Study 1: Qualitative data Collection

Qualitative data can be obtained from a variety of sources including, though not limited to, correspondence via emails and letters, text in diaries, internet discussions, TV documentaries, email conversations, researcher directed diaries, text in marketing materials and photographic images and broadcast media (Braun & Clarke, 2013).

68

However, one-to-one interviews and focus groups are the predominant qualitative data collection methods. They are considered inclusive and useful ways of gaining insight into a person’s (subjective) perception of their experience that enables them to share that experience in their own language in a way that questionnaires, even open ended

questionnaires, cannot (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Gill, Stewart, Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008). Interviews can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. Structured interviews include a pre-determined set of questions, with little or no variation in questions asked. They are quick and easy to administer and may be useful for example, if data are being collected in a population where there may be numeracy or literacy problems (Gill et al., 2008). However, this approach may not elicit data that adds depth and meaning to the subject being investigated. Unstructured interviews offer the advantage of gaining significant depth and insight and are considered particularly

beneficial when collecting data on a phenomena about which very little is known (Gill et al., 2008). However, they are time consuming and lack of clarity or guidance on what is being discussed may be confusing for vulnerable participants. Semi-structured

interviews enable the researcher to set a framework for the interview in advance by pre- preparing an appropriate schedule of questions, however because semi-structured interviews offer flexibility through the use of open ended questions, the researcher is able to ask additional questions in response to issues raised by participants, thus enabling the researcher to seek further clarification on issues and potentially gather unanticipated data that the rigidity of a structured interview may miss (Barriball & While, 1994; Braun & Clarke, 2013; Richards & Morse, 2013). They also provide flexibility in adapting the phraseology of the question to individual participants, for example if English is an additional language, questions can be adapted to enable understanding by the participant whilst retaining equivalence of meaning (Barriball & While, 1994; McIntosh & Morse, 2015). Use of prompting and probing also enables the interview situation to be more naturalistic and conversational and enables the

establishment of a rapport between researcher and participant (Barriball & While, 1994).

Collecting data face to face in semi-structured interviews offers many advantages such as being able to pause the interview if the participant becomes upset but also enabling

69

the use of prompts in response to the observation of non-verbal cues (Barriball & While, 1994; McIntosh & Morse, 2015). Face to face interviews also provide an opportunity to build rapport between the researcher and interviewee. The potential risk of social desirability in responses to questions, is however, maximised in person to person

interviews in a way that perhaps it is not in a written questionnaire. For example, parents and children may be overly complementary in their comments about holiday club as interviews were conducted on club premises (Barriball & While, 1994; Braun & Clarke, 2013; McIntosh & Morse, 2015). Conducting face to face interviews may also increase the cost of data collection both in monetary terms and in time (McIntosh & Morse, 2015). An alternative approach is to conduct interviews over the telephone. This can be more cost effective but may lessen the opportunity to build rapport with interviewees and contextual data may be lost (McIntosh & Morse, 2015; Novick, 2008). On the other hand, conducting interviews over the telephone may remove barriers to participation and offer other advantages such as allowing participants to feel more relaxed and decrease social pressure and potentially remove inhibitions meaning participants may actually speak more freely and openly (McIntosh & Morse, 2015; Novick, 2008). Whilst face to face interviewing offers an advantage over telephone interviews of observing non-verbal communication cues (Barriball & While, 1994; Novick, 2008), telephone interviews offer the advantage of greater anonymity (Novick, 2008).

Having considered the aforementioned factors, use of face to face semi-structured interviews was considered to be the most appropriate method of data collection for Study 1, which included young children and parents/carers from different ethnic groups. Furthermore, it was considered particularly important when conducting interviews with parents/carers, holiday club staff and children that these interviews were conducted on holiday club premises as this would provide context to interviews. However, primarily due to logistical issues, it was necessary to conduct some adult participant interviews over the telephone.

Furthermore, focus groups were used to collect data from children in Study 1. As enabling disadvantaged children to access a healthy meal during summer holidays is a

70

primary objective of holiday clubs, it was considered appropriate that they should be consulted about decisions which may affect their physical, emotional, and educational needs, and they should therefore be able to exercise influence on decisions which impact on them, rather than adults making assumptions about “what is best” (p.5) (Morgan, Gibbs, Maxwell, & Britten, 2002). Furthermore, children have valid experiences and perceptions and are competent in sharing those experiences, however, care and

consideration should be taken to ensure that methodological procedures reflect the level of cognitive development of child participants in research (Gibson, 2007). Focus groups have been advocated as an appropriate method of data collection with children because they can reduce anxiety and are considered to be a more enabling environment within which children may feel more able to speak freely and openly if they are in the company of their peers who they will be familiar with (Spratling, Coke, & Minick, 2012).

Therefore, use of focus groups to collect data from children for Phase I of data

collection in this thesis was considered appropriate as children attended the same school in which holiday clubs were located and attended holiday club together thus the groups were naturally occurring and the children were used to being in a group together (Gibson, 2007; Morgan et al., 2002). Furthermore, because focus groups were held on holiday club premises during the hours of operation of the holiday club, this was

considered the most appropriate and least disruptive way of collecting data. Use of focus groups as a method of qualitative data collection shares many of the advantages of collecting data in semi-structured interviews in that rich descriptive data can be collected on the phenomena under investigation in a guided way but from multiple participants at the same time (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Gill et al., 2008). Rather than simply asking questions and seeking feedback, the intention within a focus group setting is to stimulate discussion and interaction between participants that is naturalistic and conversational in nature and reflects day to day interactions. This, it is considered, has the potential to reduce the artificiality and decontextualisation of some methods of collecting qualitative data and is central to this data collection method (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Gibson, 2012). While some issues may be considered sensitive and not

appropriate for discussion in a focus group setting, participation in a group setting may on the other hand result in greater disclosure of data that may not have been forthcoming

71

in a one-to -one interview situation. However, whilst acknowledging the rights of children to be heard, the practicalities of working in focus groups with children nonetheless presents a number of difficulties. Children are prone to go off topic and offer short, one word answers to questions (Gibson, 2007; Gibson, 2012). Hence, in Study 1, careful planning and preparation, including preparation of a schedule of questions, was undertaken in advance of conducting focus groups to help mitigate against these potential issues.

Semi-structured interview schedules were developed for all of the stakeholder groups identified as being pertinent to the study. Questions aimed to elicit an in-depth understanding of the uses and impact of the provision of holiday clubs with food and enrichment activities on the health, educational and social well-being of child attendees and their parents/carers. The schedules were constructed to generate a free-flowing discussion that enabled participants to share their experiences and perceptions to give rich, detailed descriptions of holiday club provision. Descriptive questions were used first followed by probing questions to gain richer deeper data on participant’s views of the benefits of holiday club provision. Copies of interview schedules for each

stakeholder group are attached as Appendix A.

Concurrent data collection and analysis ensured that interviews were conducted until data saturation was achieved. Saturation refers to the point at which no new information emerges from the data collection process and further collection of data is redundant (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Galvin, 2015; Hennink, Kaiser, & Marconi, 2016).