VALIDACIÓN DEL INSTRUMENTO

Skills Tasmania provided lists of the successful applicants for the Equity Policy and Action Plan

program. The lists contained contact information as well as whether the successful provider was a public, private or community RTO. The title of the RTOs’ application indicated: RTO office responsible for the program; which social category was targeted for the program; and the goals of the RTO initiative. Skills Tasmania assisted to locate the appropriate person to contact about the study. Much of the information was in the public domain.

In compliance with University procedure, I had preconceived the numbers and groups of people whom I would interview. Those numbers were: learners: 20 to 30; teachers and trainers: 5 to 8; policy-makers (government and RTO): 6 to 10. Consistent with conGT, I then put aside preconception and interviewed people, and numbers of people, according to how theory was developing and how it could be tested. What mattered in this research was to theoretically test at macro, meso and micro levels of inquiry. The evidence determined that it was best to intermingle interviews with

participants who were learners, teachers/trainers and RTO and government policy-makers and to build evidence by comparison of their different evidence. With learners, it emerged that what mattered was whether they were an “equitylearner”, not whether they might fall into a one of the policy “sub-groups” of “age, gender, cultural or ethnic background, disability, sexuality, language skills, literacy or numeracy level, unemployment, imprisonment or remote location …” (Australian Government, 2012) (2.4.4). There was no overt attempt to recruit particular numbers or within oarticular categories although I had to bear in mind that I may be required to exlain to the University why I had not recruited the numbers, or categories, agreed in the ethics application. With regard to other participants, I recruited RTO teachers and trainers in the private and public sectors; policy-

makers from RTOs and from government. This strategy was consistent with preconceived numbers required by University systems. The numbers of government policy-makers comprised the pool of people directly responsible for equity in VET.

The process of recruitment developed in tandem with analysis and played out in the following way: • Entry to field. Usually it was straightforward to establish on each day of interviews a mix of

participants. Consistent with conGT, coding began immediately;

• Interviews of up to five participants included some or all of learners, teachers/trainers, RTO policy-makers, government policy-maker. Learners and teachers/trainers were commonly accessible in the one venue. It was possible to make appointments with RTO policy-makers for the same day as learners, and teachers/trainers. The appointments with government policy-makers, often geographically close to RTOs, were made in advance and at a time when I knew I could intersperse with analysis from other interviews;

• Analysis for, usually, two days after each five interviews. Analysis involved clustering and memo’ing, and comparisons across all interviews of initial and gerund coding followed by tentative moves towards focused coding;

• Re-entering field to repeat the above process.

I took the initial coding that I always did immediately after interviews and analysed (coded, clustered, memo’ed) in ways to alert me as to what may be significant and affected by recruitment. Sometimes, that analysis quickly brought forward focused coding; sometimes a category leapt out that stayed the distance of the research; most of the time, there was constant tracking back and forth within

interview and observation evidence and, significantly, across macro, meso and micro. I interviewed 45 participants in compliance with preconceived numbers of interviews. The saturation of evidence happened to co-incide with this number. I re-entered the field to re-interview and this process is discussed in theoretical sampling in later sections.

I next discuss the process of recruitment and the profiles of each participant group.

4.9.1Recruitment of Participants from Registered Training

Organisations

I distinguish institutional and government policy in describing participants by using the terms

“institutional policy-maker” and “government policy-maker”. The institutional policy-makers were senior managers who had no ongoing teaching or training role. The term “institutional” distinguishes RTO officers who formulated policy specific to their institution although the term “policy-maker” is not ordinarily used in this way.

I recruited participants from RTOs who became gatekeepers. I then recruited participants who also had a policy/management and no teaching role, teachers who may also have had a mainly

management role, trainers and learners. I recruited in an integrated, staged, process. The contact was first by letter and phone and then personal meeting with the agreed gatekeeper in the RTO. The gatekeeper introduced me to teachers and trainers, and learners, in groups so that I could explain the study and distribute written information about it, if required. Each person was provided with opportunity to approach me if they wished to be interviewed in ways that would protect their privacy.

Consistent with conGT, after each stage of letters of invitation, with an information sheet (Appendix A) to RTOs, I assessed responses with reference to induction and emerging theory to determine if change of strategy was required. The criteria to assess responses was based on whether the information I was receiving back was consistent with what I had expected in light of the

information I had about the equity programs, e.g. particular social categories were targeted; equity was the focus of the RTO policy. I estimated that eight RTOs would provide the information required in the first stage.

I invited RTOs by letter to nominate a person (i) to have a gatekeeper role and/or (ii) be an

interviewee. Those who took part as gatekeepers subsequently facilitated access to learners and to teachers and trainers. It eventuated that all RTOs I contacted nominated a person to be gatekeeper and welcomed the opportunity to be interviewees.

4.9.2Recruitment of Participants from Government Departments

The induction and theorising informed the process of recruiting and selecting government policy- makers. The process was concurrent with processes for other participants. I invited participation from government policy-makers by letter with an information sheet (Appendix B). The letter provided for a preliminary phone conversation to discuss the project. In all cases, policy-makers responded quickly and all agreed to take part in the study.

4.9.3Profiles of the Participants

4.9.3.1Learners

The learners were people experiencing disadvantage according to the Equity Policy and Action Plan

(Skills Tasmania, 2009). I emphasised my ethical duty to providers, teachers and trainers and asked them to help to create a process where confidentiality was maintained in my interactions with learners. For example, I needed a situation where either the interview was not visible to others or

the interview had the appearance of a general conversation. I ensured that I created situations where I was often generally intermingling with potential participants.

I interviewed adult learners from ages 19 to 54 within the categories of physical disability (including intellectual disability), people with mental health issues, humanitarian entrants, women and older people. The learner participants in this research are the groups defined in the Equity Policy and Action Plan (Skills Tasmania, 2009) not including a specific focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders or prisoners or offenders (Chapter 1).

As interviews proceeded, I aimed to meet with learners across all the social categorisations of the

Equity Policy and Action Plan (Skills Tasmania, 2009). This proved not to be straightforward as it was not always evident which social categorisation had been ascribed to an individual learner even though they might be a part of, for example, an intellectual disability group. I had to exercise some of my own judgement as some learners appeared not to know which category was applied to them; it was not a question I thought appropriate to put to them. If I enquired of teachers or trainers, it was possible that I would identify which people were being interviewed.

4.9.3.2Teachers, Trainers, Policy-Makers (RTO and Government)

The participants were:

• teachers or trainers from public, private and community RTOs; • government and RTO policy-makers.

All selected RTOs were regulated by National VET Regulation (NVR) standards (Minister for Industry, 2015). Public RTOs employ “teachers”; private and community RTOs employ “trainers”.

The RTO institutional policy officers were either public or private and some were also undertaking teaching or training. The government policy officers were those directly involved in equity in skills development but distinguished by which state department they represented: in education or in skills development. Skills development policy-makers were those responsible for funding policy.

4.9.4Participants Interviewed

I interviewed policy-makers (institutional), learners, teachers and trainers from RTOs; and policy- makers from government departments who were either within education or skills development. The numbers of interviews are as set out in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 below.

Table 4.1: Interviews: Participant Numbers

Participant Number

Learners 25

RTO: (institutional) Public policy-makers 3

RTO: (institutional) Private policy-makers 3

RTO: (institutional) Community policy-maker 1

Teachers: Public 7 Trainers: Private 2 Policy-makers: Government Education 2 Skills 2 4 Total 45

Table 4.2: Learners by Age and RTO

Age 19–25 26–30 31–35 36–40 41–45 45–55

15 3 2 - 4 1

RTO Private Community Public

11 4 10

In summary, consistent with conGT, the sample and number of interviews conducted was directly tied to the decision that I had gathered sufficient empirical material to develop analytic categories. I had opened up as much opportunity as possible for constant comparison to expose and deal with inaccuracies, embellishments, minimalist, or deceptive accounts (Charmaz, 2014). At the same time, I was mindful of the advice of Charmaz (2014) to be conscious of numbers to the extent that

interviews are central to good theorising and that small numbers may allow perception of artificiality. I next discuss the next step in the project: the processes for interviewing.