121
122 provided an opportunity to explore issues that may not have been raised in the more public FG forum. Moreover, Barbour demonstrates that qualitative researchers greatly benefit from using triangulation, as it permits the comparison of data from “parallel data bases”. Barbour (2007:
47) argues that “… if research finds differences between the results from individual and group interviews, then the methodological goal should be to understand the sources of these
differences”, which was the aim to discover through this study.
4.13.1 THE FGD AND INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW PROCESS
During the group discussions and individual interviews, respondents were given the liberty to use both Sesotho and English to enhance their freedom and comfort in the hope that this would maximize their participation in the discussion and thus help to attain a more
comprehensive perspective about the value or worth of HIV-related print IEC materials. The result was that the responses were done in Sesotho and had to be translated into English.
Questions were asked in an open-ended, non-directive manner. For example, “What do you see in this picture?” and more responses and information would be solicited, if the
interviewees seemed to be leaving out some important issues, with a follow-up question such as “What else?” or “Does anybody have a different view or idea?” or “Why do you say that?”
When they indicated that they had exhausted their responses these were summarized and their meaning confirmed before moving on to the next question. Permission to record and to jot down some notes during the discussions was sought from participants at the beginning of the meetings. Proceedings from the discussions were recorded with a digital voice recorder while some were noted down on paper in both Sesotho and English during the discussions. Those written in Sesotho were translated into English later on. Recorded discussions were
transcribed verbatim afterwards.
Learners were asked to take turns in reading out aloud a paragraph or bullet point from the materials during the discussions, thus actively involving them and helping them to exercise their mental and physiological involvement (Chilisa and Preece, 2005) in the hope that their participation would be maximized. This was also encouraged in response to Carstens’ idea (2004b) that it is helpful for materials developers to observe the person reading, or to listen to
123 them reading aloud, so that they are able to discuss with them the reasons why a text is
difficult to comprehend to enable them to make the appropriate changes. The same process was carried out for the second focus group discussions, though this time the reading was done mainly to remind participants of what the materials contained. The second discussion was meant to find out whether the first discussions had any influence on the learners’ attitudes towards the print IEC materials.
The first group discussions lasted, on average, one hour and forty minutes, the second, forty- five minutes, while the individual interviews, on average, lasted twenty minutes. During the first meeting participants were each given a copy of the material to be discussed and were asked this general question “What do you see in this material?”, where participants were expected to mention everything they saw that they thought made up the material, or what in communication and semiotics is called a ‘sign’. For instance, in the case of this study this particular question was found to be of utmost importance, as it looked for something in terms of ‘signs’ that formed the basis for efficient communication, even though it might have also helped to promote a relaxed atmosphere. This argument is based on the three theories that form the theoretical framework of the study, namely communication, semiotics and discourse analysis theories, because without a correct understanding of ‘signs’ in print IEC materials, no communication would take place.
After mentioning what they saw in the materials, participants were asked to take turns to read them, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. Then, the actual discussion on the materials followed, guided by the rest of the questions from the interview guidelines. The same process was followed for the second discussions, starting with a general question: “How did you feel after the first discussion?” followed by the question, “What meaning did you attach to this material?”
Probing for details was, however, minimal, as the concern was that it might overextend the discussion time and in the process stress the respondents and make them lose concentration.
Although participants were prompted to say more on all the questions, it was done with great caution for fear of getting ‘fake responses’ if probed harder, that is, they might provide what
124 they thought the interviewer wanted to hear, since the discussion was on rather sensitive topics in a school setting where they might have felt that they were supposed to give correct answers.
Even though the participants’ views were captured as a group, it was perceived that they felt and attached different meanings to the material as individuals. This confirmed the fact that it was of absolute necessity to conduct the individual interviews, as the materials affected each in a different way. There were some indications that some disagreed with others during the group discussions, although unfortunately it was not considered ethical for the researcher to choose participants for one-to-one interviews because they were allowed to volunteer. A rotating work plan was used to make sure that all materials received maximum attention. So each discussion (per different institution) started with a different material with the concern that the discussions stretched over a long period of time and the respondents might get tired or lose interest during the course of the discussion and so deny some of the materials justice by not giving them the required or expected attention. In order to overcome this, the materials’
precedence was rotated between the institutions. So if the discussion in institution ‘a’ started with a poster, at institution ‘b’ it started with a pamphlet and at ‘c’ with a magazine, so that each material had an opportunity to be analysed whilst respondents were still fresh. As was mentioned earlier, the materials were used both as a source and a tool for data collection and analysis. Hence, Chapters five six, seven and eight were devoted to the analysis of the materials, so that the researcher’s analysis would in turn provide background information about the materials and guide the reader when discussing the student responses through comparing the findings.