Chapter 4: Results and Discussion
4.1. Introduction
The focus group discussions worked well as the participants engaged fully with the topics under discussion. This is partly attributed to the fact that the participatory exercise (Tree of Life exercise, see Appendix E) was done individually, while contemplating their own role and life circumstances; followed by sharing of this experience firstly with one other member of the group, then in small groups, and finally, with the larger group. This worked to effectively build rapport and create a sense of freedom of expression, commonality of experience and allow for dissenting voices to be heard. This also enabled full discussion and participation. It was therefore believed that the process served the purpose well. The CCG participants valued the opportunity to air their views and engage with the topic about the way in which they experience their work and to discuss the contributions that they believe they can make to better the life of the children, families and communities with whom they work.
In some ways, however, this led to a slight drift away from the focus on only concerns and motivations, yet it enhanced a general understanding of the work of CCGs and their passionate concern for holistic and sustainable care for children, families and communities became evident.
It was difficult to differentiate between particular themes as so much of what was discussed was highly interrelated. The CCG participants were ardent about their work and the well- being of the children in the communities from which they themselves emanate. Their strong identification with the children, families and communities was a strong motivator and driver for quality and sustainable care. However, for the sake of clarity, various topics are identified and discussed individually: holistic care for children, families and communities, dilemmas posed through funding cycles, and the factors that contributed to their initially becoming involved in community care giving, and the factors that sustain their involvement in such work (See Diagram 4.1). These themes emerged from the thematic analysis of the transcripts of the focus group discussions, as well as from the participatory exercises.
Although the research questions posed a distinction between motivations and concerns, it was apparent that there was a very strong connection between the motivations and concerns such that it became clear that the participants were intra-psychically balancing issues that both
concerned and motivated them.
holistic needs of children with whom they work.
demonstrated throughout this chapter as the main findings are presented and discussed in relation to the literature.
The themes are diagrammatically represented in Diagram 4.1 and Diagram 4.2 below provide the reader with an overview of the results before the more specific details are presented. The dominant themes of the study
themes are discussed. Diagram 4.2 identifies specific issues that were raised and although there are four topics listed under concerns one can also consider these concerns as areas in which the CCGs believe that they could make contributions to enhance th
provided to children, families, and communities and make better use of the funding that comes into the country for OVC.
Diagram 4.1: Overview of major interconnected findings in this study
To maintain confidentiality, the participant’s names will not be mentioned. The male participants will be referred to as male participant one (M1), male participant two (M2), and so on. Likewise, the female participants will be referred to as female participant one (F1) female participant two (F2), and so on. However, it is important to note that it is often unclear which participant spoke. In these cases, the participant is referred to as participant (M) or (F).
During the discussions, the name of the NGO
actual name of the NGO has been substituted with pseudonyms.
Dilemmas posed through
funding agendas and
cycles
Indeed, they were passionately concerned about meeting the holistic needs of children with whom they work. These internal balancing processes will be demonstrated throughout this chapter as the main findings are presented and discussed in
are diagrammatically represented in Diagram 4.1 and Diagram 4.2 below provide the reader with an overview of the results before the more specific details are
ant themes of the study are presented in Diagram 4.1 and each of these Diagram 4.2 identifies specific issues that were raised and although there are four topics listed under concerns one can also consider these concerns as areas in which the CCGs believe that they could make contributions to enhance the quality of care provided to children, families, and communities and make better use of the funding that comes into the country for OVC.
: Overview of major interconnected findings in this study
nfidentiality, the participant’s names will not be mentioned. The male participants will be referred to as male participant one (M1), male participant two (M2), and he female participants will be referred to as female participant one (F1) female participant two (F2), and so on. However, it is important to note that it is often unclear which participant spoke. In these cases, the participant is referred to as participant (M) or (F).
During the discussions, the name of the NGOs are often mentioned. In these instances the actual name of the NGO has been substituted with pseudonyms.
Holistic care for children, families
and communities
Dilemmas posed through
funding agendas and
cycles
Factors that impact on
CCG involvement
•2 Levels
• Factors that lead CCGs into the field
•Factors that susutain their involvement in this
work
50 nately concerned about meeting the These internal balancing processes will be demonstrated throughout this chapter as the main findings are presented and discussed in
are diagrammatically represented in Diagram 4.1 and Diagram 4.2 below to provide the reader with an overview of the results before the more specific details are are presented in Diagram 4.1 and each of these Diagram 4.2 identifies specific issues that were raised and although there are four topics listed under concerns one can also consider these concerns as areas in e quality of care provided to children, families, and communities and make better use of the funding that
nfidentiality, the participant’s names will not be mentioned. The male participants will be referred to as male participant one (M1), male participant two (M2), and he female participants will be referred to as female participant one (F1), female participant two (F2), and so on. However, it is important to note that it is often unclear which participant spoke. In these cases, the participant is referred to as participant (M) or (F).
ntioned. In these instances the
51 In presenting the results, the following abbreviations will be used:
M: male participant F: female participant
R: researcher (facilitator of the focus group) FG1: focus group one
FG2: focus group two
(…): An ellipse is used to indicate that the participant’s response is incomplete, or the transcriber could not clearly hear what the participant was saying as the participant’s response ended in a mumble, or in someone else taking over the conversation
Diagram 4