Study recruitment

My existing contact with the DVA organisation gained through Study 1 facilitated the recruitment process for Study 2, with regards to identifying and gaining access to key individuals who could be invited to participate. The individuals I had identified were children who attended one of the three interventions, their parents (non- perpetrator), and individuals involved in the provision, design, delivery and/or coordination of the interventions. Ideally, children and parents associated with different cohorts of the interventions would have been interviewed. However, the extent to which this was possible was limited by the unpredictable nature of when interventions were to be delivered to different cohorts, challenges in accessing participants within the limited timeframe of my PhD, and safely accessing participants through gatekeepers. Opportunities for recruiting participants and conducting follow-up interviews were also limited in light of participants’ availability, participants changing their mind about participation, and being able to successfully contact participants.

As the sample comprised those who were eligible and interested in taking part, this had implications regarding which children and parents participated; those children who had dropped out of the interventions, and consequently their parents, were not interviewed. The self-selecting nature of the sample meant that this had implications for the data collected (Bryman, 2016). Given the challenges of recruiting participants and the lack of research in this area, it was felt that, despite the small pool from which a sample could be drawn, the exploratory nature of the research made the study worthwhile.

4.7.1 Recruiting children and parents

As children and parents who have experienced DVA are a relatively hidden, and hard-to-reach population (Bunston et al., 2015; Stanley, 2011), and as children have largely been overlooked in DVA related research, recruiting children and parents through the DVA organisation was a viable way to gain access to them. The DVA organisation was likely to be aware of changes in family circumstances, such as family members continuing to experience DVA, which would exclude them from the study. Having an awareness from the DVA organisation regarding which families were ‘safe’ to contact was important for ensuring the protection of participants. However, it could not be guaranteed as to whether the organisation was always fully aware of the most

103

current situation of the family particularly as interviews took place over the course of one year. In addition to receiving an indication from the DVA organisation as to whether it was ‘safe’ for me to contact families, I also asked parents to let me know prior to an interview whether or not it was still ‘safe’ for themselves and/or their child to be interviewed, in light of their family circumstances. While using the DVA organisation as gatekeepers could have unduly influenced the sample, this needed to be balanced against the difficulties of otherwise accessing this group (Miller & Bell, 2002). I approached the last three cohorts of the seven intervention cohorts involved in Study 1, which meant that one cohort per intervention was invited to take part in the qualitative study. These cohorts were more accessible for me to contact compared with historical intervention cohorts.

Parents were invited to participate in the interviews before children were invited, and they too acted as gatekeepers for the children. It was important for me to gain trust with parents first, particularly given the sensitive nature of the interventions. As I had already approached parents in relation to Study 1, I distributed recruitment leaflets for Study 2 to parents at the intervention. These leaflets briefly outlined the opportunity for them to take part in an interview (Appendix 8). If parents were interested, they were invited to either to contact me about Study 2 directly through the details provided in the leaflet, or to provide me with their contact details and specify a suitable time for me to contact them.

The first set of interviews with parents took place at different points during the course of the interventions, according to parents’ availability. In total, six parents participated in the interviews. This comprised, three parents of three children who participated Intervention A and three parents of three children who participated Intervention B. No children or parents took part in relation to Intervention C.

In the event, I was only able to conduct follow-up interviews with the three parents whose children attended Intervention A, and this enabled them to share their experiences post-intervention. I also used these follow-up interviews as an opportunity to enquire about whether mothers would inform their child about the invitation to participate and ask their child if they wanted to have a ‘pre-research conversation’ with me at a later date to find out further information. All three mothers were happy for me to do this. The purpose of the pre-research conversation was to personally invite the children to participate and to provide the child with the ‘space’ where they could consider their own participation. This also served the purpose of enabling me to get to know the child and build rapport with them. Through the pre-research conversation I

104

learned about one child’s particular enjoyment of drawing. I integrated this into the subsequent interviews with her by inviting her to draw using resources that I had brought, and this facilitated her engagement during the interview. During a pre-research conversation with another child, the child voluntarily showed me a puppet that she received at the end of the intervention she attended. As this puppet was associated with the intervention, I invited the ‘puppet’ to accompany the child in the interview if the child wanted, which also provided an opportunity to discuss the significance of the puppet, which will be further discussed in Chapter 8. All three children expressed positive interest in participating in the interviews.

It is recognised that my decision to recruit the children through their mothers may have encouraged a ‘double’ power hierarchy whereby there was pressure from their mothers and myself to participate. It was important for me to minimise this where possible. Whilst recruiting children directly may have minimised parental pressure for them to participate, I decided against this option for two reasons. Firstly, given the sensitive nature of the interventions and potential family history of DVA, parents may have wanted to protect their child from emotional harm, in the same way that the DVA organisation may have screened out families who were experiencing many problems. Mullender et al. (2002) have argued that this is an important consideration for parents who are victim/survivors of DVA and who may have recently been freed from the control and power of the perpetrator. Thus, it was important that I did not undermine a parent’s responsibility for their child. Secondly, if I had directly approached the children, this would not have necessarily guaranteed their openness, but having reassurance from parents may have facilitated this (Lewis, 2009).

One particular challenge I experienced was coordinating interviews that took place in the homes of participants. Despite expressing an interest in participation, there were often instances when parents needed to rearrange their or their child’s interviews at short notice. There were also occasions when there was less time than anticipated for the interview to take place. It was paramount that I remained flexible in my availability and tailored my approach to the circumstances and complexities of the lives of participants. In practice, this meant that there were inconsistences in the time-points at which interviews were conducted with participants. Often this resulted in conducting more follow-up interviews than anticipated and the time points between interviews varying.

4.7.2 Recruiting intervention providers

I recruited the intervention providers through an individual employed by the DVA organisation, who enabled me to identify the staff to be approached. Depending on

105

the availability of intervention providers, I invited them to participate via email, telephone or in person.