There is a large body of literature advising on how to establish trust and rapport with research respondents (see for example Bhana, 2005; Creswell, 2006; Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2006;
New South Wales (NSW) Commission for Learners and Young People, 2005; MacNaughton 2000; 2004), including spending time with them, doing things they would like to do, making the purpose of the research clear to them and taking a sincere and an interested attitude to what they say and do. This I did with my 12 respondents.
The first time I met with the girls, I asked them to seat themselves casually on the carpet. At this point I noticed that within the larger group there was an affinity to form groups within the group. I let this be. This proved to be a wise move as I discovered that the girls had their cliques. I found that in letting them chose their own groups, I was afforded insider knowledge as the focus group discussions progressed. However, I also observed that the respondents
96
from the townships formed their own group, and the respondents who lived in the
imijondolos formed theirs. My first thought was that even in poverty there are levels of class:
the respondents from the townships were advantaged; they had stronger homes, travelled in taxis to school, socialised with peers after school, and so forth, unlike the respondents who lived in the imijondolos who had no electricity, no running water inside their homes, shared communal toilets, and lived in fragile homes. However, I eventually formed two focus groups, as it allowed me to more time to explore their experiences.
The focus group discussion was also an ideal choice because it created an atmosphere which fostered talk, debate and argument amongst the girls. I engaged in an open-ended design which allowed the girls more freedom to speak of their own experiences and use their own language in ways that were meaningful to them. In this way, the group narratives and conversations moved in new and exciting directions, something which I had not anticipated.
When this happens, as Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2014) point out, the resulting data is directly grounded in the girls’ experiences as they perceive them. Lederman (1990) also found that groups give rise to rich conversations and are dynamic and unpredictable. In my study the group dynamic started to create a story of the girls’ constructions of their gendered and sexual identities, and their experiences of sexual violence and sexual harassment, which was underscored by their investment in heterosexuality within their school.
I conducted the focus group discussions in a variety of settings. Sometimes we used the school hall, which worked very well as we had our privacy and were not disturbed by the heavy traffic from the main road. There were times when the girls elected to engage in their sessions on the school playground. This choice of venue also worked well as the girls were at ease, happy and friendly as we engaged in our discussions. At other times we had to use a classroom, and this did not work as well as we were constantly disturbed by traffic,
announcements over the PA system, and people knocking on the door–interruptions which did nothing to facilitate discussion. I believe these sessions were also unsuccessful because the classroom is a formal setting, with learners’ tables and chairs, the teacher’s table, learning charts on the walls, the chalkboard, books and behaviour rules stuck on the walls.
The open format we adopted in the focus group discussions allowed me to gage what the group placed most importance and emphasis on. I also found that by interfering as little as possible, the girls shaped the categories and concepts they used to understand their
97
experiences themselves. The group discussions were challenging and always interesting. The girls were vocal, exuberant and argumentative, and healthy, robust conversations prevailed.
Rather than creating a more structured conversation in which all the girls had equal speaking time, I allowed the group dynamics to lead the conversations. Inevitably some girls
dominated the conversation whilst the others spoke less freely. Usually I allowed the
conversation to flow, but sometimes I intervened to ensure the conversation stayed on track.
There were occasions when tensions within the group were palpable: I could hear the girls’
sniggers and the tone of their responses when they did not approve of or disagreed with what was being said. There were also times when rivalry between the girls erupted into
confrontations. This came to the fore when Thiele disclosed that Mandisa’s boyfriend had said that he loved her. It was an uncomfortable moment for all of us.
Some of girls considered themselves to be more ‘with it’, meaning that they were more popular with the boys. In instances like these, I had to control the flow of the conversation and redirect the questioning to the other girls. The girls responded to each other in these group settings, contesting and agreeing, producing dynamic interactions. By giving them the space to express themselves, the girls ran with the conversation and provided rich, thick descriptions and explanations of their social life, and of their experiences of sexual violence and sexual harassment. The group discussions were a profound experience for the girls and for me. They gave the girls a voice, and they allowed me into their social world, forcing me to acknowledge both their agency and the unjust realities that they face in school. In doing so, I found myself reflecting on my schooling experiences (see Preface, p. x).
The focus group discussions also proved useful for identifying the language, definitions and concepts that the girls found meaningful as they navigated through their daily life experiences (Krueger, 1994). Sometimes, the girls spoke in isiZulu and I could not understand. Then they would provide a richly detailed explanation of the term that had been used and its
significance. For example, in one session Mpho (a participant) said “Lento emnyama engathi yinyama eshile, asigcwali ngawe!” and the girls explained: “It means you are black meat – like burnt meat – you are ugly, we don’t love you.” The implication was that girls with darker skin were not as attractive.
In our final focus group discussions interviews, I focused the discussion on the girls’
teachers, and they spoke of their experiences in the classroom, about feeling embarrassed,
98
insulted and about their experiences of verbal abuse from their teachers. We spoke about some of the incidents and we shared laughter after their indignation had passed. This was a positive experience for me as an educator as, while I could not divulge the conversation to other educators without comprising the girls, I knew that I could address the verbal and
emotional abuse of learners at a professional development workshop with the collective staff.
By engaging in focus group discussions, I developed a closeness with the girls that allowed me to gain a deep sense of their sadness when they spoke. Campbell et al (2010) describes this emotional bonding as emanating when the researcher forges a closeness and responds to the respondents as disclosures of experiences emerge. Lofland (1990) suggests that this is done “not by just listening to what they talk about but to pick up on their minor grunts and groans as they respond to the situation” (Lofland 1995:45). Lederman (1995) states that focus group discussions are dynamic and unpredictable and eventually tell a story. I experienced this unpredictability and I could see a story emerging as the girls voiced their experiences.
Through their narratives, I sensed their vulnerabilities, yet I also sensed their resistance to being cast as victims. I continually reflected on my relationship with the girls and how we had managed to overcome, to some degree, the teacher-learner relationship because here they were, talking to me about my colleagues without being scared. I thought that this was
wonderful and reflected the trust that has been established–both the trust between peers, and the trust between me and the girls.
I agree with Vaus (2001:211) that the benefits of combining focus group discussions and individual interviews are abundant. I used both methods because the research question required both breadth and depth. However, while the focus group discussions generated a greater range of responses in a shorter period of time, I found that the in-depth, individual interviews provided greater depth and afforded the respondents greater privacy. I had no specific agenda for the individual interviews and used them more as a follow up to the focus group discussions. In the individual interviews, I noticed that the girls were quieter and more serious. I found that these interviews yielded data that were intimately shaped by the data gathered during the group discussions, and that the two methods interacted and complimented each other, producing richer data. To begin as interview I would either pick up on particular marker I had noted during the group discussions, or I would ask the participant to tell me a bit more about herself, or about her boyfriend. I looked for patterns that emerged as the girls talked of their experiences of sexual harassment, in order to verify responses from the group
99
discussions and to identify specific parts of a narrative to explore. One of the greatest challenge for me was when Azande told me during an individual interview that she had had sexual relations with an older male who was ‘twenty something’. This again raised the ethical dilemmas that were never far from my study. In Chapter 7, I explain in detail the ethical issues that surfaced and my response.