Strengths and limitations of the methods

One of the strengths of undertaking research using group discussions, as highlighted by Morgan (1997), is that they are relatively straightforward to conduct. Rather than

organising multiple single interviews with each participant, it was possible to plan for five group meetings with eight people. Participants were able to build, refute, question, reflect and modify what they and others contributed to the discussion (Morgan, 1997). These interactions encourage individuals to recall thoughts, stories and feelings from their

practice and their personal experiences, which produced more ideas than would be possibly collected from individual interviews (Holloway and Wheeler, 2013). However, there are also limitations to this approach, as indicated by Reid (2004), which I will now seek to highlight and discuss.

5.5.1 Participants and their responses

The participants involved in the project were generally forthcoming and willing to contribute opinions and views. However, as Barbour (2001) points out, one of the drawbacks of group discussion is that dominant participants can take over the conversations resulting in the data not providing an in-depth account of everyone’s individual opinions and experiences. This did occur at the first meeting, with RP3 and RP5 tending to speak more often than anyone else, but it did not continue and in the subsequent sessions all participants contributed, although not always equally. Morgan (1997) cautions that the artificial nature of the discussion group environment can lead to the suggestion that the data collected is not fully representative of the opinions of the group, as individuals may choose to not contribute their views. This, he claims, is because the discussion does not emerge from the participants’ natural environment, in which they would perhaps be more likely to express their true or natural thoughts or feelings.

Discussing issues and topics in an artificially created group, not initiated or directed by the participants, could potentially result in individuals feeling compelled to offer opinions

[89]

which they believe the moderator wants to hear rather than expressing their true opinion.

Similarly, participants may contribute opinions they think are appropriate to help support the discussion, and the researcher, and those views may not always reflect what they truly believe (Barbour, 2005). The desire to help the researcher might also be amplified if, as in this case, that researcher is a tutor, indeed the Programme Leader, of the participants’

course. This raises ethical issues, which will be discussed later in the ethics section of this chapter and, in order to minimise the effects of such ethically focussed influences, I make no claim that these issues were or could have been completely eradicated. However, having a series of sessions allowed the participants to get to know each other better and start to relax. Also sending everyone a copy of what had been discussed gave time for individuals to consider what had been said, providing them with an opportunity to cogitate on their own and others’ contributions and allowing time and space to consider what they might want to discuss or challenge next time. Moreover, selecting individuals who were in the same class cohort, where they were used to providing their opinions, including

managing different opinions during class debates, afforded the opportunity for them to get to know each other beyond the discussion group setting. This appeared to help the

participants to get used to talking in front of each other and the increase in contributions by all participants during the sessions could be indicative of them relaxing into the discussion group arena. At the end of the process, I wanted to check this and asked the participants to anonymously complete a feedback response on the sessions (Appendix 4) and evaluation sheet (Appendix 5) which allowed them to respond to the PowerPoint presentation of the initial findings. I decided to make the responses anonymous so that the individuals did not have to respond to me face to face, increasing the likelihood of them responding honestly to the questions. The evaluation (Appendix 5) also gave them a final chance to comment on the themes and analysis and also provide feedback on the research process as a whole.

The following comment is indicative of the responses given by those who made a comment in this section:

I really enjoyed the discussions, in particular how you might start out with a certain train of thought and how this could be altered through other peoples’

thoughts and opinions. It made me look at the practices within my establishment.

(Anon – end evaluation: Appendix 5)

[90]

5.5.2 The discussion group environment

As noted above, creating an environment which allowed the participants the opportunity to relax during the sessions was important as it enabled them to make contributions to the discussions. I endeavoured to promote a reciprocal environment in which all opinions were welcomed (Glazer and Strauss, 1967; Morgan, 1997), with questioning and building on what had been said encouraged as exemplified below.

Vignette 5.3: Participants build the discussion to clarify explanations (DG2)

However, creating ‘open and undistorted communication’, as recommended by Holstein and Gubrium (1997:116) in order to obtain ‘authentic accounts of subjective experience’

(Silverman, 2006:123), initially required a discussion with the participants to encourage them to interact with each other and not just to respond to me as the moderator (Kitzinger, 1994). As noted by Wellings et al. (2000) and Wilkinson (2004), as the participants became more relaxed in the group, which can be seen in the extract above, they seemed more willing to share their experiences by providing personal accounts which illustrated an understanding of gender with the recounting of stories to illustrate the points being made.

I have a really good example...I was in shopping yesterday with my son and we were getting a card for a birthday party for next week for a wee girl called xxxx and right away I took him to the section and I’ve went through all the pink cards and he picked up the Mario card and I says no XXXX put that back it's for a boy and he said mummy she's a girl but she does boy things. And I said, can you explain that to me and he says she likes football and she likes doing all the things the boys do at playtime. And I was still drawing him towards the pink cards 'cause I'm thinking I don't want that mother thinking I bought a wee

I think you can just tell the difference between a boys' and a girls' top - girls' tops have flowers and there's maybe wee ribbons on it or something. RP8

Yes...the details. RP4

If it is a boys' it is straight and I've seen boys' tops maybe with footballs on them...RP6

right Researcher pictures of cars...RP3 emblems and things....RP5 so... just different.RP7

they are made different....RP5

they have what maybe you would consider...what a boys' thing on it... maybe a car or a football...RP8

[91]

girl a boy’s card but he could tell me himself she is a girl but she likes boys' things.

DG1RP5

Whilst it can be seen from the extract above that the participants appeared happy to engage in discussion with me, my relationship with them as their tutor was an area that required examination.

5.5.3 Relationships

As the Programme Leader of the BA in Childhood Practice, a power relationship existed between me and the individuals involved, since they were ‘my’ students. As mentioned previously, I had selected a group that I had not taught but it was still necessary to address the issue of being a tutor at the first session. It was made clear, as there were ethical implications, through both discussion and the PLS (Appendix 2), that any involvement would be considered separately from their role as my student; it would not positively or negatively affect their grades.

My relationship as the researcher and moderator of the group was another area for consideration. My role was to ask questions and at times prompt and probe for

clarification, as any group member could do, in order to produce ideas. As Holloway and Wheeler (2013) note, it was important to listen to the voices of the participants and allow them to talk and so it was, at times, necessary for me not to intervene with my questions and I had to let the group dynamics evolve so that the participants could express their ideas experiences and opinions (Morgan, 1997). I also had to let the group take the discussion in ways I might not have chosen (Kirby et al., 2006). My fears of not collecting sufficient and worthwhile data for my dissertation had to be put to one side. As noted earlier, this approach allowed topics and areas for discussion to emerge that I had not planned (Kitzinger, 1994) and so, for example, there ensued a greater focus on the relationship between boys’ play and their sexuality and a discussion relating to fathers’ responses to cross gender play. This resulted in data being generated and collected that I had not anticipated, but it was data that, nonetheless, reflected the views of the participants.

In addition, providing the participants with the opportunity to be involved in the future planning of topics provided ‘a forum for the expression of the experiences and thoughts of

[92]

the participants’ (Kirby et al., 2006:243). I therefore, following Somekh and Lewin (2005), encouraged relationships in which the central tenets were trust and the valuing of others’ opinions and that the principles fitted with the axiology of the project. Involving the participants in creating and analysing the data reflected the conditions and values of those involved (Kezar and Dee, 2011:268) and being sensitive to the power relationships that existed helped me ensure an ethical response to the research process. This method followed Groundwater-Smith and Mockler’s (2007) approach to practitioner research, in which individuals are encouraged to question, reframe, moderate or extend what had previously been said, thereby making the data more credible and valid than had the researcher forced and controlled the discourse. In the next section, I present the ethical considerations of the project as a requirement to protect the participants and to work critically in a research project in which ethics go beyond ‘boxes to be ticked as a set of procedural conditions, usually demanded by university human research ethics committees’

(ibid:205).