Chapter 3: Research design and methodology
3.6 Data Collection
3.6.4 Focus group discussion
A focus group discussion occurs where participants interact with one another over a topic provided by the researcher leading to a collective view. Data emerge from this interaction (Cohen et al., 2011). It is “a way of listening to people and learning from them” (Morgan, 1998, p. 9). The purpose is to get a range of views and a varied understanding of issues
49
around a given topic from the perception of the participants themselves (Hennink, 2007).
Participants engage and work in a synergistic effort producing large amounts of data within a short space of time which might not have emerged from a one-on-one interview.
Literature has differing views on the acceptable number of participants eligible to form a focus group. Barbour (2007, p. 60) proposes that “it is perfectly possible to hold a focus group discussion with three or four participants”. She ascribes this to the challenge of identifying individual voices, seeking clarification and further exploring differences in views in larger groups with a maximum of eight participants. On the other hand, Cohen et al. (2011) recommend between four to twelve participants, while Alasuutari et al., (2008) suggest between six to twelve participants. This is also dictated by the layout and size of the room which also impacts on the capacity to record the conversation. In this connection, Alasuutari et al. (2008) argue that though literature recommends up to twelve participants, it can be impossible for all members to turn up at the same time for discussion. They further contend that the larger the group, the greater the likelihood for some participants to remain silent for the entire duration of the discussion, while smaller groups yield better environments for all participants to play an active role, thus providing relevant and interesting data. Morgan (1998) proposes that for the focus group to be successful, the topic must be interesting and be within the participants’ ability to discuss.
Participants also need to feel that their views will be respected by group members. The researcher who is termed the moderator, is advised to skilfully prompt participants to speak and stay on the topic while promoting thinking and reflection. Focus groups allow researchers to pick up differences of opinion among participants where they reject or embrace certain ideas. Barbour (2007) supports this and argues that focus group members may not necessarily agree on everything, as this may lead to a dull discussion causing the data to lack richness. A little bit of argument can steer the discussion towards eliciting what lies beneath the said ideas enabling the participants to clarify their standpoints leading to a mutual understanding. To this, Maree (2007) adds that in a focus group discussion, debates and conflicts are encouraged and assist in generating more data.
Morgan (1998) is of the view that participants in a focus group benefit because they get to understand how other people handle the situation they find themselves in, as new ideas may arise. Hennink (2007) substantiates this point and posits that participants can then build on what other group members contributed, thus showing diversity of ideas among
50
themselves. This then impacts on the quality of data as a range of issues can be covered within a short space of time (Chilisa & Preece, 2005). The reaction and comments of other group members lead to the refinement of the issues raised.
A focus group discussion was employed when collecting data at Endleleni centre. I intended to have between five and six men, however conditions were not favourable as most men were absent on that day. I ended up with only three men, two from Level 2 and one from Level 4. Ritchie and Lewis (in Alasuutari et al., 2008) maintain that if there are less than four participants in a focus group, the qualities of being a focus group could be lost. It was for this reason that I decided to refer to it as a group discussion.
The group engaged in a discussion on the experiences of men in this centre. I was fortunate that the men willingly gave their views on the situation of male participation generally at Endleleni centre. I assigned name badges to participants for purposes of courtesy and also not to confuse their names (Barbour, 2007). Guiding topics and questions assisted in keeping the discussion going and enabled men to stay on the point. Cohen et al., (2011) and Stewart et al. (2007) caution about other participants dominating during the focus group discussion and I witnessed that at Endleleni.
Advantages of group discussion
In my study, the group discussion was very economical on time, producing large amounts of data within a short space of time. Men shared and discussed ideas collectively bringing in their own perspectives. Even shy and less-educated participants were encouraged to voice their opinions, feeling comfortable to speak in the company of people they were familiar with (Cohen et al., 2011).
Disadvantages of group discussion
During group discussion, I noticed that one man was vocal and tried to dominate the discussion thus denying the less articulate participants voice and making them more passive. I had to intervene and requested him to give other men the opportunity to air their views, as this would otherwise have caused data to lack reliability (Cohen et al., 2011).
51 Ethical issues in group discussion
Following the recommendation by Maree (2007), during my initial visit at Endleleni, I created a healthy rapport with the participants which encouraged them to express their views fully and honestly.
To guarantee confidentiality of the discussion, from the outset, I familiarised my participants with the rules which included respect for each other’s opinions and not to repeat what had been said (Chilisa & Preece, 2005). I was also careful against raising personal and sensitive topics (Hennink, 2007). I stayed away from topics that would embarrass them or cause them emotional harm, such as labelling them by asking questions like “What makes you so dumb and fail to understand the teacher in class?”
Ethical issues and potential risks to confidentiality were continually assessed at Endleleni centre and participants were advised not to share the content of the discussion with others who were not part of the group. Because I was dealing with older men, I tried to be sensitive to cultural issues including their language (Hennink, 2007).