Chapter 4: METHODOLOGY
4.3 Research process
4.3.5 Data collection
35
36 addressed in the letter, and discussed the talking points offered at the end of the letter. The third step involved the researcher to read through the response letter from Auntie Stella and the participants were encouraged to discuss and unpack Auntie Stella’s response, and discussed the action points offered at the end of the Auntie Stella’s response. In order to prompt further discussion during these steps, a semi-structured focus group schedule (Appendix 9) was also utilised, as the AS material did not generate enough data required for exploring lesbian students experiences within a South African university. The semi-structured focus group schedule consisted of discussion points that were organised and clustered into specific topics according to the research questions, which provided further discussion points regarding lesbian student’s experiences at the UKZN campus. These questions also assisted in focusing on the challenges that lesbian students may experience at UKZN. Semi-structured focus group schedules consist of open-ended questions and topic areas, as this allows the researcher to remain focused by providing basic guidelines and topic areas to be explored. It also allows for flexibility, for certain topics to emerge that might not have been taken into account during the planning phases (Kelly, 2006). However, a limitation is that the participants’ discussions may be diverted onto topics unrelated to the phenomenon under investigation producing data that is irrelevant, and this then requires the researcher to be skilled in controlling and redirecting participants’ discussions back on topic (Kitzinger, 1995; Litosseliti, 2003).
During the second stage of the data collection process, participants were asked to complete the action step which involved writing personal letters to Auntie Stella regarding an issue that they would like assistance on relating to challenges around sexuality. This assisted in providing further data.
Two-and-a-half hours were allocated to the data collection process. This was to ensure that there was sufficient time for the researcher to establish rapport with the participants, and to ensure both stages of the data collection process could be completed (Litosseliti, 2003). According to Kitzinger (1995), the ideal duration of focus groups is between one to two hours; therefore, the focus group session was two hours in duration, and an additional 30 minutes was spent on the action step.
Participants were informed in advance that they needed to be available for the full two and a half
37 hours. The focus group was conducted in English, as English is the primary medium of instruction at UKZN. A limitation of this research is that the focus group was not conducted in the participants’
home language, which is IsiZulu, therefore this may limit the depth of information gathered as participants may have found it difficult to express themselves fully in English. However most of the participants were fluent in English, and did not seem constrained by the use of English as a medium of discussion. The focus group was conducted in February 2019 and took place in a convenient, comfortable and quiet venue in the Psychology building on the Pietermaritzburg campus.
4.3.5.1 The focus group process
At the start of the focus group the researcher handed out the information sheet (Appendix 5) and the consent form (Appendix 10). Informed consent is the process through which participants voluntarily give their permission to participate in the study after being informed of all the relevant information relating to the study and research expectations (Kitzinger, 1995; Litosseliti, 2003).
During the focus group, ten minutes were allocated to discussing the details of the study, explaining the particulars of informed consent and answering any questions the participants had regarding the study. A consent form was signed by the participant only if they fully understood all the details of the study, including voluntary participation and freedom to refuse or withdraw from the study at any point. Each participant was also informed that confidentiality is limited in a focus group setting, therefore participants needed to restrict what they say to what they were comfortable sharing in public (Kitzinger, 1995). This limitation is due to other participants participating in the focus group, hence full confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on the participants’ behalf (Kitzinger, 1995). However, participants were requested to preserve the confidentiality of all participants by not speaking of what was discussed in the focus group to people outside of the study. Furthermore, participants were assured that all information obtained during the study would remain confidential and any information that could identify them would be modified or removed, and pseudonyms would be used (Kitzinger, 1995).
During the focus group, the adapted card number 34, i.e. “I’m gay – will anyone love me?”
(Appendix 8), was read aloud and the talking points were discussed. Thereafter the accompanying
38 response from Auntie Stella was read aloud and the action points were discussed. During and after these discussions the semi-structured focus group schedule (Appendix 9) was utilised to generate more discussion points. After the focus group discussion the participants were asked to complete an action step which involved each participant writing a brief letter to Auntie Stella (which could be anonymous) regarding a particular issue that they, or someone they knew, were facing on campus due to their sexual orientation . These letters provided further insights into the participants’
experiences.
To assist the data analysis process the focus group was recorded with an audio recorder, with participants’ permission (Appendix 11). This was to ensure the researcher captured the participants’ use of language, expression and tone of voice. Although audio recording provides a good record of data, a limitation is that it can be intrusive for participants (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). However, all of the participants agreed to the recording of the discussion and the audio recorder was placed in a discreet location within the venue to record the participants’ discussions clearly without being intrusive.