« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Life In Low Income Families In Scotland: Research Report
ANNEX ONE: RESEARCH DESIGN
OVERVIEW
Approach
A1.1 Eighteen focus groups were conducted with people drawn from low income family households. The focus group was a suitable approach to engage experiences and perceptions of low income living as - when conducted in an appropriate fashion - it is a means to access rich data. Thus, the context of collective focused interaction implies that not only are experiences and perceptions reported (in the participants' own words), but that they are actively shared, discussed and rationalised by a wider community of interest.
Pilot stage and topic guides
A1.2 The topics and questions for interviews were informed by evidence that emerged from the literature review (McKendrick et al. 2003). The early interviews were treated as pilot interviews; these included interviews with both adults and young people. In addition to piloting the interview schedule, participants in these interviews were asked to reflect and comment on the interview and to give advice on how to approach issues and topics that are of relevance to them. Minor revisions were made to the interview schedules post piloting.
A1.3 The topic guides are provided in Annexes 4 and 5. These enabled exploration of the diversity of factors implicated in poverty; people's own definitions of poverty; accounts of their experience of living in poverty; perceptions and experience of inequality; and diversity within and between areas, households and social groups. Participants reflected on their experience and provided their views on government policy; wider issues of opportunities and social capital; and strategies for ameliorating the effects of poverty. However, the primary focus of the interview was the way in which people experience poverty on a day to day basis.
A1.4 The topic guide for young people is similar to that for adults. Wherever possible, data were collected to facilitate comparison between adults and children; this often involved different styles of presentation (Annex 5, underlined questions). This shared schedule was supplemented with questions for each age group (e.g. Q8-13 and other italicised questions in Annex 4 and section 1f in Annex 4).
A1.5 The topic guides were used flexibly in accordance with key issues which emerged in the course of the interviews (e.g. paying more attention to a key local issue) and by placing greater emphasis on issues which are pertinent to the group in question (e.g. the significance of a low wage labour market with those participating in group interview with anti-poverty campaigners in a rural part of northern Scotland). The identification of pertinent issues generally arose from, or were confirmed within, discussions with key contact persons in advance of the interview.
Coverage - groups
A1.6 The recruitment strategy was based on the need to explore diversity of experience. For example, to include those from different family backgrounds (lone parents living alone, lone parents living with family, and reconstituted families) and those from different areas (rural, urban, Social Inclusion Partnership areas (SIPs), non-SIP, north, east and west of Scotland). Primarily, breadth of experience was sought in 4 fields: experience of work (e.g. including carers, workless and working family households [dual and single income]), demographic characteristics (i.e. a spread of experience by gender, age and family type), experience of poverty (by duration and intensity) and minority status (ensuring participation from families with disabled persons and minority ethnic groups). Full details are given in Annex 2.
Coverage - geographical area
A1.7 The recruitment strategy also sought to embrace the experience of low income living across Scotland. Inevitably, this led to many groups in pockets of deprivation in Edinburgh and Glasgow. However, it also required fieldwork outside the largest cities and interviews were convened in East Ayrshire (Cumnock and Dalmellington), Argyll (Oban), Lothians (Musselburgh), Dundee and Moray (Keith and Elgin). In terms of area type, fieldwork was conducted in rural and urban Scotland and in a diversity of sub-types therein. Full details are given in Annex 2.
Participant profile
A1.8 Although the focus of the research lent itself to the participation of young parents - and mothers in particular - efforts were made to ensure participation from minority populations within low income family households. Thus, it was important to secure participation from men, older parents, as well as other traditionally harder-to-reach groups such as disabled persons and minority ethnic populations. Similarly, care was taken not to reduce low income to households without work. A diversity of experiences was achieved.
A1.9 It was intended, wherever practicable, to recruit child participants from families with adult participants. This would have enabled different experiences of poverty within the same family to be compared. It was also anticipated that it would not always be possible to recruit children from such families as adult participants are not grouped around the ages of their children. The diversity of life experiences among people aged under 18 years makes it advisable to avoid overly heterogeneous groups. In the event, it did not prove possible to recruit child participants in this manner. Two attempts to convene such linked focus groups (with returners to education in an inner city neighbourhood and in a peripheral housing estate in a city) were unsuccessful and led to an initial postponement of the interview in the former case. However, young people did participate in the study.
A1.10 In 7 interviews, more than one family member was present in the same interview, i.e. brother and sister (2), sister (2), brothers (1), married couple (1) and, married couple and brother (1). However, this information did not always emerge at the outset of the interview and limited opportunity was thus afforded to explore intra-family experiences. Alternative recruitment strategies and interview types would be required to do this effectively.
RECRUITMENT
A1.11 Existing community based contacts were used to recruit participants into the study. The confidence and trust that comes through familiarity was invaluable for establishing an appropriate context for researching the sensitive topic of experiences of living on a low income. Established contacts with other community-based groups were also used enabling access to key target groups. This proved to be effective means of facilitating recruitment.
A1.12 The project required involvement of a tightly defined population - those living in low income households with at least one child aged under 18. Our approach to recruitment involved targeting groups for which a significant proportion of their clients were from our target population. This involved focussing on areas of deprivation, projects with a clear anti-poverty focus and Social Inclusion Partnership projects.
A1.13 A brief self-completion questionnaire had been piloted to screen potential participants. This was withdrawn for a variety of reasons (i) it was an imposition upon the key contact persons (ii) it proved a barrier to recruitment (iii) potential participants had difficulty completing the form (iv) it established an inappropriate, impersonal and overly formal tone for the research. To further increase the likelihood of groups comprising people from our target population, the pre-survey screening questionnaire was withdrawn in favour of a field visit. Considerable effort was invested in developing close working relationships with local key contacts prior to each focus group interview. Typically, this involved several telephone calls and at least one pre-focus group field visit. While time-consuming, this was helpful in providing (i) familiarisation with the organisation and focus group participants' relation to it (ii) indication of substantive issues which are of interest to the group in question (iii) clarification to the key contact person of the nature of the research and eligibility of participants. Information leaflets were made available for onward distribution to participants.
A1.14 A post-survey profile questionnaire was conducted verbally on a one-to-one basis at the end of each interview in order to establish a profile of the individuals who participated in the research.
ETHICAL PROCEDURES
A1.15 The research team at CRFR worked to the ethical guidelines of the British Sociological Association and Barnardos (specifically in relation to research with children). Participants were assured of anonymity in publication and that their contributions would be treated respectfully by the research team. Participants were also advised to respect confidentiality in relation to each other after the focus group was completed.
A1.16 At the heart of CRFR's approach was the necessity of receiving informed consent from each participant. Such informed consent necessitated that (i) adequate information was provided to each participant on the nature of the research (ii) participants understood this information (iii) participation was voluntary and (iv) each participant consented to participation. To ensure these were achieved, the project had an (a) information leaflet for adults (b) information leaflet for young people, and an (c) introductory consent check schedule to be undertaken prior to, or at the start of, each focus group interview ( Annex 3).
A1.17 A 10 gift token was made to each participant as a gesture of gratitude for participation. Participants were offered a choice of tokens and care was taken to ensure that these tokens could be tendered locally. Additional costs of participation costs - travelling and childcare expenses - were reimbursed.
FIELD PRACTICE
A1.18 Focus groups comprised, on average, of between 5 and 6 people ( Annex 2). Discussions were tape-recorded on consent and were preceded by a brief summary of the scope of the research and the interview ( Annex 3). Interviews took place in a location convenient to participants, generally the regular meeting place for the group from which the participants had been drawn.
A1.19 Two members of the research team were present at all but one focus group, one acting as facilitator, the other as host, scribe and reviewer. A topic guide was used to frame the interviews (Annexes 4 and 5).
A1.20 These quality control mechanisms, the need to involve researchers with focus group experience and knowledge of the groups and issues which form the focus of the research, and the logistics of conducting research at a time and place of convenience to the groups, led CRFR to form a sizeable team to deliver the research. The experience of the team was valuable for focus group research and ensured that as moderator/facilitators our interventions were effective.
A1.21 At the end of each interview (and where time permitted) scribes provided an oral summary of the key findings to emerge over the course of the interview. Participants were given the opportunity to reflect on this summary. In practice, participants confirmed CRFR's summary, recognising the breadth of subject matter that they had covered and clarifying some CRFR interpretations.
ANALYTICAL APPROACH
A1.22 Most interviews were transcribed in full and by professional clerical assistants; these transcripts were checked by John McKendrick. John McKendrick systematically analysed every transcript to provide consistency of focus across interviews. Interview transcripts were reviewed, a coding scheme of emergent key concepts was devised, and each transcript was re-reviewed in accordance with this scheme. Thematic summaries by theme were then collated across the interviews, e.g. pulling together all related comment on the extent to which "children come first" into the one file for further review and analysis.
A1.23 The 3 principal investigators met twice for preliminary analysis of parts of the dataset. The objectives of this analysis were to (i) identify key substantive issues which were discussed in the interviews (ii) identify sub-group and universal issues with regards to living on a low income (iii) consider the ideas/concepts/categories used by participants to order their experiences (iv) identify issues worthy of further research, and (v) relate issues arising from the focus group interviews to existing research (as reported in the literature review).
CRITICAL REVIEW
Limitations
A1.24 Inevitably, and despite precautionary measures, when interview groups are drawn from community groups which serve a broader population than low income family households, there is a possibility that not all participants will meet the criteria for participation. In 9 focus groups, a few participants were either from family households that were not low income family households or, more typically, were from family households that previously had been low income households. However, none could be described as affluent. To preclude participation would have been difficult as this information was often discovered in the course of the interview or at the end of the interview. Indeed, even if this information was available at the outset, to exclude would have been counter-productive (disrupting a cohesive group at the outset) and ethically flawed (effectively excluding that person from what was often the regular meeting of a support group). It transpired that many useful insights were provided from the limited number of participants from alternative vantage points; however, their responses are not used to reflect the experience of those living on low incomes.
A1.25 The inability to convene linked parent and child interviews has been explained. Another limitation of the community group approach to accessing people within low income family households is that, by definition, isolated people who do not draw upon the support of such collectives are precluded from participation. It may be prudent to assume that the experiences shared in this report are not those of the most excluded and isolated among those living in low income family households. Particular care is taken when interpreting data on emotional, financial and other forms of support.
A1.26 The topic guide enabled CRFR to engage the breadth and depth of experiences of low income living. The timing of the majority of the interviews ( Annex 2) may inadvertently have led to a greater focus on issues pertaining to Christmas (consumption, debt, family gathering). The experience of Christmas for low income family households was prominent in most interviews. On the other hand, despite being outwith the traditional family holiday season, much comment focused on what was often the inability to budget for family holidays. More attention might also have been paid to parents' aspirations for their children. However, these critical reflections should not be misinterpreted: the schedule allowed for a comprehensive review of experiences of life in low income family households in Scotland.
A1.27 Finally, each method has its limitations. Focus group research has its strengths and was the most appropriate approach for this research. However, further insights into other aspects of low income living are beyond the reach of this approach and would be achieved, for example, through extensive research (the aggregate picture for all low income family households in Scotland) or biographical research (the intricacies of personal circumstance and interconnections with other life experiences).
Strengths
A1.28 Although group interviews are susceptible to domination by stronger personalities, this was rarely evident in the interviews and, where evident, was limited by the moderators to particular phases or parts of the interview. Care was taken to draw in other participants, to foster the group dynamic and focused interaction. In any case, the tendency for some participants to be more vocal, did not preclude other participants making contributions which challenged these opinions. For example, in between periods of P1 dominating the dialogue, P2 intervenes and presents an alternative viewpoint.
P1: …
CRFR Do you think folk judge you when you're struggling to get by?
P1: Well we've got Lidl and Iceland. Dinnae get me wrong. I do go into Lidl. I hold ma hand up tae it. I buy certain things, but I dinnae buy ma weekly shopping oot o' there. Ken whit I mean? I like goin' tae Safeway and I like goin' tae Iceland, but some people can only go to Lidl and buy the 6p tins o' beans, an' whatever it is. Ken whit I mean? An' honestly, it's like dog food! I've bought them maself in circumstances where I've been really skint. I widnae feed it to tae a dug, ken I widnae.
P2: I buy the 9p tins of beans out of Safeways - the Safeway savers. Nowt wrong with them, the bairns will eat them, I'll buy them.
CRFR Do you think any of this is different for guys?
P1: ... (Young mothers, city housing estate)
A1.29 More generally, the interviews proved to be a rewarding experience (first extract, below) in which participants were comfortable with the setting (note the language in the second extract, below), and were able to provide each other with emotional support (note the response in the third extract to Participant 2 becoming upset on recalling a gift from her mother's friend) and in which participants discussed issues frankly and openly, while reserving the right not to discuss issues which were more sensitive to them (second extract, below).
P1:: This is actually quite good because it's no' very often you get to talk about things like that.
CRFR: Sorry?
P1:: It's good … like [to talk about] all your feelings and that, whit's going on about … here. (Mid teens, de-industrialising town in a rural area)
P: Because wee shits took all the panelling off, did I no' tell yae? They took every panel off. Broke into his hoose. I mean they took everything from his socks to his knickers and I'm no' joking you. I mean they took anything they could take. But, ma book was in his jaicket pocket and there was ither things lying aboot that I'm no' gonnae go into that which were of value and people could use. Never took that. (Young mothers, city housing estate)
P1: My mum's got a pal, and I just cannot [ begins to get emotional]. She came to my house the other day and she's like "I got this jacket for Kirsty and Jack because I know you can't afford it, and you're want her to have the best, don't you?" And I'm sitting there like that, [ breaking down], … just thinking about it, it really upset me, and I'm like so, 'I'm not getting my wean the best of stuff?'
P2: It doesn't matter because your wean might end up coming out a better wean that he's going to be anyway.
P3: That's her that's got the problem.
P1: Aye, it's no' me that's got a problem.
all (Speakers all talking at once)
CRFR That's a pal of your mam's?
P1: Aye.
P3: I'd huv her out the house.
P2: So would I, I wouldn't let her back in.
all (Speakers all talking at once) (Returners to education, inner city neighbourhood)
« Previous | Contents | Next »