4.7 CONSIDERING DATA GENERATION
4.7.1 In-depth semi-structured interviews
In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with the 16 participants in order to understand their experiences of gender in their schooling contexts. Semi-structured interviews were chosen for their potential to provide flexibility and to allow the researcher space to probe for more information, where necessary. “Semi-structured interviews are sometimes referred to as guided interviews as they allow the researcher to develop the area of inquiry during the interview.” (Patton, 2002, p. 40). The fact that semi-structured interviews are generally organised around a predetermined set of open-ended questions allows the researcher space for other questions to emerge from the dialogue between the interviewer and the interviewee (Dicicco- Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). In other words, semi-structured interviews provide a useful opportunity for interviewer or researcher to obtain better access to the experiences, perceptions and views of participants. However, it is crucial to take cognisance of the fact that the very process of interviewing allows the researcher to assume a disproportionate control of the process (Henning, 2004).
Therefore, according to Henning (2004), an interview is a contrived social interaction, that is steeped in unequal power relations, and is likely to be biased towards the researcher who has conceptualised the process from beginning to end. This is evident in the prefix “semi-” in semi- structured interviews, which suggests that although participants may have some control, the
117 control of the interview largely lies with the researcher (ibid). Therefore, based on this understanding, the researcher endeavoured to give up and share some of her power by inviting participants to serve as co-directors of the process. This was largely achieved by ensuring a generous amount of questions were open-ended, and that the participants were afforded freedom to express themselves in their own terms.
In order to ensure confidentiality and to afford each participant space to talk freely without the interference and influence from other participants, each participant was interviewed individually.
Interviews were conducted after school on the playground for the duration of 20 to 35 minutes, a
“standard time for individual interviews” (Naidoo, 2012, p. 85), the length depending on the understanding of the questions and length of responses. Participants sat facing the direction of the researcher in order to allow the researcher access to the participants‟ body language, which assisted in deepening and enriching the process of data generation. In order to ensure that participants did not have to struggle with framing their responses in a language with which they were unfamiliar, they were allowed to express themselves in a language in which they were most comfortable. All participants chose to express themselves in isiZulu and questions were also asked in isiZulu (see Appendix E).
Before beginning with the actual interview, I clarified the structure and procedure of the interview to the participants in order to ensure that they had some idea of what to expect. The rationale for doing this was to ensure that participants were relaxed. During the individual interview session, I had to constantly assure them of anonymity and confidentiality. All interviews were sound taped (with the participants‟ consent) and transcribed verbatim.
118 4.7.2 Gender-based focus group interviews
I conducted gender-based focus group and photo voice data collection with four groups (two groups of girls = nine girls, five from Isibaya Primary and four from uZalo Primary; two groups of boys = seven boys, three from Isibaya Primary and four from uZalo Primary). Gender-based focus group interviews were purposefully done. Each girl and boy had a chance to comment and asks questions to other participants or responds to questions and comments on experiences of gender made by others, who are of the same gender. I chose the gender- based focus interviews to encourage exchange in order to comprehend the elements of masculinities and femininities.
GBFGIs were utilized to supplement the individual interviews. Both techniques analysed the experiences of gender from girls and boys own particular viewpoints, as far as the implications they attached to them and the way they make sense of gendered spaces and places (Bhana &
Nzimakwe, 2000; Morojele, 2011a). Each of the four gender-based groups of between three to eight members was interviewed two times for the purpose of enhancing constant reflection on the girls‟ and boys‟ own and other views. It also ensured the validity of the design used in the study by establishing it as a tool for obtaining credible data (Krefting, 2002). Each group interview was held for an average of 90-120 minutes to enable sufficient coverage of the gender-based focus group interview and give each girl and a boy a chance to express a view (see Appendix H).
The main concerns raised in the individual interviews formed the basis for discussions in the GBFGI. My main aim was to fortify and streamline the answers that had been less attended to during the individual interviews but that would be easy for girls and boys to talk about in the
119 gender-based focus group. I made every effort to respect and identify each girl‟s and boy‟s experiences of gender. This was done to increase the quality of data generated (MacMillan &
Schumacher, 2006).