Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

293
to the allotted schedule and adhering to time limits is important to ensure that the discussions stay on-topic, while
also allowing individuals to be creative within the group environment. These are potential issues with focus group
methodologies which could be applied to the current research. However, the lead researcher’s experience of
teaching and individual interviews combined to ensure the smooth running of both focus groups (see Chapter VI,
Section 2e.1 for an analysis of the use of focus groups).
The AI methodology used to gather qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and focus groups as
utilised in order to analyse the data gathered require the researcher to work without pre-existing bias in order to
gain the most important data possible. Therefore throughout the AI process it is important for the facilitator of the
interview processes to remain neutral, allowing the participants the opportunity to bring forward positive solutions
and 'knitting together' concepts and ideas as they emerge (for example see Chapter VI, Section 1b). This is,
however, one of the most controversial aspects qualitative working with some arguing that the removal of this bias
is impossible. While it is possible that this allegation could also be levelled at the present work, there have been a
number of precautions taken in order to prevail over the potential criticisms. For example, participants in both the
interview and focus group phases were offered the opportunity to check over the analysis should they feel
necessary. Similarly results were fed back to all individuals in the participating service, including the individuals
who had previously taken part in the study, and asked to comment on the analysis.
One potential limitation with the methodology employed relates to the evaluation period utilised to assess
the impact of the AI methodology, and in which the newly theorised 5 th ‘D’ is located. Research (McVicar, Munn-
Giddings & Seebohm, P., 2012, in press) has demonstrated that a period of at least one year is required to assess
whether or not a primary change intervention has impacted upon organisational outputs such as sickness absence,