Group Meetings
- Involve 5-10 participants;
- Typically take 1 to 2 hours, but could be longer;
- Discussion is facilitated by the researcher, but the focus is on group interaction.
Group meetings may take the form of an interview (or focus group), but they may also take place at other stages of the process, including:
- when negotiating the research questions and approach with community groups;
- in preparing participants for, or reflecting with them on, research activities (as described in the sample process for the Photography/videography method); or
- when discussing the emerging findings.
Group meetings need to be used with an awareness of power dynamics and existing relationships within the community and between participants – both in terms of who is involved and where the meeting is held. In this respect, it may be possible to combine them with or learn from Community Gatherings.
It is also worth considering combining group activities with other methods, to gather inputs from individuals that are unwilling to participate in a group discussion or who attend but find it difficult to be heard.
- Following a referral to the community organisation, a meeting request was sent to the group.
- An initial call was held with a group representative in order to establish the purpose of the research and the intentions for the meeting.
- Following the call, an open invitation was circulated within the group by the representative to attend a meeting.
- The meeting took place at a community venue following one of the group’s normal activities (the time and place were determined by the group).
- The discussion was based on a mutual exchange of information, guided in places by 4-5 prepared questions, and deliberations about the proposed approach and timeframe for the assessment. Project information sheets were shared in hard copy.
- During the discussion, the participants (5) suggested other contacts, community groups, and shared information on upcoming events, as well as historical background about the House, Estate and Bo’ness.
- Follow up communications took place via email with some participants and all attendees were present at future public events and/or participated in later research activities.
- A focus group meeting held early on in Kinneil House and Estate study helped in establishing the research parameters, setting expectations and determining the approach. Contacts and information shared by participants also informed some of the later activities and events attended.
- Although one aim for the group meeting was to identify participants for follow-up activities, this emerged more naturally from subsequent engagements and once greater familiarity had been established over the extended duration of the study.
- Participation in the discussion varied across the group. People who were quite quiet in the group later proved to be happy to respond in a one to one interview.
- A group meeting can be a time effective way to involve larger numbers of people and provide additional insights based on the interaction between participants.
- A semi-structured approach, with a few key questions or prompts, allows opportunities for the discussion to develop and evolve.
- Group meetings can present challenges, as you must attend to this interaction and direct the discussion without disrupting the group dynamic. A second observer may be helpful.
Community gatherings
- Convened by the community, these could be formal events, such as community meetings, or less formal ‘impromptu’ gatherings.
- Time commitment will vary, likely to be several hours.
- May not be principally concerned with the site and may well take place in other locations.
Community gatherings can be an opportunity for the researcher to engage with potential participants and seek input on specific questions (potentially – see case study findings below). Engaging in community or group spaces can also be a way to connect with otherwise ‘hard to reach’ groups. Access to community gatherings may depend on an invitation or assistance from a (formal or informal) gatekeeper, whose role also has influence over the process.
The term ‘Hard to Reach’ is used in recognition that some groups are: a) hard to reach due to their physical or social location; b) marginalised, disenfranchised or vulnerable; or c) hidden (no records of their experience exists). It should not be read as implying any deficit on the part of these potential participants, merely that particular consideration is required in order to achieve their inclusion within the research process.
- A legal graffiti jam in Edinburgh was publicised via Facebook and mentioned by interviewees.
- Upon arriving at the site, contact was made with the organisers.
- The organisers made introductions to some of the artists. They also explained some of the distinctions between different groups of writers and the protocols for the event.
- It was possible to speak informally to some of the Glasgow crews but no formal interviews or requests for participation in other activities were made at the time. As it was a relatively rare opportunity for writers to collaborate on a large legal wall, it was principally their time to interact with one another.
- The jam provided a valuable opportunity to see writers involved in practice, something that was not possible in the Lane itself and to meet community members.
This method was trialled in the Kinneil House study, where there were a relatively large number of on-going activities and established groups or organisations, and in the Arnol Blackhouse and Sauchiehall Lane studies.
- Community gatherings were opportunities for observation and developing wider contextual understanding that supported later analysis and interpretation.
- They revealed how the sites were referred to or connected to other priorities/issues/activities.
- They also provided opportunities to compare how values and identities were expressed when different groups and community representatives were present.
- In the case study contexts, the gatherings provided limited opportunities to solicit feedback on specific research questions or request participation. Arguably, making such requests would have undermined one of the other benefits of attending, namely building familiarity and trust with community members.
Public events
- Involves joining events as and when they occur.
- Balance of participation and observation will depend on the event.
- Time commitment will vary could be anything from 1-2 hours to all day or several days.
Attending public events that take place at a site or are related to the site but which take place elsewhere provides opportunities for observation, discussion and participation in activities. Alerting people to the research presence and obtaining informed consent remains important.
Based on public events (open and ticketed) that took place at the site, though normally focused around particular parts of the Estate. This differed from public meetings, which normally took place in other community locations.
- Up-coming events were identified through monitoring social media, local notices, and in discussions with community members. Attendance in a research capacity was confirmed with organisers in advance.
- During the events, an observer-participant role was adopted, with note taking to document the activities, discussions and interactions. Materials shared with participants at the event were collected and photographs were taken.
- Where activities (such as House tours) were repeated, it was possible to observe multiple iterations and the responses from various groups of visitors.
- Attending events was also combined with structured interviews.
This method was trialled at the Arnol Blackhouse, Kinneil House and Estate and, away from the site, in the Dun Carloway Broch study.
- Public events were an opportunity for observation and to solicit participation in other research activities (such as structured interviews), capitalising on the fact people were already engaged around the sites.
- They were often also opportunities to connect with existing contacts. Attending events organised by communities helped in establishing these relationships.
- Some of the activities were anticipated and planned for incorporation and others were serendipitous coincidences of timing.
- As with other group activities, pre-existing dynamics were manifest in these interactions. Observing how participants presented themselves in different contexts and in response to other interests or individuals present revealed more complex community identities.
- Sensitivity is required in handling material from public events which people might not wish to see documented or made available more widely (and with any risk of being taken out of context).
Across the two events attended in the Dun Carloway Broch study (a stakeholder meeting and community forum), a mixture of small groups, individual and plenary discussions complemented one another and yielded different responses from different people. Attending both meetings highlighted how a single group engagement might be dominated by certain voices or perspectives, which are more clearly understood when contextualised within the overall range of opinion.
Site-Based Practices
- Observing and, if appropriate, participating in group activities.
- These may ordinarily be closed to participation from outside the group or not widely publicised, presenting challenges when it comes to identification and access.
- Timing depends on the community group and nature of the activity.
As with researcher participation in other activities, listening, sharing and contributing in site-based practices helps to build relationships and supports overall understanding.
Participation in site-based practices was not trialled in any of the case studies but potential practices identified included religious services and memorials, creative activities, walking and gardening groups.
Nonetheless, first-hand experience of visiting the sites proved to be extremely useful when engaging with communities and interpreting the research materials.