« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
3 METHODOLOGY
Our approach
3.1 Annex 1 demonstrates how the methodology derives from the aims of the Review. The approach is summarised in the diagram below:
Figure 1. Approach to the Review
The approach starts broad and focuses onto key issues.
Research
Desk research
3.2 Documents used in the review are listed at Annex 2.
Stakeholder interviews
3.3 A total of 63 stakeholders were interviewed, Annex 3. The list was agreed with the Research Advisory Group and was chosen to ensure views were gathered from the range of key categories of stakeholder in the drugs sector. The total of 63 (plus focus groups members) was higher than the number initially agreed for the review (60). However it is a sample, albeit a large one, of the organisations and individuals who have dealings with SDF. Their views, therefore, cannot be regarded as comprehensive. Interviewees came from:
- Scottish Government
- ADATs
- Voluntary sector organisations
- SDF staff and board members
- Police and criminal justice
- Academia
3.4 The interviews were semi-structured: their content varied according to the relationship of the interviewee with SDF, their background, and occasionally, practical constraints of the time they had available. The interview schedule is appended at Annex 4. Interviewees' comments on SDF's performance were included in the data analysis. Comments were used only if they were based on direct experience with SDF within the review period.
3.5 Interviews were analysed against the outputs set out in SDF's strategic plan 2006-09 and against a number of issues set out in the specification for this review. The codes employed are listed at Annex 5. Whilst the SDF strategic plan period is not the same as the review period (2004-08), it is the most recent exposition of what SDF aims to achieve. Ratings were assigned to what interviewees had said about particular areas on the basis of:
- Very positive - no negative was mentioned at all in relation to the area
- Positive - more positive than negative points mentioned with a single or minor caveat/s.
- Mixed - both positive and negative points mentioned
- Negative - more negative than positive points mentioned
All the coding of data and assignment of ratings was done by one member of the research team to ensure consistency as far as possible.
3.6 Where there were six or more comments on a particular area, individual ratings were brought together using weighted averages to give numerical scores. The terms 'very positive', 'positive', 'mixed' and 'negative' were then allocated to scoring bands. These terms are used consistently in this way throughout the report. This is not an exact science but it does give a reasonable indication of the areas where stakeholders felt SDF were relatively more effective and those where they felt they were relatively less effective.
3.7 This analysis was facilitated by use of Excel and provides a simple quantification of the qualitative stakeholder interviews. It is one element of the evidence we have used to identify where SDF's activities are viewed as being effective as well as where stakeholders perceived that they were less effective.
3.8 Sometimes points were made by fewer than six people. These points have been included if they were made by a minimum of three people. The points are explained in the text, but the standard terms above, "very positive" etc, are not used.
3.9 SDF staff and Board member views were excluded from the quantitatively based analysis described in paragraph 3.6, but have been included in qualitative analysis as appropriate.
Focus groups
3.10 Two focus groups of service users active in user involvement work were held. Most of the attendees were members of SDF user involvement ( UI) groups. Further details are contained in Annex 6. These views are included in the qualitative analysis below.
SDF National User Group
3.11 A member of the review team attended a meeting of the SDF National User Group as an observer.
Benchmarking
3.12 Information from Drugscope, SAMH and CAIR Scotland has been used to provide context, appropriately caveated, for some of the results below.
Research Ethics
3.13 Annex 7 sets out consideration given to ethical issues relevant to the research.
Key issues
3.14 The key issues identified for more in-depth analysis (see Figure 1) were:
- value for money 2004/08
- SDF's role in relation to 'The Road to Recovery' strategy
- An evaluation of SDF's role in user involvement
« Previous | Contents | Next »