RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
4.2 The case study: The Distribution Division
4.3.2 Quantitative Research
4.3.3.1 Key informant interviews
169 4.3.3 Qualitative research
In addition to the use of quantitative surveys and secondary sources, this study engaged in primary data analysis through the use of focus group discussions (Appendices 3 and 4) and a number of key informant interviews (Appendix 2). There are limitations in terms of time and costs in the collection of primary data. However, validation of the quantitative data collected and hence the minimisation of the margin of error is strongly influenced by the effort put into the collection of data from focus group surveys and from individual or group interviews (Flick, 2017; Hussein, 2015).
The qualitative approach in this study involved the use of focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Also, part of the qualitative technique was the open-ended questions that were included in the structured questionnaire which was discussed in the previous sub- section. Qualitative techniques are important to ensure triangulation and, according to Neuman (2011) and Silverman (2016), such methods expand the researcher’s understanding of the issues and maximises their confidence in the findings. Additionally, the data in text form is thorough, delicate, nuanced and related to the case study, key informant interviews and the focus group discussions.
170 4.3.3.2 Focus group discussions
A focus group is a collection of between six to twelve individuals, who meet to discuss a specific topic that has been set by a researcher (Clifford et al., 2010). This is underscored by Carey and Asbury (2016) who claim that focus group discussions are also viewed as group dialogues that are directed by a researcher with a group of people with similar interests or concerns, to discover more information about a particular subject. Additionally, a focus group must be planned properly with the objective of obtaining insights from participants on a particular (focused) topic in an amicable and safe setting. Essentially, a focus group is small enough for everyone to have a chance to talk and large enough to provide diversity of opinions (Silverman, 2016).
According to Carey and Asbury (2016), some of the advantages of focus group discussions include:
• an opportunity to observe and motivate much engagement on a specific topic in a limited period of time by providing rich information and direct evidence regarding similarities and differences in participants’ opinions and experiences; and
• multiple viewpoints are obtained in a short period of time as compared to individual interviews.
Some of the disadvantages of focus group discussions, according to Krueger and Casey (2014), and Stewart and Shamdasani (2014) include:
• increased costs in setting up meetings, for example costs for venue, travel, meals and per diem of participants;
• time-consuming, as participants will have to schedule time off their diaries to attend or to travel to the meeting venue;
• facilitator can influence the outcomes (interviewer effect);
• some respondents could be reserved or overwhelmed by other dominant speakers or even readily agree with the group without expressing their personal view;
• invasion of privacy as one of the objectives is to understand the thinking behind the responses; and
• researchers need to be skilled, to manage all comments and inputs objectively and completely.
171
By understanding these disadvantages, and preparing well, it is possible to limit the potential disadvantages. For this study, some of the identified disadvantages were addressed as follows:
• Eskom venues were used for the meetings which did not involve any costs;
• no meals or per diem were provided to participants;
• focus meetings were limited to a maximum of two hours to minimise the time of the participants;
• the facilitator encouraged all participants to participate and controlled the discussions to allow everyone to provide their inputs; and
• a guideline was provided to all participants at the start of the focus group discussions, to assure participants of the confidentiality of their inputs, to motivate open discussions from everybody and discourage any domineering participants (Appendix 4).
The focus group discussions were facilitated by the researcher to discuss climate change learning in the Distribution Division. The focus group discussions were held in English during May and June 2016, in three OUs, namely WCOU, KZNOU and GOU. The three focus group discussions comprised of a total of twenty-four individuals from a range of departments in Eskom and eleven individuals external to Eskom such as UNEP, Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA), Pegasys (a strategic management consultancy), City of Cape Town, eThekwini Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs, National Cleaner Production Centre of South Africa (NCPC-SA) and Management of Applied Green Initiatives and Concepts (M.A.G.I.C.).
M.A.G.I.C is an innovative cooperative structure which covers the fields of sustainable development and focuses on the public sector constituency.
The three focus group discussions consisted of eighteen female adult representatives and seventeen male adult participants of different age categories. A schedule of guidelines, questions and activities were developed to guide the focus group sessions. The focus group schedule was aligned to the survey questionnaire and issues were further explored during the discussions. Participants were also provided guidelines on the process to be followed, as well as assured of the confidentiality of the discussions. This is consistent with Krueger and Casey (2014) and Then et al. (2014) who emphasise the importance of assuring participants of the
172
ethical considerations taken by the researcher including what is expected of the participants in terms of respecting the views of each other by ensuring that personal details and potentially sensitive material are not discussed outside the context of the group.
In this study, the discussion included attitudes to life and environmental issues, options for managing climate change, responsibility and trust for climate change actions and information, and the Distribution Division’s climate change programme and environmental strategies. For two of the important themes in the survey, participants identified a wide range of options for what they considered the most important issues for society at present and in what format they preferred information on climate change from the Distribution Division, to help them decide what they should do about climate change. The wide range of options needed to be prioritised so that decisions could be made on which are the most important issues for society and best format for climate change information to influence the recommendations in this study.
Pairwise ranking as suggested by Eriksson (2013) and Hansen and Ombler (2008) was used during the focus group discussions to prioritise the issues and formats, as it is a structured way to rank a large number of issues in a group.
A pairwise ranking matrix was developed for the key issues for the focus group discussions on two main themes, namely, the most important issues for society at present and in what format respondents preferred information on climate change from the Distribution Division.
Taking into consideration the views and responses from all three focus group discussions, each issue was compared against the other issue to determine which was more important.
This process was repeated for all twelve issues until all possible comparisons had been made and a matrix was completed. The number of times an issue had been found to be more important, was measured by counting the number of times its number appeared in the matrix.
The issues that appeared most were ranked high (a value of 1), and those that appeared the least were ranked low (a value of 12).