Prerrogativas del Mercado laboral

Focus groups

In keeping with a grounded theory approach in which theoretical sampling is an ongoing process (Glaser and Strauss 1967, Corbin and Strauss 2008), the research objectives and questions were initially validated by means of a focus group made up of young people either currently or previously looked after. The focus group was used to explore the topic and to ensure the research questions were clearly outlined (Stewart et al.

2007). The research questions were subsequently re-visited within a second focus group, to ensure their relevance to the lives of the young people in question. Focus groups can be of value both as a means of exploratory research on a topic, and as a confirmatory tool at a later stage of a research project (Stewart et al. 2007). In terms of

research with children, the use of focus groups with children prior to developing a questionnaire can help to check out children‟s understanding, and avoid the use of adult-centric questions (Scott 2008).

The intention behind the focus group was to involve the young people in the research process as much as possible. Each focus group was conducted according to a plan, which was drawn up to include the content, and the aims, of each session. The first focus group plan can be found in Appendix 2. The original plan was to have three sessions, the first to obtain feedback on the research questions, the second to gain the group‟s perspective on interviews undertaken thus far and to begin to plan for

dissemination, and the third to discuss emerging findings and to prepare a presentation for their dissemination. Unfortunately it was not possible to hold the third focus group, as I had to take a necessary but lengthy period of suspension from the PhD study due to personal circumstances. On resuming registration I felt it was no longer appropriate to arrange a final focus group due to the length of time which had elapsed.

The first focus group involved six young people, four female and two male, recruited through the local children‟s services, and, who, as previously identified, were for the most part already involved in some kind of young people‟s consultation forum. This helped to ensure the compatibility of group members, which is important to a successful focus group (Stewart et al. 2007). I met with group members to provide them with

information about the study in order for them to decide whether to take part. All but one of the focus group participants also chose to take part in an individual interview.

The group met at a local authority conference venue, for sessions of approximately two hours, which were audio recorded with the consent of all participants. The first session introduced the young people to the concept of their role as research consultants, and then proceeded to consider ideas and opinions around relationships and their relative importance. Cards representing different related and non-related people were ranked by the group according to their importance to a child, and then cards with statements to define the relationship were placed next to the cards.

Those who were ranked most highly were mothers, brothers, sisters, and friends. Step- mothers, step-fathers and step-sisters, as well as half-brothers and half-sisters, were ranked lowest in importance by the group, closely followed by social workers. Step- brothers were ranked at both ends of the scale by different participants, as were foster carers and residential workers. Uncles, aunts, fathers and cousins were ranked mostly at the lower end of the scale, and foster brothers and sisters ranged from the top to the middle of the scale. Friends were linked with statements such as “We know about each

other”, “We look after each other”, “We stand up for each other”, and “The same things

have happened to us”. Brothers were linked with the statement “We stand up for each

other”, and sisters were linked with “We stand up for each other”, “They are like me”,

“We look after each other”, and “The same things have happened to us”.

A sealed box was used for participants to record anonymously any comments they wanted to make at the end of the session. Two participants wrote “It was good”, one

wrote “i [sic] appreciate the £20”, one wrote “I thnk [sic] the session was good. I think that the next one will be better as everyone will know what to expect”, one wrote “it was

a great night! It was nice to learn about others views and to me [sic] you”, and one wrote “I enjoyed it. I though [sic] the session went well. Just as long as you had

enough information from all of us”. The comments demonstrated that the participants seemed to benefit from the session. In terms of the research questions, the focus group provided confirmation of the importance of brothers, sisters and friends as well as adults for children and young people in care.

The second focus group, comprising four boys (one of whom had not been part of the first group) and a girl, took place following the completion of nine of the research interviews. The value of separating focus groups by gender due to the different

communication styles of boys and girls has been argued by Scott (2008). While it would not have been realistic to try and achieve this in the focus groups for the study, it was noticeable that the gender imbalance in the second group changed the group dynamics, and it proved more difficult to get the group members, especially the boys, to engage with the research issues. This was reflected in one of the comments from the sealed box: “I thought it want [sic] really well considering the lads where [sic] stupid bar 1 [sic]”. However another comment was positive: “I feel confident know [sic] and for this being

the first time I was only a bit nervous”. It should also be noted that the addition of a new member may have changed the overall dynamic of the session; however this was done in an attempt to be inclusive, following a request from group members who shared their placement with the new member.

Despite these challenges, positive ideas emerged from the session. The group

considered the themes from the first meeting, and was advised of the emerging findings, which they felt were important. The group members then produced a list of people and organisations that they felt should be informed, and discussed various means of

residential workers, kids (as group members termed them) and voluntary organisations. They suggested the use of (amongst others) leaflets, letters, posters, magazines,

conferences and the internet as various means of disseminating the findings. Several group members expressed an interest in a third focus group meeting to plan for dissemination of the findings.

Both focus groups proved invaluable in confirming and directing the previously drafted research questions. The first focus group highlighted several important areas, two of which were the importance of knowing about, standing up for, and sharing experiences with siblings and friends, and the wide range of importance which young people

attached to their relationships with siblings, half siblings, step siblings, cousins, friends and adults. This suggested that the research questions were appropriate, as well as directing the enquiry towards relationships with all children, not just full siblings and friends. The second focus group, conducted half way through the fieldwork, provided confirmation that the emerging findings were considered relevant by looked after young people, and that the research questions continued to be appropriate. It also generated useful information concerning the young people‟s perceptions of who should be

informed of the research findings and by what means. It is anticipated that this will help to direct dissemination of the findings.

Recruiting participants

The study recruited eighteen young people looked after by one local authority, aged between twelve and nineteen, of whom nine were female and nine were male. Sixteen were of White British origin, one was of African Caribbean origin, and one was of White British and Asian origin. All had spent at least one year in the care of the local authority. I was not able to interview any children or young people prior to their entry into care. Consequently it was not possible to do a „before and after‟ type of analysis of the impact of entering care on sibling and peer relationships. Instead, I had to confine myself to their accounts of the impact of entering, living in, and leaving care on their relationships.

Eleven participants were in foster placements (of which one was with a grandparent), one was in a small residential placement, three were in semi-independent living and three had left care. The semi-independent placements were contained within one staffed unit, in which the young people were encouraged to develop skills in preparation for independent living.

Brief profiles of individual participants setting out some detail of their sibling and peer networks as well as some background to their care entry are contained in the participant profiles (Appendix 5). The profiles are intended to provide some background and context to the individual stories, as well as giving an overview of the many and varied sibling and peer relationships of the young people in the study. The table of study participants on the following page lists the young people in the order in which they were interviewed.

Name M/F Ethnic origin Disability Age at inter- view Placement type Age entered care 1. Jade F White British Learning

disabled 19 yrs

Foster care

with Nicky 6 yrs 2. Nicky F White British 17 yrs Foster care

with Jade 11 yrs 3. David

(sib of Shaun) M White British 17 yrs

Semi independent small group home

13 yrs approx 4. Shaun

(sib of David) M White British 16 yrs

As above with David

12 yrs approx 5. Reece M White British 16 yrs As above

with David 2 yrs 6. Johnny

(sib of Stuart) M White British

Learning

disabled 15 yrs Foster care

5 yrs approx 7. Hayley F White British 17 yrs Bed and breakfast

with son (left care) 15 yrs 8. Kelly

(sib of Tom) F White British 16 yrs

Foster care

out of city 7 yrs 9. Debbie F African

Caribbean 18 yrs

House alone

(left care) 13 yrs 10. Shelley F White British 17 yrs Foster care -

grandmother 15 yrs 11. Stuart M White British 18 yrs Foster care 6 yrs

12. Rebecca F White British 18 yrs Flat alone

(left care) 6 yrs 13. Tom

(sib of Kelly) M White British 12 yrs Foster care 5 yrs 14. Daniel (sib of

Mark and Kerry) M

White British

/ Asian 16 yrs

Small group home out of city

13 yrs approx 15. Andrew

(sib of Sophie) M White British 13 yrs

Foster care

with Sophie 4 yrs 16. Sophie

(sib of Andrew) F White British 14 yrs

Foster care

with Andrew 5 yrs 17. Mark

(sib of Kerry) M White British ADHD 12 yrs

Foster care with Kerry

3 yrs approx 18. Kerry

(sib of Mark) F White British 15 yrs

Foster care with Mark

6 yrs approx