The impact of welfare reform tracking study: sweep four report

METHODOLOGY AND DATA

• Chapter 2 outlines the study's methodology and presents the size and key characteristics of the sample.
• The study utilised a qualitative longitudinal approach in order to best track participants' experiences over time, as the welfare changes were introduced.
• In-depth, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 24 participants in sweep 4.
• All participants interviewed were currently in receipt of working age welfare benefits, and were selected using a purposive sampling strategy which was designed to reach those in receipt of benefits from across Scotland, and cover a diverse set of household circumstances.

Methodology

The study takes a qualitative longitudinal approach, covering approximately two and a half years (September 2013-January 2016). ^[6] This report covers the fourth and final sweep of interviews. ^[7]

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were carried out with participants in all four sweeps. Interviews in sweep 1 were used to gather baseline information. In sweeps 2 and 3, the questions centred on the changes since the last interview. Together with the background information collected in sweep 1, questions were tailored to participants' circumstances, focussing on areas most relevant to them. In sweep 3 an additional module of questions on the support networks of participants was also included. The focus of these questions was on how services, organisations and individuals support people, and to identify lessons for how services can better meet the requirements of those who need support. In sweep 4, as well as asking questions about the changes since the last interview, participants were asked to reflect on the past and think about the future. For example, participants were asked to think back to the time they were first interviewed (in most cases around two years previously) and reflect on whether they felt that since then their overall situation had improved, got worse, or stayed about the same.

In conducting the interviews, the research team used a topic guide to give a clear idea of the issues to cover. The interview schedule used in sweep 4 is shown in Appendix 3. Most questions focused on open responses, providing the opportunity for participants to give rich, personal and in-depth accounts of their experiences and to raise other issues. For sweeps 1 to 3, all interviews were conducted face to face (bar one interview in sweep 3). This allowed the researchers to build a rapport with participants (this was especially important in helping to minimise sample attrition between sweeps). In sweep 4, having established a rapport with participants, all but two of the interviews were conducted over the telephone. Both face-to-face and telephone interviews lasted between 45 and 90 minutes.

Participants were given an information sheet before participating in the study in sweep 1. Interviewers reiterated this information prior to subsequent interviews and answered any questions that the participant had. Consent was obtained (either written or orally) before proceeding with all interviews in each sweep. Interviews were audio recorded where permission was given, and partially transcribed (i.e. relevant content from interviews, such as the households' accounts of their experiences, but not incidental conversation or 'warm up' questions).

No payment for time provided by participants was given. However, participants were given a voucher (sent by post in the case of telephone interviews) to compensate for out of pocket expenses, at a rate of £10 per household per meeting.

This study received research ethics approval from Edinburgh Napier Business School's Research Integrity Committee.

Sample characteristics

Twenty-four participants were interviewed at sweep 4 of the study. Interviews took place between November 2015 and February 2016.

Forty-three participants were interviewed at sweep 1. Participants were initially selected at sweep 1 using a purposive sampling strategy. The main criterion for inclusion in the sample was that the participant was of working age, and in receipt of at least one of the benefits subject to reform. Consideration was also given to obtaining representation across a variety of characteristics such as type of benefit, age, gender, disability, household composition and urban-rural dwelling. The sample is neither large nor 'representative' enough to draw firm generalisations across all people in Scotland. However, the study provides valuable insights into the experiences of those in receipt of benefits and highlights some of the issues faced by specific groups which could be followed up in more depth in other research.

Table 2.2: Overview of sample characteristics

Note: Overlapping categories mean that totals within categories may not sum to total sample. Reported change between sweeps reflects changes in circumstances as well as drop out (e.g. moving into work, children turning five, etc.).

Over the course of the study there has been some 'drop out', as can be expected, due to health reasons, changing address, non-response to interview requests, etc. Participants either could not be contacted, or a suitable time to interview them could not be arranged during the relevant fieldwork period. Table 2.2 shows the characteristics of the sample over the four sweeps, and highlights that the attrition was concentrated amongst certain households.

Figure 2.1: Longitudinal participation

Grey shaded cells indicate participation.

Although the total sample size has fallen over the course of the study, this has not simply been the case of participants permanently dropping out between sweeps; some participants have moved in and out of the study (Figure 2.1). The result of this is that there is some degree of longitudinal information on 37 participants.