Sampling and Participants

The research process used quota sampling as a means of selecting appropriate participants. The participants were selected based on their professions, status and location within The Justice System. Firstly, named professionals were selected from each stage of the criminal justice process and secondly, CJP from each one of the corresponding professions were approached at a Midlands Crown Court. The selected sample was not a cross-sectional representation of The Justice System as a whole, but rather a ‘handpicked’ set of professionals pre-determined from set criteria (i.e. criminal justice professionals that have previously come into contact and worked with young people in some capacity within their role). This interpretivist influenced approach (e.g. “theoretical and purposive sampling to uncover emerging and transferable theories”) (McLean & Blackie, 2004; Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, & Lowe, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 2000), enables the researcher to complete the analysis within a shorter time frame, in comparison to a positivist influenced sampling approach, where the sample would be selected randomly (e.g. “objectively and without bias”) (McLean & Blackie, 2004, p. 12). Therefore, a manually selected and non-random sample, based on pre-determined participation criteria proved to be a useful technique. The approach adopted also enables the researcher to choose participants that would seemingly be able to provide the most relevant information (Thomas, Bloor, & Frankfield, 2007). Additionally, selecting a sample that has “high experience of the phenomena under study” (Pettigrew, 1990, p. 276) ensures that the sample is relevant and reinforces Thomas et al.’s (2007) notion of relevance towards potential quality of findings. Furthermore, Yardley (2008) states that rigour can also be achieved and demonstrated through using a selection that is classed as being an ‘appropriate’ sample. To be regarded as being

79

appropriate, Yardley (2008) stated that the sample must be relevant to the research topic and the methodology, as was the case in this study.

To expand on this further, the desired participants were those who work closely with YPLD within the Criminal Justice System (CJS). More specifically, the desired participants included professionals such as Barristers, Judges, Probation Officers, Police Officers and Solicitors. Whilst recruiting participants, it was also important to consider the varying levels of experience that each professional would have, as well as the length of time that they have been working with YPLD, in order to gain a valuable insight into their perceptions of their knowledge, attitudes and experience.

Furthermore, in order to answer the research question, it was felt that it would be necessary for the researcher to recruit CJP who have been working within the CJS, rather than individuals who have accessed the CJS as either a witness, perpetrator or victim. Those who have accessed the CJS are unlikely to have had such a lengthily experience of the system as those who have been working in the CJS. Moreover, CJP are more likely to be able to provide information from a wide range of experiences, as well as offering insights about their colleagues’ attitudes and experiences, potentially providing richer data than recruiting YPLD who may have only been able to provide their own perspectives of their particular experience. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to try to recruit participants who have been working within the CJS with YPLD.

The first steps taken to approach professionals working within the CJS were contacting them via telephone and email to invite them to take part in the study. Where a positive response was given, the researcher followed it up and gave the professional more information regarding the study. Whilst in contact with the professional, they were made aware of who the researcher was, the purpose of the research, how they would be involved and what the researcher intended to find out. It was important to give the professionals this information so that they had full

80

details about what was involved with taking part in the research. As there was no need to deceive the participants of the research aims, the researcher wanted them to have a clear understanding about what was involved.

Further to this, the researcher appeared in person and attended professionals’ workplaces, such as the Courts, Police Stations and local Probation Offices. Whilst in attendance at Court, the researcher approached the Ushers, who were very useful in terms of directing the researcher to professionals who may be suitable for the research project, such as a Probation Officer. However, upon meeting the Probation Officer, it was quickly made clear that it would not be possible for them to take part in the research due to issues of confidentiality. Further to this, the researcher approached a Probation Office and asked to speak to the Manager, who also confirmed that it would not be possible for any Probation Officers to be involved in the research as they are unable to share information about their job roles due to confidentiality. Additionally, the researcher also sent a letter to a Prison Governor; however, no response was received from them in regards to participating in the current research study. This was very disappointing, although it demonstrates the difficulties surrounding recruiting the desired participants for this topic of research.

Following these difficulties with recruiting participants, the researcher also approached local Solicitors’ offices, as well as contacting them via telephone and email, in an attempt to recruit Solicitors who have a role within the CJS. However, it proved very challenging to recruit Solicitors who work directly with YPLD, and instead Family Law Solicitors were approached due to their indirect involvement with YPLD. Some Family Law Solicitors engage with YPLD who are involved in Care Proceedings, meaning that they still have a responsibility to recognise and help those with learning difficulties. However, due to restrictions with recruiting the desired participants and the Family Law Solicitors not being directly related to the CJS, the researcher decided to focus upon The Justice System instead.

81

As the focus of the research study was to explore the perceptions of CJP towards working with YPLD in general, the researcher did not focus on any specific group, for example, witnesses, perpetrators (alleged or otherwise) or victims. Instead, it was felt appropriate to interview the participants about all of the abovementioned groups as they all experience The Justice System in some way. Moreover, the focus of the study was the initial point of interaction and engagement between the CJP and YPLD, therefore, no distinction has been made between witnesses, perpetrators or victims for this research.

Overall, a total of twelve interviewees were selected from a range of CJP, namely: a chairwoman for child protection meetings, a volunteer support worker, four barristers, two family law solicitors, two police officers, a case managing practitioner and a youth crime officer (see Appendix 9 for table of participants). All of the participants confirmed that their involvement would be based upon personal or professional interests, pertaining to YPLDs and The Justice System. They consented to participate so that they could contribute to the research process in the hope of catalysing improvements in professional training, services and provision for YPLDs who come into contact with The Justice System in some capacity.

Upon completion of the interviews, participants were debriefed both in writing and verbally. They were also offered feedback on the research findings in the form of an executive summary, which would be forwarded to them at a later date.