CHAPTER 2: NON-VIOLENCE, THE HISTORY OF VIOLENCE AND THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH IN ZIMBABWE
7.2 Qualitative data analysis
The data collected and analysed in this study was mainly qualitative – from interviews, focus group discussions, participant observation and participants’ personal diaries – therefore, qualitative data analyses methods were employed. Punch (2009, p171) postulates that the wide variety and diversity in qualitative approaches underlines the fact that there is no single methodological framework of data analysis. He highlights the framework for qualitative analysis espoused by Miles and Huberman (1994) which is based on three main components: data reduction; data display; and, drawing and verifying conclusions. These are given as concurrent activities that interact throughout the analysis, as shown in Figure 7.1 below.
Figure 7.1: A framework of qualitative analysis by Miles and Huberman (1994), adapted from Punch (2009, p171).
Based on the diagram and the explanation above, and in specific reference to findings and analyses discussed later in this chapter, data collection included the data that I collected during focus group discussions and the personal diaries submitted by the participants.
182
Punch (2009, p174-5) explains that data reduction occurs continually throughout the analysis.
In the early stages, it happens through editing, segmenting and summarizing the data. In the middle stages, it happens through coding and ‘memoing’ [the writing of memos as explained by the author], and associated activities such as finding themes, clusters and patterns. In the later stages, it happens through conceptualizing and explaining. Data display shows the organization and assembling of information in various ways that include graphs, charts, networks or diagrams of different types. Drawing and verifying conclusions involves developing propositions from data drawn from the earlier processes into meaningful and coherent picture of the data. I borrowed from this framework to analyse the data from focus group discussions and participants’ diaries.
7.2.1 Analyses of Focus Group Data
There are several approaches to analyzing focus group data. Stewart et al. (2009, p603) posit that indeed, there is no one best or correct approach to the analysis of focus group data. They argue that as with other types of data, the nature of the analyses of focus group interview data should be determined by the research question and the purpose for which the data are collected. Added to this, Vicsek (2007, p23; 2010, p133) emphasizes the importance of taking situational factors into account, arguing that if we factor into our analysis that our data are not independent from the actual situation, but are embedded in it, our conclusions can be richer and more illuminating. Such situational factors would include the effect of the environment, time factors, content, characteristics of the participants and style of the moderator. Similarly, Parker and Tritter (2006:31) conclude that the nature of the discussion (the data) is dependent on the participants and is time and context specific. According to Vicsek (2007, p23; 2010, p134), the situational analysis is followed by and integrated with a thematic analysis. Vicsek’s framework (2007, p23-30) includes six situational factors that are summarised by Orvik et al.
(2013, p341) as shown in Table 7:1 below.
183 Situational factor Description
Interactional factors Psychological and social psychological mechanisms: social influence, conformity, minority influence, individual influence, conflict avoidance, interactions between the moderator (researcher) and the participants.
Personal
characteristics of the participants
Demographic backgrounds of the participants; group members’ knowledge of the theme discussed, how they behave, and how they feel about being there;
roles assumed during the FDGs.
The moderator The moderator’s style, control in the group, professionalism, power, and knowledge of the issue; moderator roles assumed in the session: the expert, the challenger, and the unfamiliar seeking for enlightenment.
The environment Physical characteristics of the environment where the FDGs take place, its latent influence on the outcome, characteristics of the furniture in the room, how peaceful and separated the environment is from others, its degree of formality.
Time factors The time of the day for conducting the FDG: how long it lasts, how far the participants are able to concentrate on specific questions, for example questions arising at the end of the day.
Content Elements introduced in the guide or by the moderator in the session;
information to participants, language, order and style of questions; the use for techniques; how personal the theme is, expectations among participants and in society.
Table 7.1: Summary of Vicsek’s Situational Factors, adapted from Orvik et al. (2013, p341).
While some of the specific situational factors identified by Vicsek above are described earlier in this thesis, I continued to use them as guidelines to discuss the contextual environment in which this research took place and its impact on my findings in the latter chapters as well. This research therefore conformed to the conclusion made by Orvik et al. (2013, p254), that Vicsek’s analytical framework is useful during the research process and can be applied in research from the beginning stage of focus group design all the way through to a discussion of research findings. In their study to elucidate the extent to which contextual aspects of focus groups methodology are expressed and analysed in 10 articles that collected data by means of FGDs, they conclude that descriptions of situational factors within research also help to enhance the trustworthiness of studies by helping people to decide whether the findings are transferable to other settings.
184
In analyzing the focus group discussion in this study, I employed the thematic, content and narrative analyses approaches. These approaches were not used separately, but they were interwoven in a way that revealed their complementarity.
7.2.2 Content analysis
On content analysis, Druckman (2005, p257) quotes what he refers to as a ‘general definition’
provided by Holsti (1969) who defines it as “any technique of making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of messages.” Krippendorff (2004, p18) defines it as “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use.” He posits that content analysis is a scientific tool, and as a research technique, it provides new insights, increases a researcher’s understanding of particular phenomena, or informs practical actions. In elaborating on his definition, he argues that reference to text is not intended to restrict content analysis to written material. Instead his definition includes the phrase ‘or other meaningful matter’:
…in parentheses to indicate that in content analysis works of art, images, maps, sounds, signs, symbols and even numerical records may be included as data – that is, they may be included as texts – provided they speak to someone about phenomena outside of what can be sensed or observed (Krippendorff, 2004, p19).
Krippendorff’s definition of content analysis makes the drawing of inferences the centerpiece of this research technique, and requires that content analysts be able to validate their results, whether those results are used to predict something, to inform decisions, or to help conceptualise the realities of certain individuals or groups (ibid, p25). This is similar to Palmquist (1993) cited by Babbie and Mouton (2001, p491), who defines content analysis as a research method that:
…examines words or phrases within a wide range of texts, including books, book chapters, essays, interviews and speeches as well as informal conversation and
185
headlines. By examining the presence or repetition of certain words and phrases in these texts, a researcher is able to make inferences about the philosophical assumptions of a writer, a written piece, the audience for which a piece is written, and even the culture and time in which the text is embedded.
According to Druckman (2005, p257), content analysis is a flexible approach to analysis that can be applied to a wide variety of written or oral communications allowing analysts to compare the content of communication across a variety of settings. He points out the distinction between texts and interaction process as an important criterion in content analysis. While texts are written documents that describe activities that happened in the past and can be read and re-read at the convenience of the analyst, process analysis consists of on-the-spot coding of statements made during interactions. Although accuracy may be a problem, Druckman (ibid:
p258) argues that on-the-spot coding can enrich interpretations by taking expressions and the interaction context into account for purposes of description or inference. He postulates that analyses that address questions of what was said, who said it and to whom it was said describe the interaction, a situation he likens to a blow-by-blow account of a boxing match that captures the moment-by-moment actions and reactions. Analyses that address questions of why something was said, how it was said and with what effect provide interpretation [italics emphasis by author].
Krippendorff (2004, p21) adds another dimension, arguing that describing message characteristics only in terms of “what,” “how,” and “to whom,” fails to acknowledge the analyst’s own conceptual contributions to what constitutes the appropriate reading of the analysed texts and the relevance of this reading to a given research question. He urges analysts to reflect on their involvement in the process and to be flexible in taking into account new concepts that emerge during their involvement with texts. Over and above that, he also acknowledges the possibility that researchers’ theories can play a role in how analysis proceeds. In this study the conceptual contributions included Galtung’s theory of direct and indirect violence discussed in Section 4.3.1 and the concept of AVP in Section 3.2 that were central to all the research proceedings with the youths in Gutu as well as my role as the