Observations: familiarisation process

a) Non-participant observation: the justification for using this method is that it is limited in its intrusiveness, ‘the researcher is an outsider of the group under study, watching and taking notes from a distance’ (Creswell, 2013:163). So the group’s activities will be undertaken as if the researcher was absent. Therefore, following McDowell’s (2001) advice and it being further confirmed by the pilot study, I realised the importance of gaining the young people’s trust. Hence, I commenced with non-participant observation, as part of the familiarisation process. I did this by attending a morning class being held to brief the new cohort of NEET young people about their course syllabus, activities involved and time-table. This was useful to me as I gained insight into 12-week self-development course run by Possible. On another morning, I attended an employer presentation on skills. The process on both occasions involved me sitting in the above-mentioned sessions. I was introduced as an independent researcher, concerned with their situation and that I was starting off by attending the two sessions to find out more about the course and activities. I sat with the audience of young people, listening to the presentation. Note-taking was not undertaken. After the session, I had lunch in the canteen which the young people used. Although, the issues I was investigating would not be fully addressed by this method, the justification was that my presence at some of the sessions and being seen around the place would help me to become an accepted, familiar figure. This, in turn, could ease the conducting of the focus groups and individual interviews that I planned to undertake later on.

69 Although this was a non-participant observation, this method is being included within this section because, although I did not record anything then, nor talk to the young people, I made notes on completing the observations. I learnt about the programme’s activities during the first observation. I had also noted in my field-notes that some young people had asked about coming in at a later time sometimes because of having to sign on at their Job Centre. This informed me to enquire further about their Job Centre experiences during the individual interviews.

b) Participant observation: this occurred after the above-mentioned two observations. I attended a session on completing application forms. By now, it appeared that I was becoming a familiar face as some young people greeted me by my name when they saw me. Thus, I felt that I was beginning to be accepted. I was a participant observer in the session on completing application forms by assisting to give out forms, stationery, by helping one person to complete her form and by engaging in social conversations during the break time. I was keen to undertake this so that I would have the opportunity to talk socially to some of the young people and be seen as a friendly, helpful and familiar figure. During the break, the young person sitting next to me offered me a sweet. So that started a conversation with her: in my post-session notes, I have noted that she told me that she loved coming to Possible, would find job interviews ‘scary’ and Possible’s interview practice sessions will be helpful. I wanted to ask if this meant she had never applied for employment, but I hesitated because I was not sure if that might be intrusive at this stage. So, I listened and did not ask any questions, this being a social conversation during break time. She also said that her mother, a single parent has had ‘no luck’ getting jobs. She went on to say ‘not that there are many jobs where I live anyhow’. This prompted me to ask participants later on, during interviews, about where they lived and the social and employment opportunities in their locations (considered in Chapter 6). However, due to the time restraints of my full-time employment, the participant observation could not be repeated: therefore, I was only a ‘semi-immersed’ participant observer (Wisker, 2001:183).

Nevertheless, the familiarisation process involving observations proved valuable in earning the trust of the young people as they came to view me as being interested in them. I also gained insight into Possible’s course and related activities. I observed that Possible’s staff were highly respected by the young people (confirmed during interviews) and I feel that my being seen to be included by the staff in their sessions added to me being trusted. Hence, these attempts at familiarisation, helped to ease the conducting of the focus group sessions that I undertook, as discussed below.

70

3.7.2 Focus Groups

Two focus group sessions were conducted: one with four females and one with four males (the fifth did not turn up). Participants’ background details are given in Appendix 1. Using focus groups was justified for the reasons outlined below.

I was not sure how many young NEET people would volunteer to be interviewed individually if I sought to undertake the interviews straight after a few observation sessions. I felt that they might be more willing to speak to me in a group situation. Additionally, if the participants in the group were to get on and be engaged, it could produce a lot of data (Morgan 1997).This could include new data not thought of prior to somebody mentioning something to stimulate the new point or idea. Following the thoughts expressed by Jowett and O’Toole (2008), I felt that I could not ignore using focus groups if they could be arranged, as focus groups would put the ‘researched’ in a stronger position than me, the researcher. As Jowett and O’Toole (2008:455) suggest ‘this method allows the potential for the disruption of power relationships within the research contexts’. Furthermore, I felt that as it is a marginalised group, I needed to find out more about the group and test out some research questions (for example, about the ‘NEET’ label) that lend themselves to group discussions. More specifically to this study, the justification for using this method is that focus groups allow close scrutiny and lengthy discussions of the issues relevant to the research aims. Furthermore, focus groups assist with designing appropriate questions for individual interviews and also with obtaining the views of a wider section than achieved by individual interviews.

However there are also some disadvantages in using focus groups. It works well if the group dynamics are equal, with all feeling comfortable with each other. Otherwise, there might be views only from a few. The researcher, though playing a background role, would have to step in skilfully if the discussion begins to drift on to issues not relevant to the study. There is also the danger of one person dominating (Robson, 2002) as so happened in the female focus group: when I asked if they would like to participate in individual interviews, one of them said, ‘No’. I asked why and the same person answered that she had said all there is to say, to which the others nodded their heads in agreement. However, with the male focus group, there was no dominant figure and, when I asked, all the participants expressed interest in being interviewed individually.

71 The focus group sessions were semi-structured in order to achieve focus on the relevant issues. The topics discussed included the use of the label NEET; the EMA and its planned withdrawal; on career guidance provisions in school and Possible’s course. As mentioned above, due to confidentiality, personal questions could not be asked; thus, bullying was an issue alluded to by one of the participants but it could not be discussed further. The focus groups were gender based to encourage the participants to speak freely, taking into consideration that, for some, issues could be gender related.

3.7.3 Individual interviews

Face-to-face, individual interviews were undertaken with the young people and, also, with a few of the staff at Possible. There were thirteen participants: six females and seven males. Three of the male participants had attended the focus group session (as described above). The table in Appendix 1 provides the relevant information on the individual interview participants. Their personal details were given by the interviewees themselves, with the exception of their social class. This was indicated freely by all, but two of the participants and therefore for these two it was deduced from parental occupations and the data collected. The justification for conducting individual interviews is presented below.

Thirteen young NEET people were interviewed individually. This is because despite the focus group sessions, there were unexplored topics which were crucial to the aim and focus of the study and alluded to in the focus groups: this included, for example, matters relating to the participants’ families (Chapter 4); their school experiences, particularly bullying suffered by some (Chapter 5); career guidance and employment opportunities (Chapter 6). As these topics are personal to the individual, they could not be asked nor discussed in focus groups. A further advantage of conducting individual interviews is that they enable the shy or less confident of the participants to voice their views. They also give an opportunity to those who for cultural reasons may not have wished to articulate their concerns in a group situation. Thus individual interviews were conducted ‘because thoughts, feelings, beliefs […] are involved, [and] the researcher needs to understand the deeper perspectives that can be captured through face-to- face interaction’ (Marshall and Rossman, 2006:53).