4.4 Research paradigm and design
4.4.1 Focus group discussions
Focus group discussion (FGD) is a method of collecting qualitative data which often involves engaging a relatively small group of people in an informal discussion centred on a specific topic (Wilkinson, 2011). The use of FDGs as a data collection tool in social research is a firmly established tradition within the ambit of the qualitative paradigm hence it resonates with the current study design. While Wilkinson (2011) regards the FGD an informal discussion, this interaction is not necessarily a haphazard platform for exchanging views and sharing lived or daily experiences. Instead, it is the normal practice in qualitative research to have a moderator steering the discussion in a particular direction to solicit salient views or capture experiences
79
relevant to fulfilling the research objectives (Polkinghorne, 2005). In the current study, focus group discussions were guided by an interview guide and a moderator, hence the researcher argues that it cannot be “an informal discussion” as suggested by Wilkinson (2011).
Moderating an FGD requires skill since the quality of data collected is largely dependent on researcher competence (Harding, 2013; Polkinghorne, 2005). The researcher as a key instrument in qualitative research (Kvale, 1996; Patton, 1990) had to familiarise himself with the intricacies of social research, and ultimately master the requisite skills to conduct FGDs. The goal was to yield rich and thick data that could adequately answer the study’s research questions. Fusch and Ness (2015) describe richness and thickness of data through a binary of quality and quantity, respectively. The current study sought to elicit both rich and thick data through exploiting the group dynamics characteristic of FGDs.
The group context enriches the data because participants directly question one another, seek further clarification and react to what they would have heard such that they unwittingly reveal more in terms of their individual perspectives. According to Krueger and Casey (2000), the FGD, by comparison to the individual interview presents a more natural environment because of group dynamics which operate in a manner reminiscent of the interactions in real life. Owing to this, focus groups are therefore synergistic (Stewart & Shamdasi, 1990) and the interaction of group members serves to generate the required data. This study sought to harness group dynamics to enrich the data and adequately answer the key research questions. Morgan and Krueger (1993) dismiss the myth that people are reluctant to discuss sensitive issues in group environments. Instead, they attest that FGDs have often enhanced frank and fulsome discussions.
FGDs were ideal for this study in several ways. They are an effective qualitative technique, often praised for enabling participants to exercise a considerable degree of control
80
over their own interactions (Morgan, 1996). Therefore, FGDs do not only enhance the Freirean process of raising consciousness (conscientisation), but also facilitate dialogue and member interaction which culminates into active co-construction of knowledge and meanings. If properly moderated, group interactions lead to deeper insight into why particular opinions are held (Krueger, 1988).
The researcher also chose FGDs not only because the group environment provides support to individuals within the group which promotes greater openness in participants’
responses (Green & Hogan, 2005; Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996), but also due to the nature of the topic under scrutiny. The study aimed at soliciting learners’ views regarding a combination approach including VMMC and condoms to mitigate HIV incidence among in- school adolescents, hence a diversity of views was being sought. Thus, FGDs were selected out of necessity since the researcher wanted to afford participants an opportunity to question each other’s convictions in a naturalistic milieu. Because FGDs are group in-depth interviews, they were an appropriate tool since they enable participants to question each other’s frames of reference on the subject of interest (Finch & Lewis, 2003), which often results in the extraction of rich and thick data that illuminates the research problem.
There is no consensus regarding the ideal number of participants in each FGD. Practical factors such as the moderator’s level of competence and the complexity of the discussion often determine the size of an FGD (Harding, 2013). Although FGDs typically consist of seven to ten participants, anything within the range of four to twelve is acceptable (Krueger, 1988). In principle, FGD participants should be homogenous, and preferably strangers (Krueger, 1988;
Morgan, 1988). For Krueger, “the rule for selecting focus group participants is commonality, not diversity” (1988, p.26). Furthermore, Barbour (2007) recommends that a guiding principle in the selection of participants is that homogeneity of interest must prevail among group members, meaning that participants ought to have something in common, but obviously not in
81
terms of their views. Disagreement is acceptable and may be a significant demonstration of the strength characterising participants’ convictions (Harding, 2013).
In terms of group composition, boys and girls had separate focus groups. The rationale behind single-sex groups was to mitigate the broader dynamics of gender power (Tonkiss, 2012). By comparison, students placed in sex-segregated groups are more comfortable and openly discuss sensitive topics than those in mixed groups (Neuman, 2014; Peek & Fothergill, 2009). A total of seven FGDs were conducted in this study, with the aim to reach theme saturation. Theme saturation was achieved at the third school. Four FGDs were conducted with boys while three FGDs had girls, and each group had six to eight purposively selected participants. Among the boys, FGDs comprised both the medically circumcised the uncircumcised, or yet to be circumcised and culturally circumcised. The rationale behind including girls in the study was to explore their understanding of the role played by VMMC in HIV prevention, and to elicit their views regarding the broad topic of HIV combination prevention.
Participants were adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 years, and while they were schoolmates, effort was made to avoid selecting friends, and or relatives to participate in one focus group. Ideally, total strangers make the best of FGD participants (Finch & Lewis, 2003;
Krueger, 1988). FGDs conducted with strangers facilitate both open questioning and disclosure (Finch & Lewis, 2003), which ultimately culminates into realising rich and thick data.
Several authors caution that an FGD must not be too small as this may render the desire to generate meaning such a difficult task (Harding, 2013). Group size must not be too big either, since the moderator must afford all the participants an opportunity to adequately contribute to the salient issues (Krueger, 1988). In this study, the researcher aimed at ensuring that FGD participants felt a sense of being valued. Doing so was part of the broad aim of creating a
82
permissive environment to foster both openness and tolerance for diversity of perceptions.
While conducting several FGDs can be quite strenuous, the fact that doing so adds rigour to the findings can be rewarding. Furthermore, it is unlikely that patterns established in the findings may be due to unrepresentative views of the individual participants or the researcher’s misinterpretations of contributions by participants (Barbour, 2007).