5.6.1 INTERVIEWS
The qualitative methods that were employed in this study included in-depth individual interviews with youth participants and their parents/caregivers, and semi-structured and joint and individual interviews with service providers as reflected in Table 1. Fuchs and Ness (2015) point out that interviews can be used to reach the point of data saturation, but Rubin and Rubin (2011) argue that it was more than collecting data since it involved a way of seeing the world and an opportunity to learn from it. Qualitative interviews are open ended for the participants to express their perspective in their own words. Qualitative interviews vary in structure from informal conversational interviews to standardized open ended interviews (Rubin & Babbie, 2017). Rubin and Babbie (2017) mention that although highly structured interviews had such benefits as making data analysis easier and for the reader to judge the quality of the interview methods and instruments used, the natural conversations in these interviews are reduced. I, therefore, avoided the interview guide from becoming too structured by keeping the questions broad (for interview schedules, see Appendices 1, 2 and 3).
The interview schedules were similar for all participants and divided into two sections. The first section required biographical information to understand who the participants are. Section 2 are broad themes that extract information and are aligned to the objectives of the study.
Questions are broad, for example, youth were asked to share their life story and how you came to reside at the child and youth care centre. The probing questions that follow are to understand their experiences related to leaving and/or after leaving the CYCC, for example, “Tell me about who is involved in helping to prepare you for leaving the Child and Youth Care Centre? The interview schedule allowed for specific and similar probing of youth, family caregivers and service providers on the main domains which included support, accommodation, relationships (family, friends, youth and others), education /study, employment and financial status, Health and wellness, happiness of youth transitioning/transitioned of youth transitioning and transitioned out of care. The critical domains were informed by the literature review and verified with a care-leaver (not part a participant in the study). The family caregivers were also asked about their own coping on the identified domains. In some instances, participants related their experiences without the need for probing questions. The perspective of service providers on policies and programmes which facilitate and/or hinder youth in their transition out of CYCCs included a question on their planning, preparation and how decisions regarding the
108
actual transition process. They were also asked about programmes and policies that facilitate and/or hinder the youth transitioning out of CYCCS and/or their reintegration in the community life. All participants were given an opportunity to make recommendations. The service providers were asked to recommend on policies, programmes and services for youth who are transitioning and those youth you have transitioned out of CYCCS, whilst youth and family caregivers who were what would they like to see changed. In this way, sufficient information for cross referencing from a multi-perspective sample was possible for a deeper understanding of youth transitioning and transitioned out of CYCCs.
Process and Procedure for interviews
• In all the interviews, I introduced myself, discussed the research purpose again, reinforced confidentiality and their right to withdraw at any stage or not to respond or share information that they did not want to and that their participation was voluntary.
Informed consent forms were completed (see Appendices 5). The participants were also made aware that they could take breaks or ask questions during the interview.
• I ensured that the youth who had transitioned out that their family caregivers were informed that they were being interviewed even though they were of consenting age.
• All participants consented in writing to being audio recorded after I explained that listening to their words afterwards would help me to accurately capture what they were said They were informed that they had a right to refuse (see Appendix 6).
• Prior to audio taping each interview, the audio taping device was tested. The youth selected a pseudonym to ensure their anonymity in the reporting of the data.
• I completed a demographic sheet to obtain factual information about each participant.
• The semi-structured interview schedule was used in both the joint interviews and key informant interviews but was optional for the youth and parent/significant participant as they could choose how they wanted to tell their stories.
• I requested the opinions of both the social workers and CYCWs in the joint interviews.
In doing so, I heeded Barnard’s (2012) caution about the sharman effect (when someone with specialized information on the topic over-shadows the data). In this instance, it could be either the social worker or CYCW.
109
• I ensured that the participants were comfortable before, during and after the interviews, each of which was between 60 to 90 minutes.
• The key informants were the busiest people, so I had to be strategic about the use of time.
• All youth and family caregiver participants were debriefed, and I ensured that the two youths and two parents that I referred to their social workers for follow-up did receive assistance.
5.6.2 FOCUSGROUPSESSIONS
According to Fuchs and Ness (2015), a focus group comprises between six to twelve participants to elicit a number of perspectives on a given topic if one had a large enough pool to draw from. Fuchs and Ness (2015) found that some researchers conducted individual interviews and then a focus group. I commenced with the focus groups to understand the different perspectives, and followed up with joint interviews to seek clarity, and I conducted key informant individual interviews at the end to get further clarity and insights. As with interviews, the success of the focus group depends on the skill of the researcher.
Focus group interview: Process and procedure
I explained the process to be followed, confirmed the participants’ willingness to participate and that the written informed consent form, demographic sheet and consent to audio record was completed with the social worker’s focus group. The time constraints of the key informants (KI) focus group (held before their scheduled meeting) were respected and I, therefore, did not request the principals to complete the demographic sheet.
The ground rules were set, with the importance of maintaining confidentiality within the group being emphasized.
I used the key themes that were planned for the focus group which were the same as the interview schedules.
The dialogue among the group participants, which was characterized by mutual respect produced a free flow of rich, insightful data, which I captured through the tape recording and occasional notes.
110
5.6.3 OBSERVATIONS
To supplement the data obtained during the interviews and focus group, I used observation.
Observation provides a first-hand account of a situation under study, and when combined with interviewing and document analysis, it allows for a holistic interpretation of a phenomenon being investigated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through observation, the researcher is able to pick up information that participants do not necessarily share (Cohen et al., 2011). This involved the identification of verbal and non-verbal cues. Observation at CYCCs included the structure of the facilities, the accommodation of the youth, interaction amongst the staff, and between the staff and the youth. When home visits were conducted, the home circumstances, neighbourhood and interaction between family members and the youth were observed.
I was initially surprised that four youth participants reported they were not fluent in isiZulu and none of the participants required isiZulu interviews. I learnt through my observation that the youth were raised in westernized CYCCs, attended English medium schools and only three had residential social workers who spoke isiZulu, while the CYCWs were isiZulu speaking. My other observation was the youth at the CYCCs mixed use of English and isiZulu when interacting with each other. A CYCW discouraged, “zunglish”, and advised that the youth speak one of the two languages. A host foster father, a school principal, who preferred an English interview explained that since the study was presented in English, certain isiZulu words were impossible to translate into English.
A high level of openness and honesty amongst the participants was evident in the focus group.
The youth genuinely appreciated that someone cared enough about what happens to them.
5.6.4 PUBLICDOCUMENTS
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) mentioned that a useful source of information at the disposal of the researcher was public documents. Newspaper articles, Annual General Reports of CWS, CYCCs and the citizen’s Report of the Department of Social Development were valuable sources of information.
A caregiver had mentioned that their plight reached the media before their (her and her siblings) were placed at the CYCC. The residential social worker had a copy of the newspaper clipping which was shared with me. Although it depended on description and interpretation by others and was of a secondary nature, it was useful for interpretive analysis. The DSD records all exits from CYCCs, even though not specifically youth transitioning out of care.
111