EL SEGURO MARÍTIMO

4.2.1 Initial field visits

The researcher visited the participants in each area; the South Island location on April 6-7 and the North Island location on April 20-21, 2016. During these visits, the study was explained verbally. The participants were given the “information for participants” document (see Appendix J) and were given the opportunity to discuss the study further with the researcher and ask any questions. They were then invited to confirm their involvement and sign a consent form.

In the North Island cohort, seven trainees indicated a willingness to participate. All were visited on April 20 and 21, and all signed consent forms. In the course of the interviews, it was discovered that one Trainee would be changing jobs at the end of May. He would be in a new job in the South Island from June 1, and his current employer would be leaving the country at the end of May so could not participate. This meant that this Trainee was not able to be part of the study.

Six employers had indicated a willingness to participate in the North Island cohort. One could not, as noted above. Of these six, five were visited on April 20-21 and signed consent forms. One employer was unavailable on those days, but was subsequently contacted by phone and agreed to participate. His consent form was left with his Trainee to be collected by the Training Adviser. There was one Training Adviser responsible for these trainees and employers. This Training Adviser agreed to participate and signed a consent form. At the time of the initial visits, the participants were informed that the final interview visits would take place during the last week in June or first week in July, to ensure interviews were completed prior to the busy calving period.

36

In the South Island cohort, eight Trainees indicated a willingness to participate. Six Trainees were visited on April 6-7, and all of them signed consent forms. Two Trainees were not available on the day but were contacted the following week by phone and agreed to participate. Arrangements were made for one of the Training Advisers to collect their consent forms. At the interviews, it was noted that one Trainee would be changing jobs at the end of May. However, they would still be in the area and their current employer was still happy to be involved, so while they were not in an employment relationship at the time of the interviews, they would still be valid participants.

Seven employers had indicated a willingness to participate in the South Island cohort. Six were visited on April 6-7. One was not available on those days, but was subsequently contacted by phone and agreed to participate. Arrangements were made for one of the Training Advisers to collect their consent form. One employer was not suitable to participate, as their current employee is the first Primary ITO trainee they have employed, so they have no knowledge of previous assessment methods with which to compare the current one. There were three Training Advisers who cover all these trainees and employers. They all agreed to participate and have signed consent forms. At the time of the initial visits, the participants were informed that the final interview visits would take place during the last two weeks in July, to ensure they were completed prior to the busy calving period, which is 2 – 3 weeks later in the South Island.

4.2.2 Final field visits

There was a reduction in the number of participants between the original visits, where consent was obtained, and the number from whom data were finally obtained. These changes are summarised in Table 3 below. Initial visits to the participants were carried out to inform them of the details of the study, invite them to participate, and obtain their consent via a signed consent form. In the North Island, consent forms were obtained from one Assessor, seven Trainees and six Verifiers. In the South Island, consent forms were obtained from three Assessors, eight Trainees and seven Verifiers. Subsequent to obtaining these consent forms, two Trainees and two Verifiers were no longer able to participate due to changes in employment circumstances, or enrolment in the qualification.

Some of the participants were either not available at the time of the final interview visits, or data were unable to be gathered from them due to their lack of engagement with the training programme. For those participants not available at the time of the final interviews, arrangements were made to conduct the interviews at a later date via phone or Skype, although these arrangements did not eventuate for two of the Trainees.

37

Whilst there was a reduction from the original number of participants who gave consent to participate in the study from 30, down to 23, this was still a sufficient number, spread across the two sites, and three participant categories to produce adequate data from which to draw valid conclusions.

Table 3: Summary of Participant numbers Original Consent given Number removed Intention to interview Number removed Final number data obtained from N.I. Assessors 1 0 1 0 1 N.I. Verifiers 5 0 5 2 3 N.I. Trainees 6 0 6 2 4 S.I. Assessors 3 0 3 0 3 S.I. Verifiers 7 1 6 0 6 S.I. Trainees 8 1 7 1 6 Total Participants 30 2 28 5 23 4.2.3 Interview technique

The researcher’s interview technique was refined as the final field interviews progressed. Interviews were initially structured around the pre-determined interview questions (see Appendix L). As the first few interviews progressed, it became apparent that discussing the new programmes and associated EP first, then moving to a discussion about the previous method before making a comparison was not going to work. All participants, when asked questions about the new programmes and EP made direct comparisons with the previous method as part of that discussion. The researcher refined his technique to allow for this approach, and while the interviews remained semi-structured, the nature and order of that structure changed as the data gathering phase progressed. There were seven participants who had limited time available to participate in the interviews (less than 15 minutes), so these interviews became more structured as the interviewer focussed on obtaining answers to key questions in the limited time. Those interviews where time was not a factor tended to be more free-flowing and less structured. The average interview time across the three groups (Assessors, Trainees and Verifiers) was 19 minutes, with Assessors averaging 23 minutes; Trainees 17 minutes and Verifiers 18 minutes.

38

All interviews were voice recorded using an echo Smart Pen, as well as handwritten notes being taken. At the completion of the interview visits, all interviews were replayed and detailed interview summaries were created.

4.3 Ethical issues

This research was reviewed and approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee: Southern B, Application 15/71. There were no major ethical issues that were identified in the design of this study.

The only issue that was identified as a possible concern was that of the professional relationship between the researcher and the Training Advisers (Assessors). Although the researcher is a work colleague of the Training Advisers, they are in a different chain of command, and their voluntary involvement was approved by the General Manager of Field Operations at the time. There was no pressure for any of the Training Advisers to participate and they were fully informed of the aims and details of the study, and that they could withdraw at any point, with no adverse consequences. None of the other participants were previously known to the researcher.

No other ethical issues arose during the research.