My research requires me to document and make sense of participants’ experience of socio-cultural and socio-political phenomena in a host society. The complexity of this task demands the use of a qualitative research approach (see Downward, 2007; Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). The qualitative tradition supports purposive sampling of small populations, researcher and participant reflexivity, and respect for multiple realities (O’Leary, 2010). Importantly, a qualitative design also enables an iterative approach to the methods used in this research, meaning that my methodological strategy could ‘evolve as more observations [were] gathered’ (Rubin and Babbie, 2010, p. 34).
In social work research, qualitative approaches are recognised as allowing the researcher to gain an intimate understanding of the ‘lived experiences of service users, carers and practitioners, [and in] depth understanding of how policies and practices are played out in situated contexts’ (Sharland, 2013, p. 14). The focus on obtaining knowledge through thorough exploration of the phenomena under investigation, including experiences of social work
interventions in this regard, is crucial to learning how such ‘interventions bring about change’ (Sharland, 2013, p. 14). Combined with a critical realist
methodology, a qualitative research design can seek answers that concern access to underlying structures of power that determine other aspects of social reality (Houston, 2010).
In designing the research, I began by developing the research questions set out in Chapter 1 and shown in Figure 2 subsequently. My research design focused on the perceptions and accounts of Nigerian immigrant parents, and in order to generate these accounts I employed three distinct methods of data collection:
• An internet blog created specifically for this study where Nigerian parents in England could post about their experiences within a relatively public space, and react and respond to the accounts of others.
• In-depth, semi-structured interviews that would capture more personal and less public accounts.
• Focus group discussions where it would be possible to capture debate between participants as well as group dynamics.
The research design was iterative and interactive. For example, I started the blog space with posts outlining concerns about the childrearing practices of Nigerian immigrants (www.uknigerianchild.net). Material from the blog informed questions posed to participants in the one-on-one interviews. Vignettes were used to stimulate debate with and between participants in the focus group discussions. Figure 2 depicts the research design graphically:
Figure 2
Research Design
As shown in Figure 2, the study, including the questions, data collection methods and analysis, was designed to obtain both surface meanings and underlying powers. The first research question aimed to extract subjective empirical experiences. The second question also employed subjective understandings to identify the structures and systems that create those
• Seeking Explanations
From accounts of participants’ experiences as follows:
1. What are participants’ understandings of the key factors that promote child wellbeing in Nigerian culture?
2. What norms do participants perceive to be embedded in British parenting practices?
3. How well do participants’ own parenting norms and practices fit with predominant British parenting norms and practices?
4. What support structures and services do participants think could improve the fit between British parenting practices and their own?
Internet
Blog concReleverns ant
Relevant concerns One-to-one interviews (25) Unresolved issues FGD1 FGD2 (grp of 4) (grp of 4) Textual Data Thematic Analysis Explanatory Critique
experiences. Responses to the third and fourth questions enabled an
explanatory critique of the problem, with the fourth particularly emphasising the emancipatory ideals of critical realist thinking by implicitly acknowledging the expertise of the participants.
Context for the Study: Who were the Participants and how were they Recruited?
Inclusion Criteria: The research questions adopted for the study necessitated
the category of ‘first-generation Nigerian immigrant parent’; assuming that this was a group with coherence and that it was possible to document their
perceptions and experiences of child welfare in England. Later in the thesis (Chapters Four, Five and Six) I demonstrate the relevance of this category to the findings, but here I discuss how the category was operationalized in order to generate a sample. The Nigerian parents required for the research were hetero- normative adults who were born and raised in Nigeria, but were now living without immigration restrictions in England, having raised or were currently raising their own children in England. The parents would have married or partnered only other Nigerians, while excluding inter-racial or same-sex relationships. A further inclusion criterion was that participants were able to communicate fluently in English.
The decision not to interview social workers and other professionals involved in children safeguarding (including health visitors, teachers, police officers, and general practitioners) means that there are no direct alternative viewpoints to the parents’. This could be a limitation of the study. However, like Flyvbjerg (2006), I believe that certain perceived limitations can indeed be strengths. As noted in Chapter One, support for parental rights is not currently fashionable (Dixon, Graber and Brooks-Gunn, 2008) in relation to children’s rights, which arouse individual and public convictions due to children’s vulnerability. My focus on Nigerian immigrant parents is an acknowledgement of their status as people on the margins of dominant English discourses in terms of race, ethnicity and culture, and social work policies that are overtly child-focused. As the first study in England that expressly seeks Nigerian immigrant parents’ perspectives on
child welfare, this research ensures a dedicated space for their voices to be heard.
Eligibility for access to the blog was broader than for the interviews and focus groups. The blog was open to any African immigrant parent in England who could use the internet in English, irrespective of whether they were responsible for a child or were first generation. The anonymous nature of the blog meant that it was not possible to verify the identities of those who contributed (Snee, 2013). As with most virtual media, there was the possibility that people might not be who they claimed to be. However, I looked for certain cultural cues, the use of typical Nigerian phrases and terms as an indication that a contributor was indeed Nigerian; meaning that in the blog although any African immigrant could contribute, I only sought out Nigerian voices. I am also aware that despite employing certain distinct Nigerian cultural codes as inclusion criteria, there might have been a few exemptions. However, those I deemed to be Nigerian were the commentators whose blog data I actively used in the analysis.
For the interview and focus groups, I chose specifically to exclude Nigerian immigrant parents with immigration restrictions because the impact of such restrictions was likely to overwhelmingly shift the focus of the interview to financial and residency issues (see Anitha, 2010), which were not particular objectives of the study3. Finally, a simple factor like being available for interview seems an obvious criterion but it was important that I stated it clearly to
prospective participants on the printed flyers, as it was possible to be genuinely interested and yet unavailable to take part in the study.
3 An interview carried out in error with a participant with immigration restrictions revealed
significant complexities arising from policies such as ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’. Her interview was with hindsight, unsurprisingly replete with accounts of substantial financial difficulties and complexities of childcare. It was not until towards the end of the interview when I advised her on how to access extra support for her child that she informed me she had already approached the council but was not eligible. I had interviewed the participant by mistake because she had not fully understood the difference between being ‘legal’ in the UK (which she was) and not having any immigration restrictions, which was the study’s requirement. Therefore, her interview was discounted, and I apologised to her for not making the restriction more
Access and Recruitment
From the outset, I was disinclined to interview Nigerian immigrant parents within my personal network. One reason for this was my wish to maximise the
demographic range of participants to reflect that of Nigerian immigrant parents in England. My network would have limited this range in terms of
education/class, religion, and ethnic group. My initial plan was to access participants from across England (outside London)4. Once ethical clearance from the university had been obtained in March 2013, I made contact on the telephone with ‘gatekeepers’ in Nigerian populated faith groups and Nigerian community associations around Greater London to begin the process of
identifying participants. Gatekeepers were given information sheets explaining the research and asked to pass them on to prospective participants (see
Appendix II for Gatekeepers’ Information Sheet and Leaflet). Interested persons were invited to make contact either through a dedicated telephone number or email address provided on the leaflets. I personally oversaw posting of the flyers in three churches, two mosques, two Nigerian ethnic community associations and two community centres where Nigerian immigrants were known to visit or congregate. Other Nigerian contacts who volunteered spread the flyers more widely.
I visited each church and mosque three times and participated in the activities of both religions despite not being Muslim. Also during those visits, I was invited on two occasions to speak to the congregations about my research. I made it known to the gatekeepers and potential participants from the onset that I was still a registered social worker, even though I was not currently practising. This probably influenced one of the Imams to request whether I could offer a brief presentation specifically on child protection for black African families to his congregation, which I did. I also used the opportunities to inform potential participants in those congregations that I would be anonymising their identities
4 However, I made an exception in the interview of the first participant, who was known to my
aunt. That participant’s reticence regarding disclosing and discussing certain personal issues during the interview reinforced my original commitment to seek participants completely outside my personal network.
and using pseudonyms, to allay any child protection concerns. During further discussions with individual members and small groups of people in those associations, I was able to recruit more participants.
Representativeness amongst Nigeria’s diverse populations along the lines of geo-political regions, religion, and ethnicity was not an objective of the study. Nonetheless, these demographic categories highlight the heterogeneity of Nigerian peoples, which potentially could impact on participants’ experiences of parenting (see Lewis and Ritchie, 2003). I accordingly sought to obtain, as much as possible, a representation of the diversity of Nigeria’s population, not for a ‘statistical match’ but for ‘inclusivity’ or ‘symbolic representation’ (Lewis and Ritchie, 2003, p. 269) of Nigeria’s peoples within the sample. As will be seen in the data presentation chapters (Four to Six), some differences with regards to sub-ethnicity and religion for instance, whether real or imagined, eventually played out in the data.
Accessing my sample involved snowballing, a method understood to promote access to a desired study group through networking (Handcock and Gile, 2011; Bryman, 2015). Also known as ‘nominated sampling’, this technique involves the researcher relying on a person who is already a part of the sample to nominate, contact and recruit others who know and trust them (Polit and Beck, 2004, p.289). Five initial potential participants, three from two different church gatekeepers, one from a Mosque’s Imam, and another from a Nigerian
community association referred or nominated other likely participants who fit the study’s requirements in a cycle that continued until the planned number of 25 participants was reached. In that respect, this method could be criticised for its tendency to recruit participants with similar characteristics, which is known as the snowball or chain effect (Johnston and Sabin, 2010, my emphasis). Eventually twenty-one participants were recruited from five inner London boroughs. These boroughs are economically deprived areas with significant numbers and different categories of Nigerians (ONS, 2011). I extended the search for participants through two Nigerian community association networks to one outer London borough where I successfully found a further four
Ragin and Becker (1992) suggest that community-oriented research is better achieved by establishing ‘culturally typical relationships’ (p. 148). I employed this approach in the focus group stage of the study by clustering participants who shared particular traits. For example, I encouraged the Muslim participants to make up a group, while the other group included only men. More importantly, participants were also grouped according to location primarily for accessibility reasons. An overview of the relevant demographic characteristics of the 25 participants from the six local authorities within Greater London is presented in the following table.
Table 2
Participants’ Demographics
Criteria No. of Participants Total
Gender Female Male 18 7 25 Region East North South West 6 1 5 13 25 Religion Christian Muslim 19 6 25 Educational Qualification Postgraduate Degree Secondary Primary 8 13 3 1 25 Occupation Professional Skilled non-professional Unskilled Unemployed/home-makers 11 6 2 6 25 Age Range 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-> 3 4 5 5 3 5 25