Escala de Ansiedad de Zung (Anexo 3)

The YPAR group discussed a range of approaches for data collection including qualitative methods such as: interviews, focus groups, photo elicitation, vignettes and

105 observation. These methods were explored through practical activities and discussion over two weeks. Following discussion of possible data collection methods, the group debated these for each of the research questions. The YPAR group decided to use a mixed methods approach using questionnaires and interviews and/or a focus group. The data collection method for each research question is outlined in Table 4.1.

YPAR Research Question Data collection method

How do victims respond to cyberbullying incidents?

Questionnaire and interview/focus group

How do people protect themselves and others from cyberbullying?

Questionnaire and interview/focus group

How should school (and other adults) respond to cyberbullying?

Interview/focus group

Table 4.1 YPAR data collection methods

The YPAR group decided to conduct their research with Year 7 and Year 8 students. As previously explained, the group were anxious about researching their own age group (Year 9) or above.

4.4.1. Questionnaires

Questionnaires were designed by the YPAR group based on their research questions. Josh had raised concerns that questionnaires would not be taken seriously by the students and they would give false results as a joke; however, the statistics from the

106 YPAR questionnaires were generally in line with statistics reported in the literature. For instance, Hinduja and Patchin (2017) found 22% of young people (aged 12 – 17 years) were cyberbullied (sample n=1204) within the past month. Meanwhile, Shin et al. (2016) report that 7% of 12 – 13 year olds were victims of cyberbullying (sample n=3956). Smith (2014) highlights the difficulties with prevalence rates due to differences in definition and measurement. Whilst using a smaller sample (n=282), the statistics generated by the YPAR group are in line with published statistics for prevalence of cyberbullying victimisation (Year 7 17% and Year 8 15% prevalence ever; or 9.62% of Year 7s and 6.35% of Year 8s in the past year). However,

prevalence statistics are quite wide-ranging. In addition, we could also triangulate our findings from the questionnaires with the group’s own “contextualized expertise” (Fine, 2008, p. 224) and findings from the interviews/focus group.

The questionnaire was designed by the young people with my support. We discussed issues for the design of questionnaires including avoiding bias in the question

formulation, we used a four-point Likert scale to avoid neutral responses, with questions arranged in a matrix, and we developed open questions where we believed responses could not be accurately predicted (Cohen et al., 2007). The arrangement of the questions was considered so that routine questions, such as year group and gender were situated at the beginning of the questionnaire, and questions about their own behaviour as bystanders, towards the end (Flick, 2015).

The young people explained their research project to Year 7 and Year 8 students during their year group assemblies. The YPAR group created a presentation and script which they used during the assembly and negotiated the roles they would take during

107 the presentation. The questionnaires were distributed in hard copy, during form time at the beginning of the school day. The YPAR group believed hard copy

questionnaires were a more confidential means of collecting data and more likely to elicit honest responses from participants. The numbers of questionnaires returned were 156 in Year 7 and 126 in Year 8. They were distributed on a single day and were completed by those who were present during form time, unless they opted not to complete the questionnaire.

4.4.2. Focus group

Participants for the focus group were identified through responses to the questionnaire. The final question asked for the participants to provide contact information if they were interested in participating in further research with the group through an interview or focus group. Those who had indicated interest in talking further with the group, and had either experience as a victim or a bystander of cyberbullying were invited to participate in a focus group. The school-based contact spoke to the individuals and provided information sheets on the project. The

participants and their parents provided informed written consent prior to the focus group. The focus group took place with ten participants from across Year 7 and Year 8. They were interviewed by Josh, Daniel and Ryan from the YPAR group, and I facilitated the process. The YPAR group had participated in a number of role plays to prepare for interviewing and we met before the focus group to go through the

questions again and prepare. The focus group lasted for 53 minutes and was held in a meeting room in the school. The YPAR group had a list of semi-structured questions, which they had divided between themselves, but they also probed for additional

108 responses when needed (Cohen et al., 2007). The focus group was audio recorded and the YPAR group took extensive hand-written notes. Before commencing, we verbally summarised the informed consent statements for the focus group participants and provided the opportunity for any questions to be addressed.

4.5. Analysis of data 4.5.1. Questionnaires

The questionnaire data were entered into a spreadsheet for analysis, including data from incomplete questionnaires. Quantitative content analysis was used to analyse the open questions generating categories, then frequency analysis was applied to the categories (Flick, 2015) and graphs were generated to display the data. The YPAR group participated in the generation of categories and coding the data during one meeting. I completed most of the coding due to time constraints and the availability of technology in the school. The group confirmed a sample of the coding I had completed (Creswell, 2013). The frequency of responses for the quantitative

questions was calculated and used to produce bar charts showing the incidence levels for each item (Cohen et al., 2007). The YPAR group discussed the graphs and free- text responses during a YPAR meeting. The young people were able to draw on their own experiences to explain data-sets and their meanings. Within YPAR the ability of co-researchers to triangulate findings with their own experiences is seen as a strength and a way to assure the trustworthiness and authenticity of the research (Fine, 2008; Fox & Fine, 2015).

109

4.5.2. Focus group

The group held a meeting immediately following the focus group when we discussed our initial findings referring to the hand-written notes. Between this meeting and the following meeting, I listened to the audio-recording and identified the main themes which emerged; these themes were then discussed with the group who contributed their own experiences to the themes identified. Complete analysis of the focus group data with the YPAR group was restricted due to timescales and diminishing

attendance at YPAR meetings. The analysis offered from the YPAR group of the focus group data is, therefore, tentative.