Generation Y Methods Section

Method

Focus groups were chosen as the best method to address the research questions of this study. While extant research regarding Generation Y offers attributes of members’ attitudes and expectations of work, the findings come largely from quantitative measures that do not allow for discussion about how members of Generation Y understand and talk about the notion of work and career (i.e., Brand, 2008; Monge, 2008; Swenson, 2008). One of the main advantages of focus groups is that “they make it possible for researchers to observe the interactive processes occurring among participants” (Madriz, 2003, p. 365). Thus, focus groups allowed participants to talk about and explain their own understandings of work and lend to a dialogue among participants about the concepts.

Recruitment

Participants were recruited using purposive sampling and snowball sampling strategies (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Only individuals who were members of Generation Y were invited to participate in the research. Different scholars have different ideas about the beginning of Generation Y, ranging from 1977 to 1981 (Huntley, 2006). However, for the purposes of this study, Generation Y involved those born in or after 1982, as suggested by Howe and Strauss (2000) and Huntley (2006).

Participants were recruited via a Facebook advertisement that was posted on the network of a midsize, Midwestern university which included information about the research, dates and times of focus groups, as well as the contact information of the researcher. Likewise, an email was also sent to student LISTSERVs and to the researcher’s personal contacts inviting people to participate, and participants were thus encouraged to forward the email invitation on to others in the suited demographic.

Participants

A total of 50 participants fit the necessary demographic of being a member of Generation Y. Because of the generational requirements, all participants were between the ages of 18 and 26. Specifically, “n” were 18-20, “n” were 21-23, and “n” were 24-26. “N” participants were males and “n” were female. All participants were from the Midwest. The majority of participants were current college students (percent; number) and participants had either full-time (percent; number) or part-time (percent; number) jobs. No participants were unemployed. Participants’ education levels varied. Percent (number) had some college, percent (number) had a 2-year technical/community college degree, percent (number) reported having a 4-year university degree, and percent (number) reported having some professional/advanced degree education (percent; number).

Relationship status of the participants also varied. “Percent” (number) participants indicated themselves being single, while “percent” indicated being in a relationship (number) or married (number). Only “n” participants reported having children. The majority of the participants were Caucasian (percent; number).

Because the purpose of the study was to examine how members of Generation Y talk about, understand, and experience work, their parents’ education and occupational backgrounds were also relevant. Thus, participants were asked to report their parents’ (mother/female guardian and father/male guardian) highest level of education, as well as their current occupation and how many hours per week they felt their parents/guardians worked. “N” participants indicated their mothers/female guardians had completed their high school diploma, “n” a 2-year community/technical college degree, “n” a 4-year university degree, and “n” a professional/advanced degree. Similarly, “n” participants’ mothers/female guardians were employed full-time and worked an average of “x” hours each week. Fathers/male guardians’ highest level of education also varied among the participants. “N” reported their fathers/male guardians to have a high school diploma, “n” a 2-year community/technical college degree, “n” a 4-year university degree, and “n” a professional/advanced degree. All fathers/guardians worked full-time outside of the home and participants reported them working an average of “x” hours each week.

Instruments

This study utilized two instruments to guide data collection. First, a demographic questionnaire was distributed to each participant at the beginning of the focus group. Participants were asked to provide their name on the questionnaire in order to match each person with their focus group responses but they were assured that all information would be kept confidential and reported with their pseudonyms in the written report. The demographic information helped ensure that only members of Generation Y were participating. It also asked them to report their sex, ethnicity, highest level of education achieved, occupation, relationship status, parents’/guardians’ highest level of education and occupation, and how many hours each week their parents’/guardians’ worked.

The second instrument used by the researcher was a semistandardized interview guide (Berg, 2007). This form of an interview guide allows the focus group moderator to adjust the order of the questions to fit the dialogue between the participants and ask unscheduled questions or probing questions in addition to the scheduled questions. The goal of the interview guide was to ensure that the moderator introduced the focus group in the same manner and addressed the same core questions that were central to the study.
Procedures

In total, five focus groups were conducted in the fall of 2008, each with 6-10 participants. This was ideal, as Lindlof and Taylor (2002) suggest the optimal size of focus groups include 6 to 12 participants. Focus groups were either all male or all female in order to properly understand the different experiences men and women have in their respective understandings of work and career, as previous research suggests (see Ashcraft, 2006; Buzzanell & Lucas, 2006; S. Lewis & Lewis, 1996).

Several focus groups were pre-scheduled and participants were invited to attend at their accord. Other focus groups were scheduled according to participants’ schedules. Focus groups were held at two different locations; a midsize, Midwestern university classroom and in a meeting room at a local café. In both settings, chairs were organized around a table so all participants could see and respond to one another. Each focus group lasted approximately 90 minutes.

Data Collection and Analysis
Three different forms of data collection were employed in this research. First, the demographics questionnaires participants completed at the onset of the focus group time provided valuable information about each of the participants. Second, each focus group was digitally recorded to ensure that the researcher could get an accurate record of the participant comments. Finally, the third form of data collection consisted of the notes taken by the moderator during each focus group.

Data were analyzed to examine how members of Generation Y understand and talk about the concepts of work, career, and work-life balance. Verbatim transcripts of the focus groups were created to be analyzed line by line by the researcher. Transcription of the transcripts produced X number of typed, single-spaced pages. Focus group transcripts were examined in phases as suggested by Krueger and Casey (2000). In the first phase, the researcher read each transcript to become as familiar as possible with the content of the transcripts. During the second phase, the researcher looked for potential themes that were emerging from the data. Finally, in the third phase of data analysis, the researcher verified the themes to ensure their representation in the data.

References

Ashcraft, K. L. (2006). Back to work: Sights/sites of difference in gender and organizational communication studies. In B. J. Dow & J. T. Wood (Eds.), The Sage handbook on gender and communication (pp. 97-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson, Inc.

Buzzanell, P. M., & Lucas, K. (2006). Gendered stories of career: Unfolding discourses of time, space, and identity. In B. J. Dow & J. T. Wood (Eds.), The Sage handbook on gender and communication (pp. 161-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lewis, S., & Lewis, J. (Eds.) (1996). The work-family challenge: Rethinking employment.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Madriz, E. (2003). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Collection and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 363-388). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.