The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

2. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

2.1 This study involved six focus groups with young people in Scotland. The aim of the focus groups was to explore young people's views on road safety issues. The research was commissioned by the Scottish Government, and overseen by an Advisory Group involving Scottish Government and Road Safety Scotland staff.

Rationale for Using Focus Groups

2.2 Focus groups involve bringing together a small group of people to discuss an issue. They are particularly useful for in depth exploration of perceptions, attitudes, feelings and opinions, as well as experiences. Generally focus groups follow a broad discussion guide, but are flexible enough to allow discussion of other issues as they arise.

2.3 This approach allowed us to hear about young peoples' personal views and experiences as well as making participation an enjoyable experience. By bringing together peer groups we were able to create a relaxed atmosphere where the participants enjoyed themselves and got something out of attending, more so than would have been possible with other methods - such as individual interviews or surveys. Participative exercises were also used to stimulate discussion amongst the groups of individuals and get as much information out of the participants as possible. The focus group enabled the participants to 'bounce off' one another and debate issues as they arose.

2.4 A limitation of this kind of research exercise is that what participants say they believe and what they say they do, might not necessarily be the same as what they actually believe or do. Views and behaviours expressed can be those that participants think they should express and can be influenced by the group. The focus groups did however provide the opportunity to probe and explore further what people said. Indeed, as is highlighted later, the research found many examples of participants contradicting themselves.

Group Characteristics

2.5 In designing the focus groups, we firstly considered three main factors - participant gender, participant age and group location. The research specification gave clear parameters for the study. It was to include six groups of men and women ranging from 16 to 25 years of age, including pre-drivers, drivers and non-drivers, living in both urban and rural locations, and with different driving experiences. It was agreed that the focus groups would be held in Glasgow and the Scottish Borders. This ensured that young people with experience of travelling on different types of roads and in different conditions were included in the study.

2.6 Given the higher accidents rates among young men in comparison with young women, we focussed on exploring the views of men in particular. As a result we held four discussion groups with men, and two with women. One of the young men's groups was very large, and so was split into two smaller mini-groups for ease of facilitation. Separate groups were held with men and women. This was for four main reasons.

2.7 Firstly, it ensured that women from minority ethnic communities were able to participate. In many cases it would not be culturally appropriate to invite women to mixed groups. By doing this, we were able to engage with two women from a minority ethnic community, and eight men (out of a total of 54 participants).

2.8 Secondly, existing research has shown that accident rates and attitudes can vary considerably between men and women. Same sex groups allowed us to explore slightly different issues with each group, and to compare attitudes between the sexes.

2.9 Thirdly, same sex groups can help with management and facilitation of the discussion groups, particularly among the younger age group. This approach ensured that the discussion was not disrupted by young men showing off in front of women, or vice versa. Finally, given that we wanted to speak to more men than women, it was important that men did not dominate mixed groups.

2.10 The groups were also split by age. The age group covered by the study was large, with significant differences in life experience and maturity. We therefore decided to separate the groups into 16 to 19 year olds, and 20 to 25 year olds - with three focus groups held with each age group.

2.11 Although qualitative research does not aim to be representative, it was important to ensure that a range of people with different experiences and backgrounds were included in the study, in addition to residential location, age and gender. Working with the Advisory Group, a focus group participant profile was agreed, to ensure a good mix of driving status, employment status, ethnic origin and disability.

2.12 A screening survey was completed for each potential participant during recruitment. A copy of the survey is attached as Appendix One. We also recruited people from different locations across Glasgow and the Scottish Borders, with the intention of increasing the socio-economic mix of participants.

2.13 The final matrix of focus group location, age and gender was as follows:

Table 2.1: Focus Group Matrix

*This group had 12 attendees, and so was split into two mini groups

Recruiting Participants

2.14 Focus group participants were recruited using a range of methods:

• street recruitment;
• recruitment at retail and leisure centres;
• working with local projects, groups and community centres; and
• networking.

Street recruitment

2.15 In both Glasgow and the Scottish Borders we went to a number of busy locations and recruited people on the street. Researchers targeted people who were thought to fit the profile (checking age and driving status). Potential participants were told of the nature and purpose of the research. Those who were interested completed the screener survey. Others were given a flier containing information about the focus group and a telephone number to call to register to attend. This method of recruitment was relatively successful, though less so in the smaller towns in the Scottish Borders as it was harder to find people that fitted our profile.

Retail and leisure centres

2.16 Staff and customers were approached in a range of retail and leisure centres, such as:

• sports and swimming centres;
• sports clubs, including football, golf and rugby clubs;
• shops and retail centres; and
• bars and pubs

2.17 By speaking to staff in these locations face to face, over the telephone or by email, we were able to give them information about the research and the types of people we were looking for. Posters and fliers were left on notice boards, in staff rooms and in sports hall locker rooms and this proved successful for our recruitment.

Local projects, groups and community centres

2.18 Over 100 organisations in the Scottish Borders were contacted, including youth projects, community centres, young farmers groups, car clubs and dance groups. Although many groups and projects had closed for the summer, we were still able to identify potential participants.

2.19 A number of trusted organisations working with people from equalities groups were also contacted. In Glasgow this included the Big Step, Glasgow Anti Racist Alliance, Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living, Glasgow Disability Alliance and regeneration agencies across the city.

Networking

2.20 To further guarantee participants' attendance at the groups, we invited people to bring along a friend. This snowballing approach proved very effective; not only increasing our recruitment but also helping with safety considerations and increasing the likelihood of participant attendance. We screened all friends before the group, allowing us to target people who met specific criteria, such as drivers or those in education.

Incentives

2.21 In agreement with the Advisory Group we incentivised attendance at the focus groups with a cash payment of £30. This is common practice when conducting research with the general public. It demonstrates that participant input is highly valued and was in recognition of the fact that the young people had given up valuable time to attend the groups. We also paid travel expenses (and offered to pay childcare and interpretation costs, although this was not taken up by anyone). Light refreshments were offered at the groups.

Organising the Focus Groups

Administration

2.22 Selected participants were invited to attend the groups. Those selected received written information about the research, along with a free phone number to call with any questions. We sent everyone a 'Let Someone Know Where You Are' card, with the focus group details on it. A few days prior to each focus group, participant attendance was confirmed by telephone or by email.

Venues

2.23 The groups were held in accessible, public and trusted venues. In Glasgow, we held all three groups in a very central location, next to a train station and well known landmarks. In the Scottish Borders one group was held in Hawick, in the largest public building in the town - the Tower Mill. This was well used by young people, with a cafe and cinema inside. In Galashiels we held two groups, both in the Volunteer Halls. This again was a central and well known venue.

2.24 All six groups were held on a midweek evening. Timings of the groups were discussed with potential participants, and mid-week was considered as the easiest time for most people. Where possible the timings of the groups were organised so that women or young participants were not leaving the venue after dark.

Pilot group

2.25 Our first group in Glasgow acted as a pilot group. This was to test out the discussion guide in terms of length and clarity, and to test the recruitment methods. This group was conducted with 16 to 19 year old women. This group was very well attended (with 14 participants). Following this group some small changes were made to the discussion guide (such as including a second set of interactive statements with sticky dots).

Final Participant Numbers and Mix

2.26 Focus groups are traditionally composed of between 8 and 10 people. This number of participants ensures a manageable discussion and allows everyone to have their say. To achieve this, we originally proposed to invite around 20 participants (working on the basis that we would need to invite at least twice as many participants to guarantee ten people). Fifteen participants were invited to the pilot group in Glasgow, of whom 14 attended. As a result, we decreased the number of invitees for subsequent groups. In total, 54 young people participated in this study. Given the intention of engaging on a small scale to explore views qualitatively, these numbers are reasonable.

Table 2.2 below sets out the profile of participants attending the groups.

Table 2.2: Participant Profile

*Includes learner drivers **Not in education, training or employment

2.27 Overall, 32 participants were male, and 22 female. Attendance at the urban groups was slightly higher. It was slightly more difficult to identify males aged 20 to 25 willing to participate in the study and we experienced slightly higher last minute cancellation levels for this age group and gender. The bad weather was also a factor in the lower attendance in the Scottish Borders.

2.28 Overall, across the six groups, just under half (23) were drivers. In agreement with the Advisory Group, only participants who had passed their driving test and held a full driving licence were classed as 'drivers'. This meant that pre-drivers, non-drivers and learners were all classed as 'non-drivers. For the purpose of this document participants who stated they were driving illegally are also identified as 'non drivers'.

2.29 There were far more drivers in the rural focus groups than the urban groups. This may in part reflect that in rural areas being able to drive is a key route to independence. It could also be influenced by the fact that regardless of where focus groups were held in the Scottish Borders, getting places by public transport is extremely difficult. Drivers may therefore have found it easier to attend the groups than non-drivers.

2.30 Thirty two attendees were in education, 17 were in employment and five were not in employment, education or training. Participants were recruited from different parts of Glasgow and the Scottish Borders, to include participants from different areas of deprivation.

2.31 There was some fluidity in the way participants described their occupational status. For example, many of the participants who said that they were in education were working over the summer. Some participants who were not in employment, training or education had just left school or college, while others had been in this situation for longer.

2.32 Our aim was to ensure that at least ten per cent of participants were from a minority ethnic community. The 2001 Census categories were used to define this, including people from any background other than White Scottish, Welsh, English or Northern Irish as from a minority ethnic community. A total of eight participants (15%) identified themselves as being from a minority ethnic community:

• 4 were Pakistani;
• 2 were Indian;
• 1 was of other South Asian origin; and
• 1 chose to identify by her faith (Muslim) rather than ethnic origin.

2.33 All of the participants from a minority ethnic community attended the Glasgow focus groups. The size of the minority ethnic population in the Scottish Borders is very small - at 2.5 per cent at the time of the 2001 Census.

2.34 Despite targeted recruitment - working with local disability organisations and groups in both Glasgow and the Scottish Borders - it was difficult to identify potential disabled participants. Only one participant said that they considered themselves to be disabled. Two participants indicated they had dyslexia, but would not define themselves as disabled.

Focus Group Format

Length of groups

2.35 Each focus group lasted 90 minutes. This allowed time to explore the issues in depth without participants becoming less focused or disengaged. At least two researchers attended each focus group - one to facilitate the group, and one to act as a scribe. With permission from participants, all groups were audio recorded.

Discussion guide

2.36 A discussion guide was developed and agreed with the Advisory Group. This explored attitudes to road safety, personal experiences, influences on behaviour and rights and responsibilities. It focused strongly on the key issues of driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, speeding, seatbelt wearing, mobile phones, tiredness and policing. A copy of the discussion guide can be found at Appendix 2.

Informed consent

2.37 All our focus groups are conducted according to the Market Research Society Code of Conduct. It was important to ensure that all participants were at ease and fully aware of the research and why they had been invited to participate. At the start of each group, we advised participants:

• who we were;
• the purpose of the research and how their views would be used;
• that participation was voluntary and that all comments would be anonymous;
• how their views would be recorded; and
• that we would give them feedback on our findings.

2.38 None of the participants raised any queries about the research and all agreed to the groups being audio recorded.

2.39 A researcher was available at the venue one hour before the start of the group in case any parents or guardians wanted to discuss the research in advance. The researchers could also be contacted by mobile phone on the night of the group. Very few telephone calls were made - those that were tended to be to confirm directions.

Participative techniques

2.40 The focus groups were conducted using several different consultation techniques. To make sure that the groups were engaging, interesting and fun, with participants contributing as much as possible, we used a number of techniques:

• Responses to statements - Participants were asked to show their level of agreement of different statements using sticky dots. Drivers and non-drivers used different coloured sticky dots so that we could analyse any differences in their responses. This exercise also allowed the participants to get up from their seats, interact and walk about in the room. Wherever this exercise was used, respondents were asked to choose between four response categories - strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree.
• Buzz groups - On several occasions the group was divided into smaller groups, including driver/non-driver groups and groups charged with discussing particular issues. The participants then fed back to the whole group.
• Prioritisation - As a whole, the groups were asked to prioritise different influences on driving behaviour that they had identified. This encouraged debate and discussion in the group.
• Scenarios - Participants were asked to imagine what they would do in different situations. Discussion focused on if and how participants would stop friends acting in dangerous ways while driving or as a passenger. This was also the basis for further discussion around these issues.

2.41 Participants appeared to enjoy the groups, with some contacting us afterwards keen to be involved in future similar discussions.

"That was very illuminating... it made me think." (Driver, 20 to 25 year old, female, rural)

"Had a great time last night, and found it very interesting to hear the opinions of others, thank you for the opportunity." (Non-driver, 16 to 19 year old, male, urban)

Analysing the Focus Group Findings

2.42 Following each of the focus groups, the scribe completed a write up of the group, complete with quotes, drawing on the audio recordings, notes made during the focus groups and other material collected at the time. The scribe and facilitator from each focus group discussed the write-ups to ensure that they fully captured the discussions.

2.43 Key themes were identified via manual thematic analysis. Once all six focus groups were completed, a summary document was produced bringing together all the key themes as a basis for discussion among the facilitators and scribes who attended the groups. A discussion session took place among the researchers to ensure that all the key themes emerging from the groups were covered. Further analysis included exploration of the findings across a range of factors, including driving status, age, gender and location and linkages across themes.

Notes on the Findings

2.44 The following chapters present the key findings from the six focus group discussions. Verbatim quotes are included to illustrate key points. The focus groups provided a very detailed insight into the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of young people. But given that this was a small scale study, the findings cannot be extrapolated to the younger population as a whole.

2.45 Where appropriate, we have highlighted variations in findings based on driving status, age, gender and/or location. But again, given the small numbers, these should be interpreted with care.

2.46 Throughout the report, quotes are identified as from 'drivers' or 'non-drivers'. 'Non-drivers' included anyone who did not hold a full driving licence - including learner drivers and people who drove illegally. Therefore, many 'non-drivers' actually had quite significant experience of driving.

2.47 Finally, throughout the discussion, participants frequently contradicted themselves or changed their minds. Often, participants had not thought in detail about these issues before, and were just beginning to shape their opinions. The views of 16 to 19 year olds were particularly fluid, and participants in this group were more likely to change their minds based on what others said.

« Previous | Contents | Next »