Chapter Three Methodology
3. Research Setting
3.3 Sampling & Recruitment
In order to recruit participants to take part in the study, I drew on techniques commonly used within qualitative inquiry - specifically, purposive sampling. Purposive sampling, as Patton (2002) reminds us, involves purposefully selecting a small number of information-rich cases in order to yield insights and in-depth understanding of the focus of the research. Informal gatekeepers were primarily used as a way of accessing potential participants, as having a person who can ‘vouch’ for the researcher can be integral to the research’s success (Devers & Frankel, 2000). However, as Baker and Weller (2003) remind us, when using gatekeepers, we must first consider to whom we require access. My interest in diversity meant that I required access to households of varying backgrounds and composition - a wide net to cast indeed. The only stipulation for the participants, in order to retain relevance to the research question, was that they lived in the study area.
A range of suitable gatekeepers were initially considered - each with links to energy projects within the research area. Potential gatekeepers included key figures in the local authority’s energy department and a further education establishment, as well as the local Pathfinder programme representative. After consultation with each of the gatekeepers it became apparent that was able to facilitate access to the intended sample within the proposed time frames, while the other gatekeepers were only able to partially meet these requirements. The decision was therefore taken to utilise only the one gatekeeper, so as to reduce the complexity of accessing the sample. This did run the inherent risk that should this gatekeeper withdraw or be unable to facilitate the promised access, I would
have struggled to gain access to my sample. Thankfully it transpired that this was not the case. In an effort to help guard against the potential withdrawal of the gatekeeper the other two gatekeepers agreed that they would be able to provide assistance if needed.
Having established contact with the local Pathfinder officer, I was directed to a community group in the Meirionnydd region that had a particular interest in energy conservation at the household level. In early 2012, I made contact with the group, which had recently begun undertaking an ‘energy descent project’ with 20 households taking part, and began attending their monthly meetings and project-related events as much as my work schedule would permit me. Attendants of the energy group were aware of my PhD project from the outset, and were interested to hear how the project was developing.
I was invited to give an informal talk about the aims of my research at one of the group’s monthly meetings, which I saw as an opportunity to generate some interest among the core members. In all, five of what were then the ‘core’ households of the group, showed an interest in taking part in the research.
Another opportunity to generate further interest in the project presented itself in the form of an annual sustainability fair9, organised and run by the aforementioned community group. Given that I was interested in achieving as diverse a sample as possible - i.e.
households of different compositions that engage with issues of energy consumption in different ways - I viewed the fair as another opportunity in which to generate interest in the project, this time from the wider community (i.e. those that were perhaps less involved in a formalised energy descent project). The community group kindly offered me a desk at the fair, and in the interests of reciprocity, I offered to help out with the logistics of setting up and closing down on the day (something that I have continued to do on an annual basis ever since).
I set up an information desk at the fair, where I spoke to attendants about the research and handed out bilingual information sheets to interested parties (see Appendix A and E).
Those that were interested in participating were invited to provide their contact information (telephone number, email address etc.) on a sign-up sheet. Although this strategy did generate a lot of interest, not everyone who showed interest signed up. Many people took it as an opportunity just to talk, whilst others who seemed interested would
promptly move away if I attempted to talk to them, perhaps thinking that I was trying to sell something. I had not anticipated such a reaction to my presence, and upon reflection, I could have approached this differently, perhaps by presenting myself in a less formal way. Despite these issues however, a face-to-face recruitment method such as this worked well, with eighteen people showing interest in participating.
Of the eighteen people who did show interest and take information sheets, twelve gave me their contact details (including the original four ‘core’ households of the community group), and six stated that they would initiate contact with me using the contact details that I had provided on the forms. In all cases however, contact was never initiated. Of the twelve that did provide their contact details, two were not eligible on the basis that one did not live within the boundaries of the study area and the other was not permanent resident. I initiated contact with the remaining ten households via email and telephone, which resulted in eight out of ten responding and agreeing to take part in the study.
Upon receiving replies, interviews were arranged according to the participant’s preferred time, date and location via telephone and email. In two instances however, interview arrangements never came to fruition. While both participants had upon initial contact offered to participate in the research, my (repeated) attempts to arrange interviews with them were met with silence. At this point I interpreted their silence to mean that neither individual wished to continue taking part in the study, and had thus withdrawn their participation. Whilst the withdrawal of two households from the study was frustrating, I had already anticipated such an event arising, and was ready to draw upon other purposive techniques for recruitment.
As the initial interviews with the remaining six households were underway, I continued my efforts to find more households through snowballing, whereby participants were asked whether they knew of any other households that would be interested in taking part.
A further two households were recruited using this method. Additionally, I was able draw upon my personal and professional networks as a research tool to recruit a further three households. My sample was thus formed in relation to the social spaces I used to recruit participants, their social networks, and my own position as a ‘researcher near’ (Browne, 2005; Mannay, 2010).
In all, the sample consisted of eleven households (see table 1), each from very different backgrounds and of very different compositions. Participating households comprised of;
two single person households; two double occupancy households (1 young couple and 1 retired couple); three households that had young children (1 nuclear family, 1 reconstituted family and 1 single-parent family); two households with teenagers or young adults present (both nuclear families); and one extended family household arrangement.
Unsurprisingly, most of the households were from the Meirionnydd region with three being from Dwyfor (Pen Llŷn). The inherent geographical spread within the sample demonstrates how far and wide social networks spanned, allowing me to gain insights into the ways in which different settlement types feature in shaping energy demand. The variation, ranging from isolated farmhouses, hamlets and villages to small towns, were integral to this end.
Table 1 Basic information about the participating households Household Family
Members Age Occupation Round 1 Round 2 Beckett
Ian 61-70 Self-employed – Full-time Isabel 51-60 Self-employed – Part-time Lowri 21-30 Self-employed – Full-time
Butler Gwen 61-70 Retired
Michael 61-70 Retired
Davis
Dylan 41-50 Employed – Full-time Alys 31-40 Employed – Full-time
Lois 6-10 Primary School Student Declined Declined
Guto 0-5 N/A N/A
Dreyer
Peter 51-60 Self-employed – Full-time Unavailable
Rhian 51-60 Employed – Part-time
Glesni 21-30 University Student Unavailable Cai 17-20 University Student Unavailable Dyfed 11-16 Secondary school Student Declined Evans
Ffion 21-30 Employed – Part-time
Siôn 11-16 Secondary school Student Declined Declined
Awel 6-10 Primary school Student N/A N/A
Grey Eleri 31-40 Self-employed – Full-time
Carl 21-30 Self-employed – Full-time Declined Declined
Griffiths
Megan 31-40 Self-employed – Full-time Joint Interview Bryn 31-40 Self-employed – Full-time
Gethin 11-16 Primary school Student Unavailable Catrin 6-10 Primary school Student Declined
Gwilym Eluned 51-60 Employed – Part-time Joint Interview Glyn 51-60 Self-employed – Full-time
Hughes Ceris 61-70 Employed – Part-time Smith Jon 51-60 Self-employed / Part-time
Student
Thomas
Grace 31-40 Homemaker
Richard 31-40 Self-employed – Full-time
Sioned 17-20 University Student Unavailable Unavailable
Delyth 17-20 A level Student Sibling-
group Interview Lisa 11-16 Secondary school Student
Alex 11-16 Secondary school Student
Eva 0-5 N/A -
Present
N/A - Present
4. Method
As discussed in the literature review (Chapter 2), an understanding of people as relational subjects, living interdependent ‘linked lives’ underpins this research. As such, the question of whether to interview more than one family member was particularly important. Family researchers have long recognised the advantages afforded by incorporating interview data from multiple perspectives into their research (Reczec, 2014). Doing so, it is argued, offers a way of exploring how different family members experience everyday life, and reveals household dynamics that could otherwise be overlooked. The most common approaches to obtaining multiple perspectives are; separate interviews with each family member, dyadic or group interviews with multiple family members, and a combined approach that uses both separate and dyadic/group interviews. This study has adopted the latter of these approaches, as I have opted to interview family members both together and apart. This choice was underpinned by my interest in exploring presently ‘linked lives’ within the domestic sphere; that is, the interweaving of biographies and how these shape family dynamics, interactions and communication in relation to energy consumption. These were key consideration for the study; particularly in relation to research question four (To what extent are individual identities and household arrangements implicated in the performance of everyday energy practices). It was hoped that conducting interviews with each member of the household (within reason) both together and apart, would shed light upon the complex dynamics of daily life by exploring the often-competing stories of individual
members, as well as the jointly negotiated, carefully woven collective accounts.
Interviewing households both together and apart however, have important methodological and ethical implications, which I will now go on to discuss.