4.7 Data collection and procedures
4.7.3 Data collection
As indicated above that a multi-method approach comprising key informant interviews and focus group discussions was used, data collection is thus discussed separately. The rationale behind this decision is the understanding that one group had young people and the other group, adults – obviously different issues and procedures were involved. Data collection through focus groups with learner participants is presented first, followed by key informant interviews with adults. This order is not in any way suggestive of the sequence in which data were collected since; data collection happened simultaneously depending on availability of either participants in each case.
4.7.3.1 Focus group discussions
Selected learner participants were invited to participate in the study. Using the language that they understood and felt comfortable to communicate in (Shona-Karanga), the study’s aims and objectives were explained. Young people must be provided with clear and unambiguous information concerning the research study using a language they are best conversant with (Acton, 2003). Participants were informed that participation was purely voluntary, that they reserved the right to withdraw from the study at will without penalties, and that both anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed as outlined by Wassenaar (2006). However, in the case of
95
FGDs, Liamputtong (2011) argues that promising confidentiality in focus group research is difficult as the researcher can only request participants to regard views shared by fellow participants as confidential information but cannot guarantee their compliance. Questions raised by participants concerning the study were clearly and adequately answered. The researcher(s) asked for permission from participants to audio-record the interviews and permission was granted.
Participants were then issued with informed consent forms (appendix 2), encouraged to read the information on the form and to ask the questions that they might have had. They were given the consent forms to take home for parents and guardians to grant permission to them to participate in the study. As observed by Acton (2003), obtaining informed consent from young people below the legal age of majority to participate in research is dependent on the amount of access adult gatekeepers are willing to grant researchers. The implication is that despite learners’ willingness to participate, they may not do so without adults’ consent.
Furthermore, research with young people is both ethically and legally complex (Wassenaar, 2006). As such, the researcher(s) remained vigilant, cognisant that having secured informed consent from parents or legal guardians, and permission from the school authorities to conduct the study did not take away the learner participants’ autonomy and right to assent.
Learner participants were enthusiastic to participate, and they assented to both participation and being audio recorded. Researcher(s) explained the benefits of recording, for example; easy capturing of participants’ contributions, ensuring truthfulness of the data (that the data is captured in participant’s actual words), and ultimately to enhance easiness of transcribing and data management. The ethical aspects of recording were explained satisfactorily, with emphasis placed on fact that the recordings would be solely for the study purpose and would be kept secure by the principal researcher.
96
All the FGDs were conducted after informed consent forms were signed by the parents or legal guardians of the learner participants in question. The interview venues were always on the schools’ premises to ensure the learners’ protection. Furthermore, a neutral location characterised by a supportive infrastructure to ensure that learners were relaxed was necessary.
The interviews were slotted in during school hours and at times convenient to the school programme as the gatekeepers’ conditions cautioned against any disruption of the learning, and or teaching programmes at the schools. The FGDs were conducted in the dominant Shona- Karanga dialect. The decision to use a vernacular language was arrived at in pursuit of learners’
maximum freedom to express themselves since the schools were not strictly English medium.
Both the principal researcher and the co-researchers (teacher assistant interviewers) were fluent speakers of the Shona-Karanga dialect.
Focus group discussions (FGDs) to elicit the views of in-school youth regarding use of voluntary medical male circumcision and condoms in HIV prevention among school learners were conducted. A total of seven FGDs were conducted with learners, four with boys and three with girls. Each FGD comprised six to eight participants. The researcher made a conscious decision to have groups with fewer participants. Preference for smaller groups to large groups was based on the estimation that having fewer participants makes it easier for the interviewer to direct the discussion towards answering the study’s key research questions. Furthermore, all participants are afforded adequate opportunity to actively participate and explain issues if the group is reasonably small. Influenced by Freire’s (1970) work among Brazilian peasants of subaltern status, the researcher subscribes to the school of thought that research has an empowering character. As such, he was keen to ensure that no single participant dominated the discussions and that all participants actively contributed.
Each focus group lasted for approximately 60 minutes. To supplement audio recordings, field notes were also taken during the interviews. Data collection spread over a
97
period of six (6) weeks. As a token of appreciation for participation in the study, the learner participants were each given a ‘goodie bag’ containing bath soap, body lotion, and toothpaste.
Sanitary pads were added for the girl participants. The ‘goodie bags’ were given to learners at the end of the interviews.
4.7.3.2 Key informant interviews
All the ethical procedures explained above were followed as they applied to the adult participants. As proposed by Seidman (1991; 1998), the researcher conducted three sequential and strategically staggered sessions with each of the nine adult participants. The first one was meant to familiarise the participant with the topic and develop rapport. Establishing rapport with the participant is critical to the quality of data generated because there will be a desirable level of trust which ultimately leads to openness (Hennink et al., 2011; Steinke, 2004). It was assumed that the period between the first contact with the participant and the second interview would allow the participant to deeply engage with the topic leading to the interview yielding rich and thick descriptive data. The researcher had to listen to audio recorded interviews before conducting the final follow-up interviews where vague issues would be clarified.