Sampling strategy

I decided to use my professional identity when approaching potential participants for this study as I thought that this would increase my chance of gaining access

potential participants were more likely to want to support and help a colleague, rather than an unknown researcher. This appeared to be validated as the number of responses to a personal email was much higher than a general request to a list.

An email was sent out to all members of an AMOSSHE regional network asking for participants in the study (see Appendix Two). This generated three

responses, two of which were from close colleagues and therefore were not taken up. This low response rate may have been because the approach was seen as general rather than specific. Given the low response rate, direct email approaches were made to a number of members of the network who were aware of the study and to other relevant individuals within those institutions. This was a much more successful strategy generating six interviews. A further 17 potential interviewees were suggested by participants either via email contact or during the interviews giving a total of 23 potential interviewees, some of whom declined to be interviewed. In total 18 interviews were conducted.

As noted in 5.5, organisational structures and practices may be viewed as part of particular discourses; this was notable in the job titles of interviewees where people conducting apparently similar roles have very different job titles. An internet search of some of these job titles enabled me to identify individual participants within seconds. Therefore, to ensure the anonymity of participants I have established generic job titles, based on common practice in the sector, which I have used throughout the research. These titles reflect the broad position of individuals but ensure that they cannot be identified. Table 6.1 overleaf sets out the job titles which will be throughout this thesis.

Table 6.1 Job titles used throughout analysis

Job Title Description

Senior Manager Part of the senior management structure of the institution. Usually with strategic rather than operational management responsibility. Student Support

Manager

Middle manager responsible for operational and strategic management of a range of Student Support Services.

Head of Service Manager responsible for service provision of generic support.

Head of Counselling Senior Counsellor or Counsellor with management responsibility for the university Counselling Service. Nurse Responsible for providing basic health care and

emotional support to students.

Mental Health Adviser Responsible for supporting students with mental health difficulties.

Disability Officer Senior Disability Adviser usually has responsibility for managing Disability Support Service.

Health and Safety Adviser

Responsible for providing health and safety advice to staff and students.

All interviewees are either professionals and/or managers who have a direct involvement in deciding how to respond to students who present a risk to self or others. This study considers how HEIs respond to students who present a risk to self or others; these decisions are usually made by senior staff and this is

reflected in the sample. Other staff are undoubtedly affected by these students’ behaviour, but are less likely to deal with it on a frequent basis or to be regularly

support staff, such as security staff and cleaners, are often affected by the issues discussed in this thesis but are not usually involved in decision-making about how to respond to these situations. Similarly, whilst academics may be involved in case conference style meetings to discuss specific student cases it is unlikely that many individual academics would have been involved in multiple student cases, given the relatively low number of such cases within each HEI. I therefore decided not to interview academics, as I wanted interviewees who could reflect on a range of situations including how the HEI as a whole had responded. Further research may wish to consider academic staff and non-professional support staff, such as security guards and cleaners, and to consider similarities and differences between the discourses used by those who make decisions about how to respond to students who present a risk to self or others and discourses used by frontline staff. Table 6.2 overleaf summarises the staff who were interviewed at each institution. The smallest number of staff interviewed at an individual institution was two, the largest number was six. This reflects the staff recommended for interview by early participants and responses for requests for interviews. Data analysis took place alongside interviews and after the 18th interview no new discourses were identified and therefore it was not deemed necessary to conduct any further interviews.

Table 6.2 Summary of staff interviewed at each institution

Institution Type Interviewees

University A Large post 1992 Student Support Services Manager Mental Health Adviser

Head of Counselling University B Large civic, redbrick,

research intensive

Senior Manager

Student Support Manager Head of Service

Head of Counselling Mental Health Adviser Accommodation Officer University C Small faith based new

university

Head of Counselling Counsellor

Disability Officer Senior Manager University D Large, new university Head of Counselling

Senior Manager

University E Medium, new university Student Support Services Manager Mental Health Adviser

Health and Safety Adviser

6.3.4 Policy statements and guidance from professional bodies and