Research exploring ways to improve the Disability Confident Employer Scheme in Wales - Methodology

This chapter sets out the methods and research activity undertaken.

Three focus groups were held in July 2024 and were facilitated by the co-production team which included disabled people who were members of the DRTF and Welsh Government Officials. 

There were 25 focus group participants. Participants were made up of employers (9 participants), trade union representatives (5 participants), DPO representatives and IG representatives (combined 11 participants). The original intention was to invite 10 to 12 participants per focus group. In addition, 5 DRTF working group chairs and a PhD student acted as facilitators and co-facilitators and some fed into focus group discussions given that they brought lived experience and expertise.

A purposive sampling approach was taken to intentionally select participants with specific characteristics and unique experiences related to the research questions. Selected participants represented a wealth of experience and knowledge of the Disability Confident Employer Scheme and issues affecting disabled people and employment. 

Contacts for Welsh employers were extracted from the publicly available database of the Disability Confident Employer Scheme. Welsh Government researchers worked with a disability champion to purposely sample employers with a range of experiences and views based on their status. Invitations were also sent to members of the Trade Unions Cymru (TUC) Equalities Group via the group secretary. Additionally, members of the co-production team reached out to known union representatives. For DPO’s and IG’s, a list of participants from DRTF working groups was used to identify potential participants. This worked well to circulate the invite to organisations representing disabled people with a range of impairments. 

The focus groups were held virtually to enable people from across Wales to participate. Participants were asked to state any accessibility requirements in advance. Participants were also provided with the agreed topic guide in advance. Focus groups were facilitated by the Chair of the DRTF Employment and Income Working Group who is also an academic expert in this topic and co-facilitated by other DRTF chairs in the team.

The topic guide was co-produced by the co-production team and the research questions were as follows: 

• what might each of the following three options look like?
• to develop a distinct Welsh employer kitemark?
• to enhance the current scheme with a Welsh element to it?
• to influence the incoming UK Government to change the UK-wide scheme?
• compared to the existing scheme, what are the relative benefits and disbenefits for each?
• what are the potential economic costs and benefits for disabled people, employers and the wider economy?
• what are the challenges and opportunities for implementation?

An unstructured approach was taken which allowed for focus group discussion to flow to tap into areas of greatest interest and experience of participants. A focus group is a commonly used research method to elicit qualitative data and allow for in-depth exploration of an agreed topic. As stated in The Magenta Book, this research method allows the facilitator some flexibility to probe and more time to explore the views of participants. A focus group also helps to understand not just ‘what’ has worked but ‘why’ and ‘how’ an intervention has been experienced the way it has.

There can be a risk of bias with this method, for example some stakeholders may be more or less willing to participate in a focus group than others. Focus groups also need careful moderation to ensure all participants have equal opportunity to communicate their views. Some participants had been previously involved in the DRTF working group, so will have had some involvement in the development of the original recommendation. 

Focus group facilitators were disabled people who were members of the co-production team and had a clear understanding of the issues being discussed. Government Social Researchers quality assured the topic guide to ensure that GSR standards were adhered to throughout. 

There is an additional methodological limitation to using focus groups. The sample is not a representative sample. However, what this research method offers is often rich and diverse insights into a particular topic, allowing for collective and diverse views to be explored in detail. These views have been presented in this report.

Captions were recorded so a transcript could be produced for each focus group. The data collected was anonymised by a Welsh Government researcher and then shared with a member of the co-production team who acted as a ‘co-analyser’ before sharing initial findings with the wider co-production team. 

Thematic analysis was undertaken, and the researcher followed the six steps of systematic thematic analysis as described by Naeem et al (2003) which were developed by Braun & Clarke’s technique (2008).

The six steps

Step 1

Initial phase where researchers dive deep into the data and select quotes that bring the data to life and reflect the research questions and options.

Step 2

Involves examining the quotes and picking out keywords that reflect them.

Step 3

Researchers then simplify the keywords by converting raw data into insightful, manageable units.

Step 4

Codes are then organised into meaningful groups to identify patterns linking to research questions.

Step 5

Involves understanding and defining concepts emerging form the data.

Step 6

Researchers create a unique representation of the data, guided often by existing theories or themes, answering the research questions and is the culmination of the analysis.

This step approach was undertaken by a Welsh Government researcher and was replicated by a second Welsh Government researcher to sense check developing themes before sharing and comparing themes with the co-analyser. 

It was initially anticipated that the research would be co-designed with the DRTF Chairs and delivered by Welsh Government Social Researchers. However, the ambitions of DRTF Chairs to be more fully involved resulted in a co-productive approach and a co-production team was formed. 

The research has aimed to be delivered in line with the principles of the social model of disability and active steps were taken to meet the range of accessibility needs of the co-producers. The co-production team set out to work collaboratively to ensure disabled people’s voices were ‘a golden thread’ throughout each stage of the research. The extent to which co-production was achieved will be evaluated at the end of the project. Co-production is an iterative process, and the research design shifted and changed during the project. There were some elements of the research design that were not taken forward as they were beyond the resources available in the timescale for this research project. This included undertaking a full-scale literature review, a deliberative workshop with stakeholders and collecting stories from disabled people from different communities during the fieldwork. This also limited the extent to which the research findings could be triangulated with additional evidence sources. This is an acknowledged methodological limitation of this research.

The co-production team were involved at each stage of the research as set out below in more detail.

Scoping stage: This involved facilitating co-production team workshops to better understand the rationale for the DRTF Working Group recommendation and develop initial research questions to form the topic guide. Evidence reviewing and a policy context workshop with Welsh Government Officials were also undertaken during this stage. 

Co-planning stage: This involved agreeing a focus group as the primary research method, co-designing topic guides, pooling contacts and efforts to recruit participants. A workshop session was held to co-design the co-facilitation approach in advance. 

Fieldwork stage: As noted above, this involved three co-facilitated focus groups with employers, trade union representatives and DPO / IG representatives. 

Co-analysis stage: A Welsh Government researcher transcribed and anonymised the raw data before undertaking thematic analysis. This theming process was also undertaken independently by an academic social researcher before comparing and agreeing themes. 

Reporting stage: The report was drafted by a Welsh Government researcher and quality assured against GSR standards. The draft report was shared with the co-production team for comment before final revisions. The co-production team provided advice and steer regarding accessible formats and highlighted the need to quality assure any outputs to check for adherence to social model of disability language.  

Remuneration was offered as in-kind contributions of facilitation training and masterclass events by well-regarded disability rights activists.