Research methodology

Phase 2 engaged directly with people aged 65 and over, and people with disabilities, to better understand their views and experiences of, and ideas for potential improvements to, Zebra crossings and their surroundings.

Phase 2 was undertaken in two stages:

  1. A series of focus groups, themed according to users’ type of disability, and by age; and
  2. A site survey at an existing Zebra crossing, to triangulate (and therefore establish the validity and reliability) the findings of the Phase 1 online survey and Phase 2 focus groups.

Details on Phase 2 methodology are set out below. When designing and delivering the research activities, the research team benefited hugely from the experience, advice and guidance of a range of organisations and individuals representing older people and disabled people, for which we are grateful for.

Guiding principles

The Jacobs/UoE research team adopted a series of guiding principles to deliver an effective Phase 2 study:

  • Research is carried out with people and not on people;
  • Participants’ privacy will be protected at all times;
  • Recruitment of participants must be a positive experience for them;
  • Communication with participants is in a means most appropriate for them, seeking consent from participants directly, rather than through a carer or representative;
  • Be guided by best practice and advice from representative organisations;
  • Participants are not obliged to take part and feel able to remove themselves from the process at any point; and
  • Study findings will be shared with participants.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for Phase 2 was granted in December 2021 by UoE Moray House School of Education and Sport Ethics Committee.

The Ethics Committee were provided with details of the research project, including the aims and objectives, a summary of the research methods and techniques, an indication of the type, number, selection criteria and recruitment of participants and site details, including data collection methods. In addition, a Covid-19 Face to Face research risk assessment was completed.

Being that the research study engaged with people at greater risk, measures were put in place to reduce risks from the outset. It was recognised that asking individuals to cross the street using a Zebra crossing may be stressful for some individuals. It was emphasised throughout the study that participants were free to leave the study at any time if they feel uncomfortable. The Zebra crossing selected for the site survey was identified based on its suitability and risk assessed prior to being used in the study. Researchers had an ethical responsibility to protect participants from any harm arising from the research. In this case, we chaperoned the individual crossing the road to reduce the risk from unanticipated behaviour of other road users. Covid-19 government guidance was adhered to throughout the study. The Research Team and participants were encouraged to take lateral flow tests prior to the Site surveys.

We ensured that we used appropriate and accessible formats (audio, visual, written), language (English, British Sign Language, Easy Read format) and terminology when communicating with participants and their carers/representatives. This ensured participants felt comfortable and respected, as well as appropriately informed about the study and their (optional) role in it. We also consulted with representative groups and the participants themselves to ensure we were taking all the necessary measures to protect and/or inform participants. Representative groups also assisted with recruitment.

Specific measures considered for each of the participant groups are detailed below.

Specific measures considered for each participant group

All groups

Stage 1 Focus Group Considerations
  • Focus groups were held on Zoom via UoE Zoom account. Representative organisations advised that this was the most accessible platform for participants
  • Participants were asked in advance if they had any support needs
Additional Stage 2 Site Survey Considerations
  • There was a safe space to wait, away from the carriageway and out of the way of other pedestrians using the pavement
  • Post-crossing surveys were conducted inside the gates of Grange Cemetery (located next to the Zebra crossing site) where a bench was available for participants to sit whilst being interviewed. An indoor space was available in case of bad weather
  • Transportation by taxi was available for all participants to help enable ease of travel to and from site. Taxis were booked via Jacobs account
  • Participants were requested to contact the research team to let them know they got home safely

Individuals who are deaf; BSL users; have a hearing impairment

Stage 1 Focus Group Considerations
  • A researcher fluent in BSL, accompanied by BSL interpreters, helped facilitate the online focus group
  • Live captioning was provided via Zoom’s auto captioning function
  • All study information was available in Easy Read format
  • A BSL promotional video was produced
  • A researcher fluent in BSL was available to communicate with participants throughout
Additional Stage 2 Site Survey Considerations
  • A researcher fluent in BSL, accompanied by a BSL interpreter helped facilitate the site survey for participants who were BSL users (welcoming participants, providing participants with pre-crossing information, conducting the post-crossing interview)
  • Post-crossing participant interviews were video recorded. The researcher fluent in BSL transcribed the video interviews

Individuals who are blind; have a visual impairment

Stage 1 Focus Group Considerations
  • All study information was available in audio format and communication (including pre, during and post-data collection) was done verbally
  • Participants could dial into the Zoom meeting via telephone as well as join online via a device
Additional Stage 2 Site Survey Considerations
  • Support persons and guide communicators were invited cross with participants if that replicated their usual way of navigating a street environment

Individuals who have a physical disability that affects their day-to-day movement

Additional Stage 2 Site Survey Considerations
  • Participants were asked in advance what assistance (if any) they required

Individuals with a cognitive impairment

Stage 1 Focus Group Considerations
  • A representative from The Scottish Commission for People with Learning Disabilities (SCLD) acted as the key contact between the participants and the research team. The same SCLD representative also attended the online focus group supporting both participants and the research team
  • Maximum number for this group was capped at 6
  • Topic guide was tailored following advice and guidance from SCLD. Timings of the focus group were adjusted so that there were more breaks
Additional Stage 2 Site Survey Considerations
  • This group did not participate in the site survey

Individuals aged 65 and over

Stage 1 Focus Group Considerations

The primary researcher has extensive experience working with older people. She ensured that the study was conducted in an accessible and safe manner for this group

Recruitment of participants

Individuals from most at-risk road user groups were invited to participate in the research. The recruitment process was undertaken in early 2022.

Target groups

We engaged with five main target groups of participants for the research:

  • Individuals who are deaf; a user of British Sign Language (BSL); have a hearing impairment
  • Individuals who are blind; have a visual impairment
  • Individuals with a physical disability that affects their day-to-day movement
  • Individuals with a cognitive impairment (specifically a learning disability)
    Note that cognitive impairment covers a range of conditions such as dementia, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, learning difficulties. Challenges with participant recruitment within the time available meant that we engaged with a subset of this group, individuals with learning disabilities, and recognise this as a limitation of the study. Note also that these participants did not take part in the Stage 2 site surveys to mitigate the personal risks to them.
  • Individuals aged 65 and over.

Recruitment criteria

Within the target groups described above, we sought to recruit individuals:

  • With ‘lived’ experiences, rather than representing an organisation or lobby group
  • With experience of using Zebra crossings, as well as not
  • From anywhere in Scotland
  • Aged 18 and over
  • A mix of age, gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status.

Recruitment materials

Recommendations from representative organisations and best practice guidance informed the design of recruitment materials. The content and format was tailored to meet the communication preferences of the different target groups and included:

Recruitment channels

Representative organisations played a key role in promoting the opportunity to participate via their networks. They were provided with tailored promotional packs where materials were provided in a format which was most suitable for their target audience. Organisations were requested to share the invitation to participate amongst their networks. Organisations shared information via social media, member bulletins and in some cases directly to individuals who they felt would be interested.

In addition the invitation to participate was shared via;

  • Local Authority officers;
  • Roads for All Forum;
  • Access Panels;
  • Active Travel Delivery Partners;
  • UoE and personal social media accounts;
  • Jacobs colleagues/networks; and
  • Research team’s personal contacts.

Delivery of stage 1 focus groups

A series of online focus groups were undertaken between March and June 2022; facilitated by one Jacobs and one UoE team member. A member of the UoE team providing facilitation in BSL, accompanied by two translators for the focus group for deaf and hearing impaired participants. 

Focus groups lasted for two hours and were hosted via Zoom; each were audio/video recorded and transcribed anonymously by a third-party company specialising in transcription. Each of the five focus group sessions had between three and nine individuals participating. Each participant was provided with a £20 shopping voucher to thank them for their time.

Participants were required to read/listen to information on the research study before completing a consent form in advance of participating in the focus group. An Easy Read version of the information sheet is found in Appendix B. The participant consent form is found in Appendix C.

Each session was facilitated as a semi-structured discussion, moderated by the facilitators asking specific questions to prompt and guide conversation, but allowing the session to proceed organically, with the discussion flowing from the observations and dynamics of other individuals in the group. Participants were provided with an overview of the research and a definition of what Zebra crossings are. Participants were asked to describe how often they used crossings (or if they did not) and their views and experiences of using them (or why they did not use them). Facilitators then provided a summary of Phase 1 research findings, inviting participants to share their thoughts on the findings. Finally, participants were asked to identify what could be done to improve their experience of Zebra crossings. The focus group topic guide is included in Appendix D.

Table 4 – Stage 1 focus group participants
Focus group Number of participants
Individuals who are Deaf; a user of British Sign Language (BSL); have a hearing impairment 8
Individuals who are blind; with visual impairments 10
Individuals with a physical disability that affects their day-to-day movement 3
Individuals with a learning disability 2
Individuals aged 65 and over 5

In addition, one-to-one interviews were conducted with two individuals (one person who is registered blind and one person who has a hearing impairment and learning disability), in addition one individual submitted feedback via email. In total, 31 individuals participated in Stage 1.

Delivery of stage 2 site survey

The Stage 2 site survey was designed to validate the findings arising from both Phase 1 of the research, and the focus groups described above. It sought to identify issues in a real-world environment; to witness first-hand the experience of participants, and to hear their views on potential improvements following their experience.

Participants of the Stage 1 focus groups were asked at the time of initial consent if they would be willing to participate in a site survey at a Zebra crossing in Edinburgh. The invitation to participate was extended to individuals who expressed an interest in Stage 1 but were unable to participate, and to individuals who are Deafblind, who were underrepresented during Stage 1. To mitigate participation risks, individuals with learning disabilities were not invited to participate in Stage 2.

The site selected for the survey was a Zebra crossing on Beaufort Road, Edinburgh. The crossing is approximately 9.8m wide, with breadth of 2.8m.

The Zebra crossing used for the site survey was chosen based on its condition and location. To reduce the risk to participants, the chosen crossing was one that was centrally located in Edinburgh, recently installed, located on a road with good sight lines, fully functioning and well maintained.

The survey took place on Tuesday, 28th June 2022. A risk assessment was completed in advance, with a dynamic risk assessment carried out throughout the duration of the site survey. On the day of the site surveys a member of the research team checked the Zebra crossing was in full working order prior to the surveys commencing. Participants and their support persons were required to provide consent in advance. Prior to crossing participants were briefed by researchers, provided with a high visibility jacket and an audio recording device (aside from BSL users).

Participants’ experiences and attitudes towards Zebra crossings, as well as issues and potential improvements in the use and design of Zebra crossings, were collected in two ways:

  1. Participant audio recordings captured on the approach to, and during crossing; and
  2. Post-crossing interview with open-ended and closed questions covering pre-, during, and post-crossing experiences and suggested improvements to Zebra crossings. Interviews were audio recorded. BSL user interviews were video recorded.

Participants were asked to cross the crossing twice and audio record themselves on the approach to and on the crossing (aside from BSL users who were unable to do so). They were encouraged to share their thoughts, feelings and experiences out loud as they crossed so this could be captured in the recording. However, participants needed to prioritise crossing safely, and their crossing experience was captured immediately after crossing. As such, these recordings were not the focus of the site survey, but rather added additional context to the participant’s post-crossing interviews. Of the ten participants who crossed, eight were recorded while crossing. Two of these recordings were audible; both from blind/visually impaired participants (Participants 7 and 11, respectively). The other six recordings were inaudible or had no commentary as the participant was focused on crossing (n=4), or the participant was a BSL user (n=2).

A member of the research team captured background observations of weather conditions (e.g., overcast, wet, raining), footpath conditions (e.g., dry, wet, damp), noise (e.g., quiet, moderate, loud), traffic volumes (e.g., quiet, moderate, busy), road user and footway user behaviour. This was noted at the time of each participant approaching and then crossing the Zebra crossing. These observations are detailed on Table 8 (pg. 26). As with the during-crossing recordings, these observations were intended to add context to the participant interviews, but were not the focus of the site survey.

Another member of the research team chaperoned participants whilst they crossed. Following the crossing exercise a researcher asked individuals questions about their experience. Each survey lasted no longer than 30 minutes per individual. Participants requiring BSL were briefed and interviewed by a BSL user from the research team with support from a translator.

Findings also include the research team’s background observations of the surrounding street environment and the behaviour of participants prior and during crossing. An environmental observations guide can be found in Appendix I.

A more detailed Safe System of Work and post crossing interview guide is contained within Appendix E and J consecutively.

Nine out of the ten participants had never used the Zebra crossing before. One participant (Participant 1) used the crossing approximately once per month. 

Two registered individuals could not attend on the day and were recorded as ‘did not participate’.

Table 5 – Stage 2 site survey participants
Participant number User group Approximate time of crossing Additional notes
1 Deaf/hearing impaired 9am None
2 65+ 10am None
3 65+ 10.30am None
4 Blind/visually impaired 11am None
5 Physical disability 11.30am Wheelchair user
6 Blind/visually impaired 12 noon None
7 Deaf - BSL user 2pm None
8 Deafblind 2.30pm Participant crossed with their Guide Communicator
9 Deafblind 3pm Participant crossed with their Guide Dog
10 Deaf - BSL user 3.30pm None

Data analysis

Focus group data was transcribed completely and verbatim by a transcription agency. Transcripts were analysed using a thematic analysis approach, where themes were identified by the researchers based on a predetermined coding framework. The coding framework was designed based on the focus group topic guide. Transcripts were coded deductively based on the coding framework and organised into themes which have been summarised in the results section below. A computer software package (Nvivo 11 for Windows) was used to code the transcripts and manage the thematic structure.

As mentioned above, there were three sources of site survey data; 1) background observations (n=10), 2) recordings of participants whilst crossing (n=2), and 3) recordings of participant post-crossing surveys (n=10). Background observations were noted down by a member of staff at Jacobs, and are summarised in Table 8. For the recordings of participants crossing, detailed notes were taken based on the participants’ commentary. For the post-crossing survey recordings, detailed notes were taken and summarised in a table, with one column allocated to each survey question. Both sets of recorded data were then summarised in paragraphs (see results section below).

Research limitations

There are a number of limitations of the research that are worth noting.

Focus group limitations

Phase 2 of the research did not engage with young people (individuals aged under 18 years) and did not engage with a representative group of individuals with cognitive impairments (only two individuals with learning disabilities took part; individuals with other cognitive impairments such as dementia, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s were not represented). This was primarily due to budget and time limitations within this phase of research; it is recommended that these user groups are engaged in further research.

There are inherent issues with engaging with individuals online, as this relies primarily on access to online facilities and a certain level of technology awareness. Some individuals may have been less able to participate in the focus groups as a consequence.

The focus group and site survey considered ‘traditional’ Zebra crossings (those in a street environment, crossing traffic lanes). Zebra crossings which cross cycle lanes were not considered in detail.

During the focus groups, participants were asked what reasonable adjustments could be made to Zebra crossings to make them more accessible for individuals with disabilities. Participants found it difficult to specify what they considered to be a reasonable adjustment (as this was felt to be too subjective), and this discussion prompted participants to return to improvements previously suggested during the focus group sessions.

Site survey limitations

As with many in-person research activities, sample-size was a limitation. More individuals could have been recruited to gather more data and perspectives. However, the site surveys were both time and resource intensive, and this number is considered appropriate for qualitative studies such as this one.

To reduce the risk to participants, the site surveys took place during daytime, out with peak times (the first participant arrived at 09.00 and the last participant completed their survey at 16.15). The survey was conducted in relatively benign weather conditions. Participants were required to wear a high visibility jacket and be chaperoned by a researcher whilst they crossed. Given these constraints, it is possible that the crossing was easier to use, and riders and participants acted differently (perhaps in a safer manner) around the crossing during the time of the survey. For example, the requirement to wear a high visibility jacket deterred one blind participant from taking part as they did not feel the survey would be a true representation of their experiences of using Zebra crossings. Most participants felt they were more visible to vehicles and other road users, mainly because they were provided with these jackets.

The Zebra crossing used for the site survey was chosen based on its condition and location. Most participants who expressed an interest in taking part lived in Edinburgh or were able to travel easily to the site. To reduce the risk to participants, the chosen crossing was one that was recently installed, located on a road with good sight lines, was fully functioning and well maintained. Poor maintenance of Zebra crossings, and visibility of pedestrians and road users, were raised as issues by participants during the research. It is recognised that the Zebra crossing selected for the survey, as an example of good practice, did not exhibit these issues. Choosing a Zebra crossing with these and other issues could have yielded more data on the accessibility of Zebra crossings. However, it would have been at the expense of participant safety. Furthermore, detailed experiences and perceptions of Zebra crossing use were discussed in the focus groups which yielded data on these issues.