Actividades del sector

As noted earlier, the respondents were each requested to participate in a further one to one interview. Some of the times and locations of these had already been arranged at the time that the focus groups took place, as was the case with the three members of the university sample. The majority however, had to be negotiated through further emails and/or phone calls with respondents. All of the men had agreed to participate in these one to one interviews, and had offered me their contact details, saying that they preferred not to arrange them too far in advance. A common reason given for this revolved around uncertainties regarding whether or not they would be required to work overtime on particular nights or weekends, or in some cases, would be out of the area owing to their work commitments. Another common reason why they did not want to designate times in advance revolved around the weather, this determining whether or not would be free to participate or ‘out with the family’, ‘out on the bike’, ‘playing golf’, and so on.

Only four of the twenty respondents failed to participate in a further one to one interview. One of these was Tom from the first working-class focus group. He had been by far the most vocal member of his group during their interview, and it would have been good to see if his social practices had been similar outside of the group dynamic. On three occasions we had arranged a meeting, and unfortunately he had needed to cancel each time. The first two times were because he had underestimated his work load, which had caused him to work late into the evening. Both occasions he had been very apologetic with me over the phone, arranging a following meeting. To avoid the same occurrence a third time, we had arranged the interview for a Sunday afternoon. I received a phone call from him nearly two hours after he had been due to arrive. In a very jovial manner – punctuated with laughter – he told me how he had been involved in a motorcycle accident on the way to my house and was now lying on a hospital trolley waiting to go into theatre. Two months later, at the point I decided enough data had been collected, Tom had still not fully recovered. Fortunately, I have since learned that he has made a full recovery.

The other three men whose one to one data I failed to collect were members of the first working-class focus group. As this was the largest group, consisting of seven men, it meant that I at least got interviews with four of them. One of the men unable to attend was Barry. Unlike the other men in this group, his socioeconomic status could be seen to define him as middle-class. Therefore, it would have been problematic to regard his data as working-class. Nevertheless, it would have been good to see if his social practices had differed when not in the company of his working-class friends.

Ross and Les were the other two men who, like Barry, always suggested they were too busy to be able to participate each time I asked them. Both of these men had contributed a large amount of data during their focus group which would have enabled me to make comparisons between this and their one to one accounts. However, based on the consistent data provided by the other sixteen respondents during the two phases of interviewing, I can only make the assumption that a similar pattern might have occurred. All three of these men insisted that they were still willing to participate, but as my weekly requests were continually met by replies of ‘not this week’, I began to feel like I was hounding them. As such, I told them to get in touch if they had any spare time, and this contact was never made. This meant that, in all, I conducted eight working and eight middle-class one to one interviews.

Again, the respondents were asked to decide the times and settings of their interviews. Having found that the traditional tape recording device had provided a more audible copy of the focus groups, this was used to capture the data. According to Smith (2004), in comparison to note taking, audio recordings assist fluent communication. Moreover, as they capture all the detail, they reduce the risk of data selection bias (Banister et al., 1994). As before, each participant was reminded about the study aims and their ethical rights, and asked to read and sign a consent form recapping these. A copy of the one to one consent form can be found in Appendix 11. The one to one interviews tended to last between sixty and ninety minutes each.

Interviews with the university participants took place in the respondents’ offices. Of the others, all but four chose to be interviewed at my house. In these cases, I used the same room as I had for the focus groups and my wife very kindly went out with our children so that the respondents and I would be alone. On their arrival, they were asked if they would like tea, coffee, or a soft drink. This was a reverse to the interviews in which I was the visitor, whereby I was the person being asked if I would like a drink. In some ways, this could be seen to help add balance to the power dynamics of their interviews. Nonetheless, in my perception, none of the respondents visiting my house appeared to be apprehensive, and I always felt that I that was the more nervous regardless of where the interviews took place.

The four men whose homes I visited were George, Nik, Mel, and Ben. On arranging these I had expressed that it was preferable they be conducted in the absence of other people in order to avoid possible distractions. As such, two of the interviews took place within unoccupied rooms (Mel and Ben), and the other two were arranged at times when their families were out (George and Nik). The data they provided within their own homes was consistent with what they had provided during their focus groups at my house. Furthermore, I felt that visiting their homes helped me to compose myself as I was not sat waiting, wondering whether they would actually turn up. My main concern while travelling to their homes revolved around me being able to find them from the directions I had been given and if we would indeed have a setting free from the interruptions of other people. In this latter case, I felt certain that, for instance, had their wives been present this would have had a big impact on their social practices. This notion reflected the data these men had provided during their focus groups, suggesting that men predominantly demonstrate their masculinity in the absence of women.

5.2

Ethics

During this section of the chapter I will provide brief details regarding the strategies I used to ensure participant confidentiality, participant and researcher safety, and to balance the asymmetry of power during the data collection process.

5.2.1

Confidentiality

Before conducting the focus group and one to one interviews, I ensured that all of the respondents were aware of their rights to anonymity and the measures I would put in place to conceal their identities. I expressed this information both verbally and via consent forms which they were asked to read and sign. Copies of the focus group and one to one consent forms can be found in appendices 10 and 11. Consistent with the ethical guidelines of the Social Research Association (SRA, 2003), the respondents were informed that:

• They could withdraw their permission for my use of their quotes within a written report of the study

• Transcripts of the interview would not include their names or any information that could reveal their identity

• Audio recordings of the interviews would be destroyed after transcripts of them had been completed

• Only my supervisors and I would have access to the raw data

• They should not discuss with non-group members information that was disclosed during the focus group