During Phase I of the research, ethnographic observation was conducted over an eighteen-month time period within four different homelessness services. These sites included two food centres and two homeless accommodation settings. One food centre is large in scale (feeding several hundred people on a daily basis) and, in addition to serving hot food for breakfast and dinner, also provides a medical and dental service, as well as shower facilities and clothing. The other food centre was smaller in size and provides meals as well as a comprehensive information and referral service to all service users. There was (and continues to be) an exceptionally high demand on both services; queues of service users frequently formed outside the buildings both prior to and during opening hours. Both of the homeless accommodation settings where ethnographic observation was conducted were classified as ‘wet’66 services. The first was a female-only emergency hostel that catered specifically for the needs of women with high and complex needs: almost all reported a current or previous opiate dependency and many
65 Topics raised spontaneously by the women were also pursued and explored as the interview
progressed. The women sometimes began the interview somewhat apprehensively and sometimes asked questions such as, “Is this what you’re interested in?” or “Am I going off point?” However, invariably – and as the interview progressed – the women became more comfortable, more confident in their responses and their narrative became more fluid and unbroken.
66 ‘Wet’ service is a term used in Ireland and elsewhere to describe services (usually providing
accommodation for homeless people) that permit the consumption of alcohol on the premises as opposed to the more typical requirement of abstinence (Costello, 2000).
93
of the women were involved in street-based prostitution. The second was a long-term accommodation service that catered for both men and women with alcohol dependency issues and lengthy homeless histories, and who tended to be ‘older’ in age67. The four sites were selected in order to maximise opportunities for contact and interaction with homeless women in a variety of contexts.
During the Phase I data collection, I spent more than ninety hours observing and interacting with women (and men) in the four service settings. Firstly, I attended the large food centre on a regular basis (usually 2-3 times per month) for a period of 1-2 hours over approximately 18 months. Due to the high demand for the service during lunch time hours, I decided to attend the centre at breakfast time as this offered better opportunities for me to interact with service users, whilst not feeling ‘in the way’ of staff and volunteers during busier periods. While this larger service was dominated by men and in particular, rough sleepers, there were usually several women present. I established a positive relationship with two staff members who often introduced me to the female service users, explaining who I was and what the research was about. This dynamic was effective since both staff members were evidently held in positive regard by service users. Gradually, service users became acquainted with me and these introductions were no longer necessary. I often sat with service users and chatted informally and endeavoured to follow their lead in terms of the topics or issues discussed. In general, both women and men were quite open and usually talked spontaneously about their daily lives and experiences. My visits to the smaller food centre were more sporadic and took place once or twice monthly. Although there were proportionately more women using this service, it offered less by way of interacting with service users mainly because the seating space was very limited. However, I had many lengthy and informative conversations with staff members in this smaller service which yielded interesting insights on their perception of homelessness among women.
I attended both of the homeless accommodation services regularly, usually weekly. In general, I endeavoured to keep my visits relatively short (from thirty minutes to an hour) as I did not want to be overly intrusive, particularly during my initial visits. I also found that short but frequent visits were an effective means of becoming familiar with the service users whilst, simultaneously, ensuring that I did not become a burden to the
67 Since the life expectancy of individuals with lengthy homeless histories (combined, in many
cases with substance use problems) is often lower than the housed population, ‘older’ refers to those service users who were over the age of 40 years.
94
service (or to service users); I also wanted to avoid a feeling of ‘outstaying my welcome’68. Although there was a degree of turn-over of residents in the emergency hostel, regular but short visits enabled me to maintain a relationship with several women in the service who were residing there for longer periods. In the female-only emergency hostel, I spent most of my time either in the TV room or the kitchen chatting to the women. Our conversations were informal and the topics that arose varied widely between visits, often depending on the dynamics (and who was present) in the room at the time. The women frequently discussed the experience of homelessness and talked openly about their experiences of the services they had accessed; many talked about their childhoods, drug use, and their children. However, very frequently my interactions with the women were casual and we spoke of popular culture, clothing, hair styles or whatever topic they themselves introduced. This informal chat assisted significantly in building rapport and familiarity with the women whilst also enabling me to accumulate ‘local’ knowledge of individuals as they moved through homeless spaces.
In general, staff members did not spend time in the (communal) areas where I most often interacted with women and, for this reason, I was acutely aware of my presence in spaces that were typically not accessed by non-residents. I always sought to respect these spaces – particularly the privacy of residents – and endeavoured to read body-language and non-verbal cues that led, in some cases, to me politely drawing my visit to an end. I interacted with women and responded to them ways that I hoped would be conducive to creating a comfortable atmosphere. At times there was a great deal of chat while, during other visits, far less was said by the women. In essence, I followed the lead of the women and they were almost always friendly and polite in their exchanges. While some women appeared to be suspicious of me at first, at no stage did I experience hostility or aggression from any person – either male or female – during my ethnographic field visits. During some visits, there were women who were clearly intoxicated but this did not make me feel nervous or ill-at-ease.
Client turnover in the long-term accommodation service where I conducted ethnographic observation was low and, for this reason, both female and male service users became acquainted with me during my weekly visits. Sometimes I spent time with the women alone (on occasion, in their private rooms), or with the women and their
68 I used language such as “popping in” or “quick chat”, or similar, to reinforce this to the women
and to staff members, which I believe also assisted in establishing appropriate research relationships with service users.
95
partners, although I usually remained in the communal areas where there were typically several residents present. This service was dominated by men, with only 3-5 women living there at any one time (the service accommodated 30 residents in total). During my visits, I observed that the dynamics between the residents continually changed; some days the atmosphere was harmonious while, on other occasions, interactions between residents were more volatile and arguments or verbal altercations were not unusual. As stated earlier, this was a ‘wet’ service and residents were typically consuming alcohol during my visits (smoking was also permitted in the communal areas). Amidst what was frequently a volatile or chaotic atmosphere, I always received a positive reception from residents and sometimes engaged in organised activities with them such as bingo or ‘film night’. Participation in these kinds of activities meant that I could interact in very informal ways and also gain insight into the dynamics at work in residents’ interactions with each other and with staff members.
Data Collection Process: Phase II
The experience of returning to the field at Phase II was distinct, both in terms of how the fieldwork was executed and experienced. Meeting (and seeking to meet) the same women for a second time was clearly critical to the research but was a process and experience that required careful management and ethical integrity. This section outlines the tracking process, retention and attrition of Phase II sample, methods and overall reflections on research relationships across the second phase of data collection. In order to ensure methodological continuity, the study’s Phase II data collection methods continued from I – biographical (foll0w-up) interviews and ethnographic observation were repeated.
The Tracking Process
Tracking and locating research participants three years subsequent to the conduct of the Phase I interviews was a considerable challenge due in large part to the ‘hard-to-reach’ and transient nature of the homeless population (Radley et al., 2006). As already outlined, contact details were sought after the conduct of all Phase I interviews; this included logging a telephone number and other relevant details such the name of a key worker, services the women had accessed, and so on. In more than half of the cases, the telephone number provided was no longer in use and, for this reason, gatekeepers, that is, staff members within a range of services were central to the tracking process (Miller
96
and Bell, 2002). In a longitudinal qualitative study of young people leaving State care, Ward and Henderson (2003) noted a lack of engagement and interest in the research among their gatekeepers. Fortunately, my experience was vastly different and my return to active engagement with field sites was relatively smooth. This was perhaps facilitated by my regular presence within homelessness services during Phase I, after which I had built strong and positive relationships with both staff members and service users (Hemmerman, 2010). Many of the service staff members had either attended the publication launch of the findings of the baseline study in 2012 (Mayock and Sheridan 2012a, 2012b) and/or had received a copy of the publications in the post at around the same time, which may also have served to create a positive perception of the study and helped to maintain the interest and support of service staff.
All of the services through which research participants had been recruited during Phase I were re-contacted at the outset of the tracking process. As these services were familiar with me and with the study, their re-engagement with the research was relatively speedy. A small number of services were under new management by Phase II of the study, which meant that greater time had to be invested in presenting information about the research and explaining the rationale for tracking the study’s women. New services were also approached at Phase II of the study in order to assist the tracking process (see Appendix G for Phase II Agency Information Sheet). Several of these services were large- scale accommodation or drop-in services for homeless people. I approached these services by first sending a letter or email and, a number of days later, followed-up with a phone call. Once telephone contact was established with a relevant staff member, I requested a short face-to-face meeting to explain the research in greater detail. Usually after this meeting, staff members agreed to assist with the tracking process. These new services were given copies of the publications generated from the baseline study (Mayock and Sheridan 2012a, 2012b).
Over the course of the eighteen months of Phase II fieldwork, I abided by two central rules in the hope that these would assist in successfully tracking the study’s participants: being flexible (that is, adjusting my actions to meet the needs of others) and ‘field-ready’ (Hemmerman, 2010). I always endeavoured to accommodate both research participants and staff members, for example, in terms of the time and place of interviews, and I believe that this helped to foster a positive relationship with all concerned. In terms of being ‘field-ready’, I carried an ‘interview pack’ with all of the necessary documents
97
(recording equipment, information sheets, consent forms, and gift voucher, and so on) ready and with me at all times (during field visits) in case the possibility of conducting an interview might arise without or with little warning69. In terms of securing the interview following a meeting with any of the women, I found it was better to arrange an appointment for interview as soon as possible after making this initial contact whilst, at the same time, not pressuring women to re-engage with the study (see later discussion of ethical considerations). Similarly, Hemmerman (2010) found in her longitudinal study that the interview was less likely to proceed with the passing of time.
A ‘log’ of all tracking efforts was maintained during the course of Phase II (Hemmerman, 2010). There were a small number of women who were unresponsive to my efforts to make contact with them to arrange an interview; in line with recommended ethical practice, I did not place women under undue pressure to re-engage with the study. In other cases, the timing was not convenient at the point of first contact but weeks or months later, the interview was secured – demonstrating that patience and understanding are also required when negotiating access to some participants (Ward and Henderson, 2003).
Importantly, the tracking process also produced important analytical insights. For example, women who were ‘entrenched’ in emergency accommodation services at Phase II were, in some cases, relatively easy to track as they were moving continuously between a number of hostels and were also regular users of other homelessness services. Yet, there were other women who remained homeless at Phase II whose accommodation transitions were rapid and often punctuated with brief ‘spells’ in institutional spaces such as substance use treatment services, hospitals or prison70, which made tracking and locating them more complicated. Women who had exited homelessness with service support (that is, after care or floating supports) were relatively straightforward to track because of their ongoing interactions with services. By contrast, those who had exited homelessness independently, without service supports, were far more difficult to track.
69
After four months of intensive searching for one woman involving many phone calls to various services, a drop-in centre made contact with me to let me know one of the women I was trying to track had entered the service following a period of incarceration. She told the service provider that she was happy to be interviewed so I went immediately to the service to interview her.
70 During an organised visit to the Dóchas women’s prison (located in Dublin), the Governor
informed me of recent sentences of three women who I had been trying to locate, but was unable to find.
98
Retention and Attrition at Phase II
Retention is an important consideration in any longitudinal study – whether qualitative or quantitative – since it affects both the reliability and validity of the data. Phase II interview data collection took place over the course of approximately eleven months, between November 2012 and October 2013. During this time, a total of forty of the sixty women were successfully tracked and re-interviewed. Regrettably, three of the study’s women were deceased by Phase II of the study. This equates to a retention rate of 66.6 per cent, which is satisfactory in a study of this kind given the recognised difficulties associated with tracking and retaining ‘difficult-to-reach’ populations, including those who are homeless 71(Conover et al., 1997). Further details of the study’s retention rate in terms of sample profile will be outlined in Chapter Six.
In addition to the forty women who were re-interviewed at Phase II, reliable information was attained on the whereabouts of nine women during the tracking process. Direct telephone contact was established with three of these women and several phone conversations took place with each. During these conversations, the women shared many details about the events that had taken place in their lives since Phase I and also provided information on their current place of residence. All indicated that they wanted to participate in Phase II of the study but, for various reasons72, it was not possible to arrange an interview. For six women, information was deemed ‘reliable’ when direct contact was made with a Phase I participant or, alternatively, when information on a participant was verified or corroborated by a number of individuals such as homeless services staff members and/or other research participants73. For the remaining eight of the women, information on their whereabouts could not be verified and, for this reason, they are not included in the study’s longitudinal analysis74.
71
This retention rate also compares favourably with other qualitative longitudinal studies of homeless populations, particularly since there was a time lapse of two to three years between the baseline and follow-up phase of the research. Williamson et al. (2014: 69), for example, described their retention rate of 58 per cent in a Bristol-based longitudinal study of women’s homelessness as “successful”.
72
These women typically stated that various stressors - such as elevated levels of drug use or geographical relocation – which appeared to be central reasons for them not participating in a follow-up interview.
73 In eight instances, some information was attained on the movements and whereabouts of the
women. However, this information could not be verified by a second source.
74
99