LA DISORTOGRAFÍA EN LA MACRO DESTREZA DE ESCRIBIR

The selection of participants is an important yet difficult part of the research process (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Roy et al., 2015). The choice of who is included in the study affects the data collection and the ability to draw conclusions (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Miller & Crabtree, 1999). Yet there appears to be no ‘contemporary extended discussions of sampling for qualitative family research’ (Roy et al., 2015, p. 244).

Qualitative research is typically comprised of small samples that are studied in depth (Creswell, 2009; Luborsky & Rubinstein, 1995; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Trotter, 2012). Qualitative research samples are either selective, theoretical or purposive. Selective sampling is where the researcher specifically designs the sample prior to data collection (Roy et al., 2015). Purposive sampling is the process of selecting participants with a particular purpose in mind and based on a set of criteria (Creswell, 2009; Daly, 2007; Howitt, 2010; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Theoretical sampling means that decisions on where to look for information develop through the research process (Daly, 2007), so that the selection of the sample is shaped by the data collection process (Roy et al., 2015). While these are different approaches, it can be argued that they overlap as most research starts with some theoretical justification of how the sample is going to be obtained and what criteria is used for inclusion (Daly, 2007; Roy et al., 2015). The most common approach in qualitative research is purposive sampling (Daly, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

98

This approach is useful when undertaking small exploratory studies (Miller and Crabtree (1999). This study uses a purposive sampling technique, with specific criteria. The participants in this study were families with adolescents (aged from 12 to 17 years) who had taken a family vacation within the previous twelve months. Families with children outside the adolescent age range were excluded from the study to ensure that all families were similar in terms of the family life cycle and the responses were not influenced by non-adolescents.

One of the difficulties when selecting participants in qualitative research is determining the correct sample size. Some researchers have attempted to quantify what is considered ‘enough’ (Roy et al., 2015). However, creating a recommendation for sample size does not take into consideration the quality of data being collected. While a predetermined sample size may be appropriate if the study is confirmatory (applying specific culture theory), if the study is exploratory (emergent theory), it can contradict the goals of the research (Roy et al., 2015; Small, 2009; Trotter, 2012). In exploratory research, factors other than the number of participants are more important in determining the sample size. In particular, ‘if the goal is to understand the intricate dynamics of reality construction in certain family groups, a small homogeneous sample may be a better choice’ (Roy et al., 2015, p. 247). The depth of the study comes from the questions that are asked and the different ways the research is approached rather than the size of the sample (Roy et al., 2015).

When the study is exploratory the most common approach to determine sample size is theoretical saturation (Trotter, 2012), which was used in this study. Saturation is the point at which all questions have been examined in depth and no new concepts or themes emerge with the addition of new subjects (Roy et al., 2015; Trotter, 2012). Using a saturation approach, the sample size cannot be predetermined as the researcher is exploring an unknown area of study (Trotter, 2012). Following the recommendation of Roy et al. (2015), saturation was reached when all elements of the family vacation had been examined in-depth and no new themes were identified, for this study this was at the conclusion of eight whole family interviews. The coding frame for this study, discussed further in Section 4.6,

99

is included in Appendix H. The data from the later interviews did not develop further themes from those previously derived.

To enable the collection of data for this research project human ethics committee approval was obtained (reference HRETH 11/220, see Appendix A). As a process of purposive sampling information leaflets (flyers) were distributed in two Victoria University campuses and in a number of public locations across Melbourne. A copy of the flyer is provided in Appendix B. When the initial contact with potential participants was made, information regarding the project (see Appendix C) was sent to each family via email. An interview time was arranged once the family had read the information and agreed to participate in the study. The interviews for the families in this study occurred between January and September 2012. Each family agreed to participate in a group family interview and provide photographs of their vacation (see Section 4.5 for detailed discussion). As a thank you for participation, each family member was given a movie ticket, this was advised in the initial flyer and information sheet.

The decision to offer an incentive for research participation is complex. While it is agreed that offering incentives increases responses rates, existing research has argued that offering payment is either a sign of ethically sound research or alternatively that it is potentially exploitative and/or that participants may give false information to ensure that they receive the incentive (Head, 2009). In this study, the decision to offer an incentive was to encourage participation. To minimise any potential negative effects that the incentive might have on participation, the Australian Research Council Guidelines, as set out in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007), were followed. These guidelines state that any incentive should not be disproportionate to the time spent participating in the research and/or encourage the participants to take any risks. As the interview process took between one and two hours per family, movie tickets were deemed proportional to the time spent with the family. In addition, it was stressed both verbally and in the information sheets provided to participants that the incentives were not dependent on the participants answering any questions and they could end the interview at any stage and still receive the incentive.

100

The participants in this study were eight families, consisting of seven two- parent families and one single-parent family, a total of 31 people participated (16 adolescents and 15 parents). Two further families had initially agreed to participate but had, due to a variety of time commitments within their respective family, to decline. Following the suggestion of Roy et al. (2015) and the practice of Kerrane, Hogg & Bettany (2012), a relatively homogenous group was selected for this study. As a relatively homogenous group, this group is not representative of all Australian families. Table 2.1, shows a profile of the families interviewed. All families lived in the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne and had Australian European origins. Based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census Data (2011b), seven of the families lived in Melbourne suburbs where the average weekly family income was above the national average, and one family lived in a Melbourne suburb where the average weekly income was marginally below the national average. In all families analysed both parents worked, either full-time (three families) or the father worked full-time and the mother worked part-time (five families). This is in contrast to the national average in which only 51% of Australian dependent children live in families where both parents are employed (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015). On average, the families in this sample had 2 children each, which is similar to the Australian national average of 1.9 children (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011a). A requirement of participating in this study was all families had taken a vacation within the previous 12 months (see Appendix B). For the families in this study, all families had taken a vacation within six months of the interview being conducted. Pseudonyms enable the families to remain anonymous. Each family’s pseudonym surname and first name begin with the same letter of the alphabet. For example, parents Andrew and Anna and their children Alice and Abby (See Table 2.1) form the Adams family. Keeping the first letter the same for each family helped with ease of identification of related family members. None of the pseudonyms corresponds with the original names of any of the participants in this study. The adolescents age was recorded and included in the findings to differentiate between older adolescent’s (approaching adulthood) and younger adolescents (leaving childhood), as this was deemed important to the research. The parental role (mother,

101

father) was included in the findings. The age of the parents was not included as a significant factor for the purpose of the research study and so was not recorded.

Using this approach to participant selection, the following section discusses how the data were collected for this study.

102 Table 4.1. Study Participants

Family

name Parents Adolescents (Age)

Family size

Destination Holiday

length Location of meeting

Adams Andrew & Anna Alice (16 years), Abby

(15 years)

4 Noosa Heads,

Australia 2 weeks Family home – lounge room

Brown Barry & Barbara Bella (17 years), Ben (15

years), Bailey (12 years)

5 East and West

Coast, USA 4 weeks Family home – dining table

Carter Cameron &

Catherine

Campbell (17 years), Caitlyn (14 years)

4

West Coast, USA 2 weeks Family home – dining table

Dunn Doug & Donna

Dylan (17 years), Daisy (14 years), Danielle (12 years)

5

Gold Coast,

Australia 10 days Family home – dining table

Evans Edward & Eve Ella (13 years) 3 Hamilton Island,

Australia 1 week Family home – dining table

Fisher Fiona Freya (12 years)

2 Far North

Queensland, Australia

2 weeks Family home – dining table

Graham Gary & Grace Georgia (15 years), Gaby

(12 years)

4 Singapore,

Singapore 12 days Family home – dining table

Holt Henry & Heather Harry (15 years), Hannah

(12 years)

4 Gold Coast,

Australia 5 days

University – conference room table

103