2.3.2. Focus Group

All participants were subsequently invited to participate in a focus group to discuss the emerging themes of their collective reflections. Prior to the focus group, all participants had access to all the anonymised questionnaire responses. During the focus group, participants were given a set of instructions to:

1. Discuss the questionnaire responses together (sharing the "air-time" equally between them);


To minimise bias, the researcher remained outside of the discussion, except when responding directly to a question (Denscombe 2017, p. 206; Eros 2014, pp. 279–81).

#### 2.3.3. Data Analysis

This approach led to the generation of three sets of complementary data sources for analysis:


The approach to data analysis was broadly inductive, using the themes identified by participants during the focus group prioritisation exercise (iii) in order to build categories of analysis from participants' own interpretation of respective thematic significance. These categories were then used to undertake an initial coding of the other data at both (i) and (ii). A further round of inductive analysis was undertaken on those data which had eluded categorisation during the initial coding, identifying further emerging themes and organising data around those themes.

#### **3. Findings**

#### *3.1. Stage 1—Results of Focus Group Thematic Prioritisation*

The focus group thematic prioritisation exercise (iii) resulted in a concept map, created by the participants, of nine themes organised in three layers of significance, from 1 (highest) to 3 (lowest):


This categorisation reflects the general feelings of the focus group participants about what they deemed significant not just in the stories they had all shared, but in their subsequent discussions of them.

#### *3.2. Stage 2—Initial Analysis*

These categories were then used to undertake a deductive coding of the other data (i and ii), using Nvivo software. Phrases or exchanges in the data which corresponded with any of the categories were highlighted accordingly, and a hierarchy chart of the coding density was developed, consisting of three main emergent themes with eight dependent categories. The two main themes related to a contextual understanding of the experience (situational factors) and an awareness of the professional attributes required to meet those situational complexities; a third theme was identified as diversity and representation (Figure 1). hierarchy chart of the coding density was developed, consisting of three main emergent themes with eight dependent categories. The two main themes related to a contextual understanding of the experience (situational factors) and an awareness of the professional attributes required to meet those situational complexities; a third

theme was identified as diversity and representation (Figure 1).

These categories were then used to undertake a deductive coding of the other data (i and ii), using Nvivo software. Phrases or exchanges in the data which corresponded with any of the categories were highlighted accordingly, and a

**Figure 1.** Focus group themes: coding density. Source: Graphic by author. **Figure 1.** Focus group themes: coding density. Source: Graphic by author.

3.2.1. Situational Factors 3.2.1. Situational Factors

*3.2. Stage 2—Initial Analysis* 

Situational factors included developing an understanding of the setting itself; the different power structures within settings; the complexity of the different kinds of relationships involved; and having a clear understanding of purpose. In the following sections, I illustrate some of these issues by referring to either questionnaire responses (Q-x) or focus group comments (FG-x). Situational factors included developing an understanding of the setting itself; the different power structures within settings; the complexity of the different kinds of relationships involved; and having a clear understanding of purpose. In the following sections, I illustrate some of these issues by referring to either questionnaire responses (Q-x) or focus group comments (FG-x).

• Setting and Environment • Setting and Environment

One of the challenges of working in participatory settings is the need to adopt an approach which responds to the specific context. Rather than having pre-formed ideas about what might be achieved, this involves responding to the unpredictable and evolving environment of the participatory music workshop and the many factors which condition it: One of the challenges of working in participatory settings is the need to adopt an approach which responds to the specific context. Rather than having pre-formed ideas about what might be achieved, this involves responding to the unpredictable and evolving environment of the participatory music workshop and the many factors which condition it:

*You respond within the moment whatever happens in the moment. So it's knowing that you can't plan for what's going to happen. But knowing that actually, you're going to be challenged but also you believe that some way you will have the resources to be able to rise to that challenge and find the right way. (FG-7)*  You respond within the moment whatever happens in the moment. So it's knowing that you can't plan for what's going to happen. But knowing that actually, you're going to be challenged but also you believe that some way you will have the resources to be able to rise to that challenge and find the right way. (FG-7)

8 This issue of drawing on internal resources to meet the needs of the situation was also configured in the minds of some respondents as part of the performer–audience relationship:

The musician has a responsibility to the audience and the audience, particularly if it's a vulnerable audience, puts you in this position of responsibility where you have to rise to the occasion. (FG-3)
