‘Interwoven, neurodiversity and the creative mind’ Chris Kelly, Artist and workshop lead

In my project I hope to hear in detail about the views of people who are neurodivergent and so it makes sense to use a dialogic research method, where questions can be posed and follow up questions asked, based on responses. Using an interface such as Moodle is also a fairly intuitive exercise for most people and so it may be that the participants haven’t articulated or considered carefully their behaviour on the platform and what does and doesn’t work. Of course it’s equally possible that they have become frustrated with it or conversely, have appreciated changes in organisation. I feel that given the potential diversity of experiences, plus the range of potential participants, the opportunity to have an in-depth conversation is a key element of my project.

Focus groups and interviews: The main alternative to a focus group would be to do semi-structured interviews with each participant. This would of course offer benefits in terms of confidentiality and anonymity and it may allow participants to feel more comfortable to talk more freely. Talking about the advantages of semi-structured interviews, Adams says they are suitable, ‘If you need to ask probing, open-ended questions and want to know the independent thoughts of each individual in a group.’ He also mentions it suits ‘uncharted territory’ which I can’t claim this is for everyone else, but I feel it is for me. I would like to open up the conversations and see what happens.

However, my overall feeling is that given the nature of the topic and the diversity of participants, there is more to be gained from a group discussion. We can’t make Moodle perfect for every individual, what we can do is make it good enough to be inclusive and flexible enough to meet everyone’s needs. Although there are many definitions of focus groups, I feel that this one describes the tone of what I’d like to achieve.

‘Agar and MacDonald (1995) suggest that a focus group lies somewhere between a meeting (reflecting the fact that it is specifically organized in advance and has a structure) and a conversation (reflecting the fact that the discussion has nonetheless a degree of spontaneity, with individuals picking up on one another’s contributions)’ (Sim and Waterfield, 2019, p. 2)

There is also the additional element that the ‘outcomes’ of the focus group should include both dialogue and interaction, that the act of the group conversation leads to something more than the sum of it’s parts. I feel that this could be beneficial in discussing information management on the course as hearing about how others experience and interact with the page, may prompt participants to realise or articulate something about their own behaviour and preferences.

As I mentioned above, it is partly for this reason that I am proposing a focus group rather than individual interviews, despite the risks (see below). In addition, I watched the video above of Chris Kelly’s account of a crochet workshop he held with neurodiverse students where several of the participants talk about the, sometimes unexpected, benefit of coming together as a group, even though neurodiversity is explicitly about diversity, it was still possible to find things in common and to feel a benefit of being in a community. Obviously I can’t be sure this will happen, but it feels like a really positive possibility and it will be interesting to see if there is any sense of this that comes from the focus group.

I think for myself also, the information I hope to discover, isn’t totally clearly defined, it’s not an account and nor is it quantifiable. I feel that the ability to be flexible and responsive when facilitating the focus group will be important to the development of my thoughts, as well as meeting the as yet unknown needs/wishes/preferences of the participants. Furthermore, this flexibility feels like an important element of inclusive research. Although I can’t realistically manage full participatory research for this project,

‘… allowing participants to shape the direction of data collection allows them continued access to the research process.’ (Larson 2019, p.28)

I wonder if there is scope to offer a little more flexibility in the research methods. A simple, but limited, way would be for participants to choose questions from a selection, at least enabling participants to focus on the aspects they chose to.

Kerschbaum and Price write about ‘centring disability’ when conducting qualitative interviews. This has made me think about whether I can be more flexible about the methods I use. For example, I have been agonising about whether to invite students to a focus group, with an interview as an option, but maybe I need to frame this more as a positive choice, rather than a way of ‘dealing with’ privacy. For example, they say ‘Centring disability is about much more than simply compensating for or including disabled researchers and participants’ (Kerschbaum and Price 2017, p.98). It’s not an awkward thing to deal with, it’s a choice.

I see more also how my methods of recording and the interviews and gathering data, might need to be more flexible, but that also might bring about something more positive, for example, using captions or interviewing online. Kerschbaum and Price’s argument is that thinking of these arrangements as something to fully pin down in advance, reduces the chance of an opportunity for extra insight. As they say, ‘we recognise our strengths that stem from disability and and we make access a higher priority than maintaining consistency across different interview modalities’ (Kerschbaum and Price 2017 p.100). For example, perhaps it’s possible to keep some elements of the modality open, depending on participants’ responses, thus making space for greater agency and accessibility.

Risks: There are risks to using a focus group, including that participants may not want to disclose their diagnosis to peers, or any difficulties they may have in accessing information. There is also the risk that participants are less open about what they experience and may follow along with more dominant participants. There is of course also the risk that confidentiality is not maintained and therefore even after the focus group, there may be repercussions that are difficult to control and mitigate.

Strategies: In order to address some of these issues, I will start the focus group with a ‘briefing’ which outlines the purpose, the idea of a confidential space to talk and the importance of trust between participants. I’ll also briefly remind participants of this before they leave. In addition to this, I’ll plan in some time for participants to talk in pairs before sharing with the whole group, to make space for everyone to contribute, and also incorporate some individual responses, before asking the group to discuss. I’ll also try to create a friendly, welcoming space through arranging the room nicely, having snacks and drinks available and having things on the table for people to doodle, fidget or whatever they like to relax. I’ll also start the session with some gentle chat to try and generate a relaxing atmosphere.

Another strategy here would be to make use of an online questionnaire to offer an opportunity to participants to contribute confidentially. As well as sharing their experiences this way, they could also disclose their neurodiversity on the form, meaning they wouldn’t need to do this in front of their peers. Finally, it would also give me the opportunity to ask some targeted questions without interrupting the flow of the discussion. This might also help to make the focus group more relaxed, more of a conversation than a Q&A session.

Drawing: One thing I am interested in doing is asking participants to draw their experience of Moodle. I think this is because I often think of experiences visually, through a metaphor or a rough drawing e.g. scribbles for confusion. I also looked at the ‘draw and write’ technique described by Helen Kara as ‘a tried and tested technique of gathering data that enables children to express their views and opinions in their own terms’ (Kara, 2015, p.89). Although Kara describes using the technique with children, which is not relevant to me, I was drawn to the idea of participants expressing themselves in their own terms. After listening to Dr. Jenni Good talk about using drawings as a form of data collection in her Cross-Programme talk, I feel more confident in pursuing this. As my topic is quite dry, I think it might open up a different perspective on how it actually feels to use Moodle, and also, potentially, might offer participants a medium they could be more comfortable with using.

I am concerned though that this might make participants feel uncomfortable or self-conscious, so I will make it very clear that the level of drawing is unimportant and also they are free to do it in any way they choose. Of course it will also be fine for anyone to say they’d rather not participate in this element.

References:

Adams, W. ‘Conducting Semi‐Structured Interviews’ In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, edited by Kathryn E. Newcomer, Harry P. Hatry, and Joseph S. Wholey, 1st ed., 492–505. Wiley, 2015. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19. (Accessed 22 November 2023)

Kara, H. (2015) Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Bristol: Policy press.

Kerschbaum S. and Price M. (August 2017) Centring disability in qualitative interviewing Research in the Teaching of English, Volume 52

Parson, L (2019) ‘Chapter 2: Considering Positionality: The Ethics of Conducting Research with Marginalized Groups’ in Strunk and Locke, eds. Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing pp. 15-32

Sim J. and Waterfield J. (2019) Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges Quality & Quantity Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00914-5 (Accessed 6 Nov 2023)