In the research presented in this thesis the core instruments for collecting data are a survey questionnaire in Stage 1 (with a sequential explanatory design utilising closed and open ended questions) and semi- structured interviews in Stage 2. The design follows examples such as Harocopos & Dennis (2003) and Millar (2007) and can be considered due to the nature of its predominant qualitative focus and longitudinal design as a partially mixed sequential dominant status design (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2006). The
construction of the interview questions followed the literature reviews in Chapters 2 and 3 results and the subsequent analysis of the Stage 1 survey questionnaire. The relevant focuses adopted by the researcher when expanding upon points made by respondents in Stage 2 was influenced by that process also, leading to a reflexive instrumentation. In this sense the largely quantitative element of the research drove the decisions that led to the qualitative element.
120 The reliability of the survey questionnaire instrument was measured in a number of ways. A piloting
procedure took place over three different time periods, each instance two weeks apart, to ensure test- retest reliability. This took the form of 25 questionnaires distributed to 3 different groups at a local college over a 6 week duration. Further, one group received the questionnaire via email with a written brief, the next received it in person with a spoken brief, and the third volunteered themselves by collecting the questionnaire from a teacher. There was no significant difference between the various groups, except that the self-volunteers were less likely to expand on their closed question answers. This information led to the decision to present the questionnaires with a spoken brief. The respondents to the pilot were generally a slightly older age group and due to their location less likely to have experience of direct work, but they were representative of the same geographic locations the final research respondents came from. The pilot offered the insight that room for more qualitative elaboration was required as an addendum to some closed questions, in particular those regarding perceptions of work values. There were no prevailing issues with the understanding of the questionnaire or its focuses evidenced in the pilot.
A key unique aspect of this design is the element of the respondents transitioning from school to work during the duration of the research itself. The research instruments as a result were designed to
incorporate this longitudinal aspect and allow for the development of new research focuses over time, with open ended questions regarding where respondents saw themselves in the future included in the
questionnaire. Further, it was assumed that through initial exposure to the researcher in Stage 1 the respondents would be more likely to assent to taking part in Stage 2 one year later. This proved a relatively sensible assumption as many of the interviewees recalled the researcher’s visit to their school and
remarked on. Finally, as previously remarked upon, the structure and content of the interviews was not selected until after the analysis of the Stage 1 data, allowing for the opportunity to reflect any
overwhelming findings from the initial data stage and not end up asking young people about the researcher’s assumed interests, rather than those they articulated themselves.
The qualitative research interview seeks to describe and understand the meaning of central themes in the life world of subjects. The main task in interviewing is to understand the meaning of what the interviewees say, whilst also understanding the social context in which it takes place (Kvale, 1996). It has been suggested that sociology can appropriately be understood as the science of the interview in the deepest sense. Sociology is concerned with the fundaments of social interaction and an interview itself is social interaction, it is ‘not merely a tool of sociology but a part of its very subject matter.’ (Benny & Hughes, 1956:138). From this insight we can understand that rather than interviews simply being a method of this research, the research itself is absolutely dependent on the nature and importance of interviews. Human kind is as Mulhall (2007) postulates a kind of enacted conversation and that is precisely what this research embodies. Interviews cannot claim to capture reality as and when it happens, yet they do provide an insight into the
121 accounts individuals hold of that reality. Such a method gives us an important representation of how situations, experiences, and attitudes were perceived by the individual respondent. Interviews as a result give us ‘insights into particular issues’ (Heath et al., 2009: 89), yet do not seek to record the factual reality of a multi-faceted problem. It was decided from the beginning of this proposal to utilise semi-structured interviews to emulate and draw from the naturalistic approach laid out by such qualitative researchers as Savage et al (2001) and Walkerdine et al (2001).
A more potent element of the rationale for utilising semi-structured interviews however stems from the nature of the debate around austerity and what that has come to mean. A great deal of research and discussion on the subject of austerity and its effects has come from above. In the spirit of emancipatory methodologies such an approach is not warranted, and thus it was important, if not necessary, to actively pursue participants and research data which is often ignored precisely because it is difficult to acquire. The selected sample group in this research represent exactly those kind of individuals. This research is an attempt to update and revaluate these assumptions regarding young people, thus it was imperative that its conclusions were drawn from their very own words and experiences, not the abstract statistical analyses of the spectator. As evidenced by Terkel (1972) and Goffman (1990), these conversations and the way in which we perform them become an indispensable part of ourselves. They become the means by which we communicate hope, happiness, fear and everything in between. The interview method however is by no means simple. There is the further concern that as the researcher was not by any means new to the process of interviewing that the questions and their pattern can become all too familiar and formulaic. In order to best avoid this the key research questions were interspersed throughout a wider conversation regarding the topic of leaving school and entering the world of work with all that entails.
In order to pilot the interview method the researcher carried out 3 preliminary interviews with participants from the Stage 1 pilot. In this instance the interviews were designed to only last 25 minutes on average and were transcribed shortly afterwards. The reflections that came from the piloting process were crucial in identifying problems with the initial research assumptions, particularly in regards questions about
participants’ self-identification and class. The participants in the pilot found direct questions about class to be irrelevant to their life, yet when they were couched in terms of experiences of inequality and power relations the answers were much more organic. The interview questions that followed from this, or broad themes, were then checked by the project supervisors who had decades of experience in analytical social research to ensure effectiveness.
There are considerable limitations to interviews and the extent to which we can accurately represent what participants say and fundamentally understand what it is they mean. This is in particular of interest to this research when considering that the initial meeting with the participants takes place in a semi-controlled
122 environment in which the influence of authority is prevalent (at school), as opposed to the second stage in which the power dynamic is only between the researcher and the participant, there is no longer an arbiter of any sort. The interview participants in this sense are all individual actors operating independently of even the sense of themselves that existed one year before. As can be seen from the results the number of occasions in which a participant had altered their opinion was not insignificant. Due to the variety in attitudes and foundational experiences, despite a broad framework of questions, each participant required a somewhat different approach and a varied set of enquiries.
Initially the use of focus groups was considered as a potential method of investigation, but it was felt that the influence of dominant personalities may well be too great and not allow for the level of rich data to be pursued that is more likely to come from a face to face interaction (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2015). The practicalities of this approach given the difficulties in meeting even individuals would also have been considerable. Fortunately the willingness of participants to engage with and elucidate on their own thoughts was consistently high in the interview stage, and this further justified the sense that the correct research method had been employed. Some reflection must be had on the role of payment and the incentive that brings about, and as such a further section below has been added to consider the implications of it (Section 4.8.1). In total 30 semi-structured interviews were carried out, with an initial hope of between 40-45. Due to the difficulty of sampling this group it was always anticipated that the eventual total may well be less and this was discussed with supervisors and methods were considered regarding how to counteract this, including the use of incentives and the best way to keep participants interested. As an example select participants from Stage 1 who might be selected for Stage 2 were sent a Christmas card the year prior.
At the beginning of Stage 1 and again before the interviews the researcher provided each participant with a Plain Language Statement explaining the project, this further explained the anonymisation process and the rights each participant had in regards to access to the final data. Participants were informed that direct quotations would be used but under pseudonyms and they would be given the opportunity to withdraw their involvement at any point. No participants chose to pull out other than those who informed the researcher prior to interview that they had changed their mind. Beyond the Plain Language Statement the researcher began each interview with an unrecorded informal chat about who he was, what the research was about, and the extent to which the participants could engage as much or as little as they chose to.
The interviews were recorded on two digital voice recorders, a mobile phone, and a classic dictaphone. They were then transcribed by the researcher in the months following the interview process and kept in a secure folder and deleted from the recording devices, with a key detailing the identities of the participants in relation to their pseudonym. The timeframe in which the participants had to speak was always clarified
123 before each interview even if they had understood it would on average take around one hour. Only one participant had to leave earlier than anticipated and they informed the researcher of this prior to beginning. If the interview ran over an hour the researcher informed the participant it had reached that point and asked if they were happy to continue, in all cases they agreed to this. In general the interview continued at the decision of the participant rather than the researcher feeling more time was required.