TABULACIÓN DE LAS ENCUESTAS

3.2.1 Participant Recruitment, Inclusion Criteria, and Sample Size

The recruitment of student-athletes, athlete support staff, and academic staff across the current thesis was achieved through snowball and purposive sampling techniques. Purposive sampling is typically used in qualitative research and involves identification and selection of individuals or groups of individuals that are proficient and well-informed with a phenomenon of interest (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Patton, 2002). For example, specific members of athlete support staff, including heads of performance sport and head coaches, were recruited for the current thesis because these individuals had experience of working with university student-athletes during their everyday jobs (see Table 3.1 for an outline of stakeholder roles). These individuals were perceived as being able to provide rich data about student-athlete transitions and experiences.

In addition to purposive sampling, snowball sampling was also used to identify

additional participants who were rich informants about the research area. Snowball sampling is defined as; a technique for finding research subjects when one subject gives the researcher the name of another subject, who in turn provides the name of a third, and so on (Vogt, 1999). For example, student-athletes were recruited for the current thesis via the help of university sport scholarship managers and athletes known to myself. Following this, snowball sampling was used, whereby these individuals were asked if they were aware of other student-athletes who fit the criteria and would agree to participate. Snowball sampling seeks to take advantage of the social networks of identified respondents (i.e., student-athletes) to provide a researcher with an ever-expanding set of potential contacts (Thomson, 1997). The method is based on the assumption that a link exists between the initial sample and others in the same target

population, allowing a series of referrals to be made (Berg, 1988).

The eligibility of participants to participate in data collection was decided by inclusion criteria relevant to the research questions. Student-athletes had to: (a) have received a sport scholarship (either an offer of a scholarship, ownership of one, or had one when they were at university) from their respective universities, (b) competed at high national or international level in their chosen sport, (c) be about to attend university, attending university or just completed their undergraduate degree at university, and (d) be 18 years or over at the time of

data collection. This criterion was put in place so that athletes were able to draw on personal experience of competing in high level sport whilst also transitioning into, through and out of university. To be eligible for inclusion, stakeholders had to, have knowledge of the university student-athlete programmes by either supporting student-athletes or having a role that involves providing provision to student-athletes (e.g., academic staff).

Researchers have addressed the challenges of determining sample size (e.g., Patton, 2015; Merriam, 2009), with many qualitative methods authors generally agreeing that it is impossible to specify in advance of a study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In the beginning, when an initial design is formulated, a desired or targeted sample size may be specified, but may not be the final number (Patton, 2015). Patton (2015) also states that sample size can be emergent and flexible, because the size and composition of the sample can be adjusted based on what is learned as the enquiry deepens. For example, from the focus groups in part A, it became clear that it was also important to gather the perspectives of student-athletes in the pre-university transition phase, rather than just those currently at university. Gathering pre-transition perspectives was perceived to be important because stakeholders highlighted the type of support that they provide to student-athletes before they transition into university. Gathering the views of student-athletes in the pre-transition phase may help to increase understanding around whether they felt prepared after receiving this support. The sample size therefore increased to accommodate for this emergent group. In addition to adaptation of sample size based upon emergent findings, Patton (2002) also suggests that if saturation is not reached, and if doing so will help researchers answer their research questions, more participants can be added (Patton, 2002). In determining my final sample size, I drew upon the work of Patton (2002), who suggests that when data saturation has been reached and there are no new themes emerging within interviews, further participants may not be required because they are unlikely to add any further data that can answer the research questions. Within the current thesis, following Patton (2002), it was decided that saturation was reached after three interviews did not add any additional knowledge to the topic being studied.

Participants were not recruited for specific parts of the thesis, and some participant data was used across a number of different parts. For example, data from student-athletes in their final few weeks of third year of university who were used in the write up of athlete stories in part B were also used in part C, when there was discussion around the challenges student- athletes perceived they would face when they left university. In addition, some of the

longitudinal data collected from student-athletes for part B who were in the first few weeks of university were used in part A. The focus of part B was not to highlight immediate changes

upon arrival at university, and the data therefore fit more appropriately in part A where the focus was on immediate transition demands. For more information on who took part within each part of the thesis, see Table H.1 in Appendix H.

3.2.1.1 Participants. In total, 45 participants took part in the thesis, including a total of 26 student-athletes and 19 university stakeholders. Student-athletes were aged between 18 and 24 years (x_̅ = 20.3 years; SD ± 1.9), were from 11 universities across the UK, studying a range of degree courses (e.g., Pharmacy, History, Sport and Exercise Science), and had experience of competing at national (n=3) and international level (n=23). University stakeholders had between 1 and 18 years’ experience of either supporting student-athletes or having a role that involves providing provision to student-athletes (x̅ = 5.9 years; SD ± 3.9) and were from 2 UK universities. Stakeholders had various different roles (See Table 3.1 for details), and included; university sport managerial figures (n=2), sport scholarship managers/performance lifestyle advisors (n=2), head coaches (n=6), strength and conditioning coach (n=1), physiotherapist (n=1), sport development staff (n=4), academic staff (n=3). Participants were given

pseudonyms to protect anonymity (see Table B.1 in Appendix B for participant labels in part A, and Table F.1. in Appendix F for participant labels in part C).