CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY
2.1 The methodology used to conduct the study comprised a number of complementary elements, described below.
DESK BASED REVIEW OF DATA AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.2 A review of background documentation and existing literature was undertaken, with a focus on research relating to demand and supply in learning, SME engagement with learning, and previous and similar evaluations in Scotland and the UK. In addition, financial information was obtained from SUfI in order to conduct a degree of cost-benefit analysis .
INITIAL CONSULTATIONS WITH KEY SUfI PERSONNEL
2.3 Following an Inception Meeting at which the scoping, parameters and objectives of the study were agreed and a range of key stakeholders identified, scoping interviews were carried out with a sample of senior SUfI staff. These interviews were semi-structured. They were designed to tease out some of the wider issues surrounding the perceived role and impact of SUfI and, crucially, to gain a fuller understanding of how the organisation works towards its objectives.
2.4 Members of the following teams were interviewed:
- Learning Team: responsible for enhancing learner support services, commissioning materials and developing a national network of learner-focused learndirect scotland learning centres
- Learning Technologies team: responsible for the development and maintenance of the national learning opportunities database, as well as implementation of all IT systems, including the online learning environment Skillnet
- Marketing and Business Development Team: responsible for driving the demand for learning and attracting individuals and businesses into learning through a variety of marketing and PR techniques.
TELEPHONE SURVEY OF INDIVIDUAL LEARNERS (300)
2.5 A telephone survey was undertaken of 300 individuals who had contacted the learndirect scotland helpline. These comprised 100 respondents who were characterised as 'known completers', because they had embarked on and completed a course of learning after contacting learndirect scotland, and 200 respondents who had contacted learndirect scotland and subsequently been referred to a local learning centre.
2.6 It will be clear from these criteria that the survey does not constitute a representative sample of all callers to the service, as it is targeted at those callers for whom further activities had either been recommended or undertaken. A key consideration in deciding on this focus was that the service is regularly surveyed by the Learner Tracking Study ( LTS) conducted by Progressive Partnership. While covering much of the same ground as the LTS, SQW's survey placed greater emphasis on the benefits derived by callers, their perceptions of the impact of their contact with the service, and the influence of that contact on future involvement in, and disposition towards, learning.
2.7 Further details of the SQW survey, and the comparisons made with the findings of the Learner Tracking Studies, are reported in Chapter 4.
TELEPHONE SURVEY OF SMEs/EMPLOYERS (200)
2.8 Putting together a pool of potential respondents for the survey was not quite as straightforward as had been anticipated. Not only is the number of callers to the learndirect scotland for business national advice line significantly smaller than the number of individual callers, but it was also important to ensure that our own survey did not conflict with SUfI's ongoing Tracker Study - the latest wave of which was to take place at the same time.
2.9 In order to avoid including in the sample any respondents who had been interviewed for the Tracker Study, it was decided that the SQW sample would include only SMEs who had called the learndirect scotland for business helpline between October 2004 and October 2005.
2.10 At the same time, it was considered important that there was comparability between the studies, and therefore the telephone questionnaire contained some of the same questions used in the biannual Tracker Study of SMEs. (A copy of the questionnaire can be found at Annex A).
2.11 Both telephone surveys were conducted by FMR Research.
FOCUS GROUP WITH SMEs/EMPLOYERS
2.12 With the assistance of key SUfI personnel, a focus group with SMEs took place in Glasgow in March 2006. Turnout was disappointingly small: several of those who had indicated that they would be present did not attend. It had been expected that difficulties might arise in attracting representatives of SMEs, given their workloads. Accordingly, a breakfast meeting was considered to be the most appropriate means of obtaining a reasonable attendance. Nonetheless, only three people from SMEs attended.
2.13 The aim of the focus group was to explore in detail some of the benefits to SMEs of engagement with learning.
RESEARCH INTO BRANDED LEARNING CENTRES
2.14 This element of the study comprised telephone interviews with 30 Branded Learning Centres ( BLCs) managers and two focus groups with BLC managers.
2.15 Given that an online survey of learning centres had been conducted for SUfI by Progressive Partnership only a matter of weeks prior to the present study, it was decided to conduct a series of in-depth telephone interviews with BLC managers in order to gain a more detailed understanding of some of the issues affecting BLCs.
2.16 The sample of 30 managers was structured to take account of variability in terms of geography, sector and local circumstances. The managers were drawn from the following types of centre: four corporate, four college-based, three higher education, four local authorities, three library-based, four NHS, two private, one trade union, and five voluntary sector learning centres. Fourteen were based in Social Inclusion Partnership areas. There was a good distribution of rural and urban centres. Most had been branded learning centres for many years and several had been through the re-branding process.
2.17 With the assistance of SUfI personnel, two focus groups with learning centre managers were set up. The purpose of these was threefold:
- to test the findings from existing research
- to gain insight into other issues affecting BLCs (such as any differences between rural and urban centres)
- to guide the design of an aide memoire for subsequent telephone interviews.
2.18 The first focus group, held in Perth, was attended by five learning centre managers from rural locations, comprising: three voluntary sector, one private sector, and one college-based centre. A second group, comprising seven BLC managers from the central belt of Scotland was held in Glasgow, with the following representation: three private sector providers, one voluntary sector, two college-based centres, and one local authority.
2.19 A key aim of these focus groups was to add depth to the online survey of BLCs commissioned recently by SUfI.
CONSULTATIONS WITH EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
2.20 In order to gain wider perspective on where SUfI sits within the 'landscape' of lifelong learning in Scotland, interviews were conducted with a number of external stakeholders at national level:
- Scottish Further Education Unit
- Highlands & Islands Enterprise
- SSAScot
- Scottish Libraries Information Council
- Association of Scottish Colleges
- Learning Link Scotland.
2.21 In these consultations we sought to gain a general impression of: areas of alignment between the goals of SUfI and other organisations; perceptions of whether SUfI is succeeding in its desire to 'de-clutter' the landscape; and stakeholders' general perspectives about the organisation.
2.22 Clearly, the views of such a small group of consultees cannot be regarded as representative of the entire learning infrastructure in Scotland. Nevertheless, they add a useful dimension to the wider policy and environmental context. We report on this element of our research in Chapter Three.
SUMMARY
2.23 While acknowledging the limitations of some aspects of the data-gathering process, notably the survey of individuals and the attendance at the SME focus group, the methodology adopted nonetheless generated a rich set of data which is described and analysed later in the report.