4.7 Data Generation
4.7.3 Focus Group Discussions
77
78
2020; Vaportzis et al., 2017). However, over time, researchers in health and medicine and conservation research, among others, have since adopted FGD as a preferred research approach (Nyumba et al., 2018; Folch-Lyon & Trost (1981). Folch-Lyon and Trost (1981) argued that FGD are especially resourceful because they expose underlying attitudes and beliefs about a topic in cases where the knowledge that is already existing is not sufficient for analysis or for concluding the study (Gammie, Hamilton & Gilchrist, 2017). My decision to engage the participants in FGD was influenced by the literature, which suggests that the FGD approach helps unearth attitudes that might not be consciously revealed during individual interviews (Wang, 2006; Wang, 1997). As scholars attest, participants tend to feel more comfortable discussing an issue with a researcher when surrounded by other participants who share similar opinions and experiences (Levinson, 2017; Nyumba, Wilson, Derrick, et al., 2018). Thus, in this study, FGDs were used to gauge participants' collective views and attitudes about the limited access to safely managed water in their community.
4.7.3.1. The Process of Generating Data through the use of FGD
In total, I held three FGD that consisted of two groups with same-sex participants (i.e., one female group and one male group) and one mixed-sex (i.e., included both male and female participants) group. Informed by existing research that advocates for separate sex FGD, I separated the participants into same-sex groups to reduce the chances of one group of participants feeling intimidated and silenced by others (Hennink, Kaiser & Weber, 2019).
Findings from available literature suggest that separating the participants along the lines of sex, gender, age, and other demographics improves their participation in the FGD (Sim &
Waterfield, 2019). Furthermore, informed by the second research question posed in this study (Do men and women in this rural community report different experiences and views about having limited access to safely managed water?), I constituted a third group made of both male and female participants. I envisioned that this FGD would help me generate data that answers whether or not men and women in eMdubezweni held similar or different views about water access challenges.
On a Tuesday, in late October 2019, I facilitated the first FGD. This was held in a nearby local primary school classroom, where the principal had permitted me to use school facilities. The
79
first FGD had ten female participants35. I had initially invited all the eleven female participants who were recruited for the study. However, one of them asked to be excused from the FGD for health-related reasons. Two hours after completing the first FGD, I constituted a second one comprising of all the six male participants recruited into the study. Due to time constraints, I only returned to facilitate the final FDG a day after the first FGD. The final FGD took place at the same venue, but I had only invited eight participants, made up of four men and four women.
For each data generating day, I provided the participants with refreshments (sandwiches, fruits, juice, and water).
In all the FGD, I assumed the role of a facilitator. The process for each FGD unfolded as follows. I arrived early at the venue to set up in preparation for each group. Once all the participants had arrived and settled into the venue, we sat on chairs in a horseshoe arrangement and held a brief discussion about our previous engagements (photovoice and in-depth interviews). Following this, I introduced the participants to an icebreaking activity. The icebreaker activity helped to facilitate a friendly environment within which we could commence our engagement. The icebreaker, in turn, assists in facilitating a comfortable environment for the participants (Norris, 2017; Beheshtian et al., 2020). Once the icebreaker was completed, I thanked everyone for participating in the discussions and asked them to sign a register. I then proceeded to remind everyone of the study’s background, its objectives, and the research questions I intended to address. Finally, I reassured them that anything they said in the FGD would be used for research purposes only, and their identities would be protected and not compromised in any way. I re-emphasised the issue of confidentiality among themselves as the participants and between them and me. I then invited them to use pseudonyms for audio recording the FGD. I also asked them to mention their pseudonym each time they talked during the group discussion (Hydén & Bülow, 2003). Finally, I re-read the consent form they had signed as an agreement for their study participation. In particular, I emphasised values such as mutual respect, empathy, and non-judgmental attitudes. This was to ensure that they remembered all ethical considerations that guided the research. The FGD started with the participants being asked to comment on what they thought about water service delivery in their community. Each FGD was transcribed and translated into English. There is a possibility that some meanings may have been lost in translation. For example, I recognised the possibility that the participants’ views, narratives, and descriptions might have been lost or
35 The adults who participated in the FGDs were the same 17 who were initially recruited for the study, and who had participated in both the photovoice and in-depth interview phases of data generation.
80
distorted in the translation process. To mitigate this possibility, I listened to the original audio recording several times and re-read the transcripts to be sure I had captured the participants’
narratives as accurately as possible. Moreover, I am a first language isiZulu speaker, and the analysis of transcripts relied heavily on my translation. At the end of each session (photovoice, interviews, and FGD), I thanked the participants for their willingness to participate and engage in the research.