the Youth Offending Service (YOS) in relation to HSB were recruited for this research. A further two young people were approached by their YOS workers, but declined for their
information to be passed to the researcher as they did not wish to participate. The emphasis on theoretical saturation (described in 2.4.3.2) prescribed by CGT supersedes the need to pre- determine the number of participants to recruit. That is, the aim of CGT is to keep recruiting until the categories identified through the analysis are saturated (Charmaz, 2014). It has
however been noted that situational factors, such as running out of time or money, can mean that recruitment is forced to stop before saturation is reached (Wiener, 2007, cited in Charmaz, 2014). In the current research, barriers to recruitment (to be addressed in Chapter Four) meant that nine was the total feasible participant number that could be recruited within the relevant time constraints.
In the build-up to recruitment, links were established with three YOSs covering three counties in the UK. YOSs fall under the umbrella of local council services (rather than the police or courts) and are responsible for working with young people who are convicted of a criminal offence, for the purposes of addressing their risk factors and supporting them to avoid further offending (Crime, justice and the law, n.d.). The researcher spent time attending YOS meetings and developing relationships with the teams, liaising with staff to ascertain the likely numbers of potential participants and to discuss the logistics of recruitment. Following
conversations with YOS staff around the demographics of young people on their caseloads for whom there was a concern over HSB, and taking into consideration staff concerns about the ability of young people of a certain age and intellectual capacity to engage with the research, the following inclusion and exclusion criteria were established:
Inclusion criteria:
• Males or Females
• Aged between 12 and 18 (inclusive)
Exclusion criteria:
• Young people who were unable to give informed consent due to an intellectual or communication disability/difficulty
• Young people for whom a mental health difficulty (e.g., psychosis) was likely to compromise their ability to give informed consent or to engage in the research
• Young people for whom staff from the relevant service felt it would be inappropriate or harmful to include in the research (e.g., likely to become distressed by the interview content or process)
The decision to define the age bracket for inclusion as 12-18 stemmed from conversations with YOS staff who felt that the young people on their caseloads under the age of 12 would have difficulty engaging in discussions around compassion. Although considered an adult at 18 and therefore no longer a ‘young offender’, YOS staff advised that sometimes young people who receive a Youth Offending Order at 17 and turn 18 before completing this may continue to be managed by the YOS for the final few months of their order. The upper age bracket was therefore extended to 18 to account for these cases.
Having been provided with information about the research (see Appendix A), YOS staff were asked to identify young people from their caseloads who met the inclusion criteria and to approach them to discuss taking part, using guidance provided by the researcher to facilitate these discussions (see Appendix B). In this sense, recruitment was purposive (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). CGT prescribes the use of initial purposive sampling, followed in the later stages by theoretical sampling, which enables the researcher to identify the credentials of further participants who are likely to be of particular interest in relation to the emerging theory (Charmaz, 2014). Due to the relatively small number of young people receiving input from these YOSs for HSB, coupled with the presence of several obstacles to the recruitment process (see Chapter Four), options to be selective in recruitment were limited. Theoretical sampling was
pursued, however, in the active recruitment of a female participant following the discussion by some male participants of potential gender differences in compassion. Furthermore, theoretical sampling can be said to have been achieved through the adaptation of the interview schedule throughout the research process to facilitate further exploration of emerging categories from different participant perspectives (see 2.4.2.1).
Once potential participants had been approached by their YOS caseworkers with some brief information about the research, they were asked for their verbal consent to be contacted by the researcher if they were interested in taking part. If verbal consent was gained, caseworkers passed the relevant contact details to the researcher who then contacted potential participants and their carers to provide further detailed information about the research (see Appendix C) and gain their consent to participate. All participants and their carers were asked to sign a written consent form (see Appendices D & E) – provided over email or via their YOS caseworker – prior to arranging an interview date. Participants and carers were also asked to provide additional participant information, such as participant demographics and details of their involvement with the YOS, including the nature of their HSB (see Appendix F), and asked for their consent for this information to be checked with the YOS they were recruited through. In anticipation of the fact that this population may have been difficult to engage, an incentive in the form of a £10 high street voucher was offered to each participant
2.4.1.1 Setting. Interviews took place in a setting where the young people were used to meeting their YOS workers. For five of the young people, this was in the interview rooms at their local YOS office. Two young people were interviewed in a quiet room at their school, and the final two were seen at their homes with care workers or family members also present at the address, but not present in the room during the interview. Each interview involved careful liaison with young people and their carers, YOS workers, and staff at the relevant interview
location to ensure interviews could be carried out adhering to local risk protocols, and ensuring the safety of participants and researcher (see 2.5).