Despido por defectos de conducta del trabajador

A position was taken on the initial ethics application to use pseudonyms for all the research participants, perhaps a default position for this kind of research where a sensitive subject is being discussed. Discussions took place during the KIN sessions, however, around the importance for this group of young people of challenging the stigma attached to having a family member in prison and the importance of owning your own story and experience rather than being ashamed of it. During the period I worked with KIN, the group also released a film which was available on YouTube with members being shown and the group members’

names appearing in the credits. The group’s names also featured on other KIN artistic products, with some members also appearing in print media and in radio interviews as well as at the public launch of the products. Due to this, the time spent with these young people, and the involvement of Vox Liminis in conversations with them around the potential consequences of identification as part of their involvement in KIN, a decision was taken to allow the young people to choose whether to use their own name or a pseudonym in my research. An amendment to my initial ethics application was applied for in respect of this and was approved. Further discussion and reflection on this decision, and the

contrast with the decisions made around pseudonym use for the group of young people within the YOI (who were not given the option to use their own name), is contained within Chapter 4.

A pseudonym was also created for the Young Offenders Institution (Glenview) from within which the second group of young people were recruited. Due to the size of Scotland there is only one YOI and anyone working within this area in Scotland, or familiar with their prison system, will be able to identify this location, with or without a pseudonym. In anticipation of the thesis, or work coming from it, being read by those outwith Scotland, or unfamiliar with their prison estate, however, it has been given a pseudonym. This became more important when I made the decision to identify which group the young person was part of when including any quotes from them, as including the ‘name’ of the YOI seemed less impersonal than simply including YOI after the participant’s name.

A limited offer of anonymity and confidentiality was explained to the young people in both groups prior to their consent being obtained. Tolich (2014) defined two different kinds of confidentiality, internal and external, and argued that both must be accounted for by the researcher. He spoke of external confidentiality being the “traditional confidentiality where the researcher acknowledges they know what the person said but promises not to identify them in the final report” (p.101). This would involve the use of pseudonyms or the removal of identifying features from their stories. He also outlines the aspects of internal confidentiality however, “the ability for research subjects involved in the study to identify each other in the final publication of the research” (p.

101). This could apply to my research where the young people in KIN may have been able to identify each other, as could those who had worked with them on the project, whether a pseudonym was used or not. Similarly, for those in the YOI, their stories and experiences may still have been recognisable to those who worked with them in the prison.

A limited offer of confidentiality was also given in line with standard promises of confidentiality in respect of disclosures which gave me concern for either their own or another’s safety. It was agreed that I would disclose this either to staff at Vox Liminis for those in KIN or to my contact in youth work at the YOI in the

first instance, if appropriate, and preferably with the young person’s agreement or joint negotiation, following the interview. This was not needed and did not occur in any of the interviews which were carried out.

3.9.4 Participant Observation

This method only took place with the young people from KIN. Information Sheets⁴ and Consent Forms⁵ were discussed with the group at one of the sessions with an opportunity to ask questions at that time. An emphasis was placed on ensuring that participants knew that they could withdraw their consent at any time. These consent forms referred only to the participant observation element of the research.

Over a 16-month period from October 2015 to February 2017, which became the first phase of KIN and culminated in a launch event for their art products held in January 2017, the group met over two evening sessions, six day-long sessions and five weekend residential sessions. Of these, four one-day and five weekend residential sessions were covered under my ethical approval to carry out participant observation. While the majority of time was spent working on the art-form(s) for that session, there were also other activities held over the weekend residential sessions including walks, quizzes and watching films as well as the whole group eating their meals together. I took a full participatory role in the sessions, producing art along with the young people as well as taking part in the general routine (eating and taking breaks together) and any other activities which were taking place.

As well as the young people, KIN was also made up of a project leader, who was employed by Vox Liminis, the KIN project manager from Vox Liminis, a support worker for one of the young people and a variety of artists who worked with the group during this period including a writer, performance artist, illustrator, film maker, interactive theatre workers, a sound recordist, photographer and visual artist.

4 Copy of Participant Observation Information Sheet can be made available on request.

5 Copy of Participation Observation Consent Form can be made available on request.

Due to the initial 18-month funding limit period of the KIN project, I began working with the project at almost exactly the same time as I began the PhD, with the first meeting of the group taking place on 3^rd October 2015, less than a month after formally beginning the doctoral programme. The initial ethics application was written in the first two months of my PhD and ethical approval was granted in early January 2016, with the first weekend residential session taking place from the 15^th to 17^th of January 2016. At this point, I had already attended two day-long sessions and two evening session meetings during which I simply participated in the activities along with the rest of the group, getting to know them but not collecting data. I also had the opportunity to introduce myself to the group and explain what my research involved. I spoke about in what capacity I would be working with KIN and attending sessions, and about how I would like to involve the members of the group in my research in the future, for example through carrying out interviews with them.

Fieldnotes were taken at all of the KIN sessions for which ethical approval had been granted to carry out participant observation. What have been termed jotted or scratch notes were taken during these sessions involving noting themes, key words or phrases on a note-taking app on my mobile phone (Loftland and Loftland, 1995). I decided to use this initial method of note-taking as there would be no breaks during the day sessions which would afford the opportunity to take written notes and this was also true during the weekend residential sessions, where the only opportunity to write-up more extensive notes would be prior to going to bed around 10:30/11pm. To take longer written notes during the sessions would have been distracting and intrusive and the use of a mobile phone was not unusual as other members of KIN were also using their phones during these sessions. This collection of shorter notes were then turned into full fieldnotes at the end of the day during the weekend residential sessions, or on my return home after the day sessions, based on the contemporaneous shorter notes taken on my mobile phone. Some detail may have been lost due to using this method of note taking, however I felt it to be the best and least intrusive method. Due to the nature of the sessions where the group were not always working together and in one space, I recognise that my field notes will not cover everything but are limited to those activities and interactions for which I was present.

As the research design began to evolve, and re-orient towards a focus more directly on considering the experience of having a family member in prison, rather than a focus on the practice of KIN itself, so did the focus of the participant observation and ultimately the use of the data from this method. I took fieldnotes throughout my attendance at the KIN sessions, however these moved away from thoughts and reflections around ideas of process and practice and instead became observations around what sorts of experiences of familial imprisonment were shared and constructed within KIN. These came from discussions the group had with the artists prior to beginning any work so that there was a context to the art, as well as less formal ‘chats’ the young people had with each other or with me during the time I spent with them.

These observations were not of the young people’s ‘everyday lives’ in respect of their experiences of familial imprisonment (for example at home with their family, with their friends, or visiting at a prison) but instead were of what it is like to be part of a project that creates art around this experience. Some of the young people involved in KIN no longer had a family member in prison, so even my observations at the KIN sessions were not of someone who is currently living with this experience, although it could be argued, with support from existing research (Foster, 2017), that the impact and effects of familial imprisonment do not cease when the sentence ends and the family member is released. Even in respect of the conversations and discussions with the artists or during the work being carried out during KIN sessions, these were not casual and spontaneous outpourings on diverse topics but generally arose from being asked about the experience of familial imprisonment, capturing the forming of a narrative around this experience. In this way, they were similar to the interviews which I carried out later with the young people.

The notes and reflections from this participant observation ultimately became not a principal source of data in their own right but rather the basis of preparation for my in-depth interviews with the KIN young people. They were also a basis for seeking out particular literature from the field of familial imprisonment research which seemed relevant to the experiences which they were recounting. This process of seeking out relevant literature based on topics raised by the young people during KIN sessions formed the basis for a discussion

with the young people at a residential session which, in turn, became a data source in itself, as is outlined below.