A semi-structured process of Focused Group activities was used for the respondents to share their collective experience around institutions, structure and processes. The activities were held between 4th July to 8th September 2016. At Dseme and Maga, sessions were held at the community primary centre, while the assembly of Kanya and Shengel were held at the community primary school.
Four focus groups were conducted, one for each community. The procedure was accomplished with the researcher and the team members responsible for explaining each part of the process to participants, guiding group participation and discussion and recording information (some part of the discussion were explained to respondents in Hausa to suit the English proficiency of individual respondents).
50
For each focus group, a 1st session was carried out in the morning, and a 2nd part was done in the evening. Each session lasted 3 – 4 hours. Figure 4.2 demonstrates the logic of this process.
Figure 4.2 The Focus Group Logic
4.2.1 Participatory learning and discussion
The main objective of Session 1 (Figure 4.2) was engaging the participants to reflect on their livelihood both within the household and the community level and to expose them to the understanding of sustainable livelihood terminology and concepts. The process is described in detail in Appendix 10. The process was carried out with the researcher and his team explaining each part of the process to the participants to ensure focus on the themes and recording the information. The group analysis record followed the sequence described in Appendix 10. The first learning process or exercise was a timeline, identification of positive and negative activities related to the project, economic activities related to livelihood in the project, followed by the drawing of a map and poster and finally, Venn diagrams. At the beginning of each of these discussions,
previously completed tasks were displayed on the ground as reminders of previous information.
At the end of Session 1, facilitators collected all of the records of the participatory learning exercises to be use for Session 2, the discussion for a livelihood analysis summary. During focus group activity learning occurred almost constantly as members in each community interacted with their appointed tasks and discussed with each other and the facilitating team. The members shared ideas and identified institutions and structures that had an influence on their livelihood strategies.
The learning process also exposes members to visualizing their future.
4.2.2 Focus group discussion for livelihood analysis summary
For the Session 2 summative activity, the researcher and the facilitators again guided a group discussion. A single data collection tool, the group livelihood analysis record was adapted from DFID Sustainable Livelihood Framework (Figure 4.3). A big sheet of paper was made available for each focus group in the four communities studied. Each meeting of the focus group began with the recollection of previous learning activities conducted. Timelines, positive and negative as well as economic activities related to livelihood in the project, maps, posters and Venn diagrams were all presented in the meeting venue of each community as a reminder to earlier findings.
52
Figure 4.3 Sustainable livelihood record framework for the communities in Danko/Wasagu, adapted from (Caister, 2005)
The group summary record was placed in front of the circles by the facilitator for the members to focus their attention and record decisions on the relationship between previous learning exercises and the group summary sheet. Discussion was encouraged by progressively responding and clarifying issues and responded to queries and debates on issues and ideas raised from the Timelines, discussions, maps, posters and diagrams already conducted. Gradually a consensus occurred and was recorded on the group summary sheet. The raw data from these analysis records are presented in Appendix 10. The focus group discussion process allowed the participants to share their experience and understand their livelihood as a system and further understand external and internal factors influencing their livelihood activities. The knowledge gained would help in the future planning of these communities (beyond the scope of this study) which would serve as a visioning. The summary was recorded by the researcher and the team members.
4.2.3 Data treatment and analysis for the focus group
Information from four (4) group livelihood analysis was recorded in Excel spreadsheet by the researcher. The Excel entries and the original group livelihood sheets were compared by the researcher for any error. The completion of full textual and coded versions of the responses for each category of the sustainable livelihood framework followed. The results of all the four focus group are presented in the appendix for ease of comparison as thus: Appendix: 13, Summary of livelihood strategies; Appendix: 14, Summary of perceived transforming structures and processes;
Appendix: 15, Summary of livelihood resources and Appendix: 16, Summary of vision.
Summarised data of these raw data are available in chapter 5. The data analysis for focus group in this study involved qualitative approach that examine meaningful and symbolic content of qualitative data. The approach helps in understanding the relationships between emerging themes/patterns through qualitative inferences which were identified, and also in discussing the similarities and differences that corroborate or contradict the findings used in this study. Also, the contents of the discussion and field notes were reviewed to identify the emerging concepts, constructs and themes. They were subsequently analysed according to their themes and recurring patterns of meanings and relationships (Cohen et al., 2007).
After the field visit which include focus group discussion with the beneficiaries of the CSDP, the next source of information that provided data for analysis was the extraction of CSDP survey data bank. Focus group data through the participatory interaction with respondents focuses on rural livelihoods strategies where the participants make used of assets and activities to construct a living.
However, these efforts are constraint because of poor infrastructure, functioning markets, lack of credit facilities, modern technology and social welfare services (Onyeiwu & Liu, 2011). The Focus group also identifies the influence CSDP had on livelihood vulnerability of the participants. The CSDP survey data bank informed on the demographic characteristic of the individuals used in this study. Also, it provided information on income characteristics, focuses on identifying how access to assets influences outcome and vulnerability.