The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

5.0 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH WITH YOUNG PEOPLE

5.1 Aims

The aims of the Qualitative Research with current school students and young adults were:

i) To explore and assess the salience and memorability of school drug education in comparison to other sources of information, such as friends, family and media.

ii) To explore the credibility of school drug education as perceived by students and young adults, in terms of its perceived accuracy and reliability and the perceived trustworthiness of the sources/people providing the information.

iii) To explore the extent to which young people feel that they are gaining or gained new knowledge or skills from the drug education they received.

iv) To explore whether drug education triggered young people to discuss drug-related issues with their friends, family or other significant people in their lives, or to discuss such issues in a different way from previously.

v) To explore the extent to which young people feel or felt challenged by drug education to re-assess their knowledge, beliefs and behaviour in relation to substances.

vi) To assess the perceived value and impact of school drug education in the context of other factors, such as the influence of family including parents, friends, peers and the media, on young people's views about drugs and their drug taking behaviour.

5.2 Methods

The specification asked for research to explore the views of both young adults and current school students. We considered an alternative, quantitative, approach for the latter task, but felt that a qualitative approach would generate richer and more useful data. Firstly, the main task here was to encourage young people to reflect actively on the value and usefulness of the drug education they were receiving or had received. An exploratory, interactive questioning approach is needed to encourage this kind of reflection. We judged that we were likely to obtain richer and more meaningful data through detailed questioning and probing which encouraged young people to consider in some detail their experiences of drug education. Secondly, the questioning approach needed to be flexible enough to cover all the different types of drug education young people may receive. It would have been difficult to design a questionnaire which was able adequately to cover all possible relevant reactions to information, 'talks', drama, discussions, and to the different curriculum packages in use in Scottish schools.

Thirdly, any questionnaire would have needed to be appropriate to the different ages (9-20), experiences and abilities of the sample. It would be extremely difficult to design one standard questionnaire capable of meaningful completion by such a heterogeneous sample, and resource constraints prohibited the development of several different questionnaires. Finally, a questionnaire survey would have potentially generated confused or incomplete responses if young people did not define a particular lesson or activity as 'drug education'. Qualitative research, which allows flexible questioning and probing, was needed to clarify first of all what types of drug education young people are currently receiving or have received, and then to explore in depth their feelings about it.

Choice of Method

A modified form of focus group discussions, namely friendship groups, was used. Twenty friendship group discussions were conducted. The sample is outlined in the 'Sample' below.

Friendship groups are a form of focus group in which respondents are recruited as friends through existing friendship networks. This is in contrast to conventional focus group practice in which it is often desirable that respondents do not know each other before the group discussion. They also differ from conventional focus groups in, typically, involving smaller numbers per group. For this project, we proposed that groups of between 3 and 5 be recruited. The small numbers allow respondents the necessary time and space to respond and interact, and enable issues to be explored in greater depth than in more conventionally sized focus groups.

Friendship groups allow the researcher to develop a deeper understanding of the target audiences' attitudes and the reasons behind specific behaviours while providing rich insights into their lifestyles. They can be extremely useful when exploring potentially sensitive behaviours such as drug use and when attempting to uncover subconscious or entrenched attitudes. They are particularly relevant when exploring issues and behaviours which are strongly influenced by peer and social norms and which are often discussed and acted out in friendship group settings.

Group Moderation Procedure

Experienced ISM qualitative researchers ( DE and LM) moderated all the group discussions. Interviews lasted approximately one and a half hours and were conducted in informal venues such as community centres and hotels; on one occasion the school itself was used as no other venue was feasible. With the respondents' consent all the interviews were recorded on voice-tape, and the tapes transcribed for content analysis.

A topic guide was developed to ensure key research issues were covered while encouraging free discussion and the expression of respondents' ideas in their own terms. This reflected the research objectives outlined above, and issues identified from the Literature Review, Survey and Classroom Observation as relevant (see Appendix D). Flexible and open-ended questioning procedures were used, allowing respondents to choose their own priorities for discussion, while also ensuring that key themes are explored.

5.3 Sample

Sample Design

Twenty friendship group discussions were conducted, with between three and five participants per group (73 respondents in total).

The sample comprised young people aged 8-20, in two sub-samples: current pupils in primary and secondary schools, and young adults who had completed compulsory education. Current school pupils were drawn from ten of the 40 schools selected for the Classroom Observation. Young adults were drawn from the communities around these schools, and were recruited on the basis that they had attended the same schools.

The ten schools selected for the Qualitative Research sample were chosen to represent as far as possible the range of characteristics in the larger Classroom Observation sample. Ten schools were selected from among the schools which had participated in or were due to participate in the Classroom Observation research. Of these original ten schools selected, four were primary schools, of which one was defined as 'other' (Independent or Special Needs), and six were secondary schools, of which two were 'other'. They were drawn from five of the areas used in the Observation research: Aberdeen City/Aberdeenshire, Fife, Glasgow City, Perth & Kinross, and South Lanarkshire. Observation data were used to ensure that the selected schools used a range of approaches to drug education: in at least four of the schools, drug education involved outside agencies such as the police or drama companies, and at least three different packages were used in the schools (Police Box, What's the Score and Tacade, plus schools' own packages). Subsequently, the special needs primary school which had been selected had to be replaced. This was because scheduled observations in the school had to be cancelled, meaning that a different special needs school had to be selected for the Classroom Observation sample. The Qualitative Research sample was altered to be consistent (ie. to use the same school). The new school was a secondary school rather than a primary school, which meant that the profile of the sample changed slightly from the intended sample (see tables below).

As far as is possible in recruiting naturally occurring friendship groups, the groups were stratified in terms of age/year and gender.

Age/school year

Respondents were recruited in five age categories:

• Upper primary P6/P7 pupils.
• Lower secondary S1/S2 pupils.
• Middle secondary S3/S4 pupils.
• Young adults aged 17/18 (or S5/S6).
• Young adults aged 19/20.

The first three age categories reflect key years in which school drug education is likely to be delivered. The 17-18 and 19-20 age categories were chosen to reflect key periods of lifestyle change - for example, entering further education, starting work or coping with unemployment, leaving home - when the concepts involved in drug education might be expected to be most relevant. A further advantage of relatively narrow age categories is that they are likely to increase participants' homogeneity in terms of drug education experiences and their feelings of comfort and ease in the groups, although the friendship selection process should also ensure this.

Gender

Single gender groups were recruited to enhance homogeneity in the groups, although again, the friendship selection process should also have ensured that groups were relatively similar to one another. Another advantage of single gender groups is that patterns of substance use may differ between males and females; furthermore, much drug-use related behaviour is set in the context of interactions with the opposite sex (for example, using substances to convey an image that will attract or impress).

Social class or school attendance patterns were not included as sample variables. However, the schools themselves were selected to reflect different school and community types, ranging from an affluent independent school to an urban school with high levels of disadvantage.

Recruitment

Respondents for the focus groups were recruited door-to-door by ISM research consultants using a short recruitment questionnaire to ensure that each individual met the appropriate sample criteria (age, gender, school). In order to recruit friendship groups, a 'first respondent' was recruited for each group on a door-to-door basis as above. The 'first respondent' was then asked for the name and addresses of between two and four friends who fulfilled similar quota requirements. These respondents were contacted independently and were also asked to complete the recruitment questionnaire. Parental consent was sought for all respondents aged 16 and under. As a token of appreciation, and as a way of encouraging young people to participate in the interviews, respondents were offered a small cash incentive for taking part in a group discussion.

Door-to-door recruitment has a number of advantages over recruitment through schools. Firstly, it is an appropriate method for recruiting naturalistic friendship groups (and is the most feasible method for recruiting friendship groups among those who have left school). Secondly, it signals clearly to young people that the research is separate and independent from schools, thereby encouraging greater openness and honesty. Thirdly, it removes from schools the burdensome task of assisting with recruitment and obtaining parental consent.

Achieved Sample

The intended and achieved samples are presented in Tables A5.1 and A5.2 below. A few modifications were made to the sample as recruitment progressed, mainly as a result of the limited pool of eligible respondents in small rural communities, and also because the special needs school initially selected did not prove feasible for recruitment and was subsequently replaced by a different special needs school with a different age range. The changes are specified under the second table.

Table A5.1: Qualitative Research: Intended Friendship Group Sample

Table A5.2: Qualitative Research: Achieved Friendship Group Sample

A Small rural school, only one boy of P6 age. Class was a combined P5-7 class

B Not possible to recruit from the selected school; an alternative special needs secondary school was selected (see groups 10 and 11 in achieved sample).

C Not possible to recruit 19-20 year olds who had attended the selected school (small rural area, many 19-20 year olds were working or studying away from home. Therefore changed age range to 17-18, see Group 17 in achieved sample).

D Replaced by one of the additional special needs secondary school groups, Group 11.

5.4 Analysis

Audio-tapes of all discussions were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were then coded and electronically organised according both to themes specified in the topic guide and to themes which emerged from the data. The transcripts were interrogated to identify key patterns of response and divergent responses. The main analysis was conducted by LM and MS, and any differences of interpretation were resolved through discussion and, as appropriate, involvement of other members of the research team, particularly DE and the Observation researchers. Verbatim anonymous quotes have been used in the report to illustrate the findings.

« Previous | Contents | Next »