95 discuss their experiences prior to leaving Zimbabwe, on the way to South Africa and while they were in South Africa. Learners were probed about their experiences at the Chitate Street School of Refugees. The FGDs were recorded using an audio tape. All learners agreed to the recording of the discussions arguing that nobody would identify their voices in a group. This is unlike individual interviews where some learners did not want to be recorded claiming that they would be easily identified. A conducive environment for FGDs to be conducted was created. Roulston (2010) postulates that in a FGD, it is vital to facilitate an environment in which participants are comfortable to discuss sensitive topics. I created a pleasant environment (by prohibiting jeering and despising others) that made learners feel comfortable to freely discuss their diverse views about their experiences. I made a point that all learners had the platform to express themselves freely.
96 4.10 Data Analysis
I analysed data by using content analysis. According to Cohen et al. (2007) content analysis is a process that involves classifying text data into categories and themes. Content analysis allows the researcher to have a subjective interpretation of text data and to develop some codes which would later be collapsed to themes (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Data in this study was organised, transcribed and analysed. I read the data thoroughly, divided it into segments of information and labeled each segment of information with thematic codes. I searched for patterns in coded data to categorise them and information overlapping as redundancies was removed from codes. Lastly, codes were collapsed into themes and each theme was discussed in detail.
A theme is a collection of ideas that are closely related (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003).
Thematic analysis was applied which is a method for organising, analysing and reporting categorised ideas (themes) of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis was ideal in this case because it helped me to organise and describe data in rich detail. Information from all data collecting instruments was presented concurrently on each research question, to enhance validity and reliability of the findings. The conceptual framework of Anderson et al. (2004) and Bhugra et al. (2011) and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model were used as analytical frameworks for children’s experiences. The use of the conceptual framework deepened the understanding of experiences which refugees went through. The experiences were categorised under pre- migration, transmigration and post-migration. At each point in time, experiences were presented according to the ecological model. Refugee learners’ identities were analysed following the Goodson and Sikes’ (2001) timeline history.
4.11.1 Ethical Issues
Turner and Fozdar (2010) stated that ethical responsibility is fundamental in all research, especially with refugees who are a particularly vulnerable group. Strict ethical issues had to be observed because this study involved refugee children. In any research, children are considered vulnerable because of their dependency on adults, small size and less strength (Lahman, 2008).
Children were required to discuss private and poignant details of their life experiences as refugees, hence ethical issues were to be maintained in order to protect them from any harm.
Cohen et al. (2007) argued that there are three main areas of ethical issues, namely: informed
97 consent, confidentiality and consequence of the research. In order to attain ethical issues and to gain the trust and support of respondents, I complied with all the concern areas of ethical issues.
Respondents were requested to participate in the study voluntarily and were also informed about the purpose and consequence of the study.
Mertens (2012) argues that children should not be made to sign consent forms. Generally, researchers are required to obtain consent from the children’s parents/guardians. However, children can then provide consent, meaning that they understand and agree to participate in the research. In this study, permission was asked from parents/guardians to have their children (learners) participate in the research. Three parents/guardians (whose children were among 16 selected learners) signed two consent forms, one for the participation of their child and the other one for their (parent/guardian) participation in the study. The Bishop, who is in charge of all the unaccompanied children, signed a consent form for all unaccompanied learners.
Children were later notified about the study and given consent forms to sign prior to the commencement of interviews and group discussions. Children were informed that they were free to withdraw from the study at any point in time. They were also notified that they were not compelled to participate in the study because their parents/guardians consented to their participation. Mishna et al. (2004) asserted that if parents consent to the participation of their children, researchers must tell children that they have a right not to participate if they do not want. All children were given consent forms to sign that they were aware that they were not compelled to be part of the study. Informed consent was obtained prior to the commencement of the research, and re-established during the research process.
Researchers are ethically obligated to promise confidentiality to participants in a study (Mertens, 2012). I ensured participants’ confidentiality and observed maximum respect for both individuals and the school as a whole. I promised all respondents that I would not report or publish data in a way that would identify them. Learners’ dignity was kept intact and trust was developed throughout the research process. Deception of any kind was avoided with respondents, but instead, they were guaranteed maximum confidentiality, anonymity, non-identifiability and non- traceability. Pseudonyms were used in the analysis section to further enhance privacy. Palmer
98 (2008) affirms that confidentiality and anonymity are especially relevant considerations when researching forced migrants.
Ensign (2003) reported that homeless youths are vulnerable groups in research, hence the need to avoid exploitation and abuse of participants. I took into consideration participants’ vulnerability and exercised extreme caution. I created a conducive environment for learners to freely participate in the study. They (learners) were encouraged not to talk about others in the interview so that privacy of other people may not be breached (Liamputtong, 2007; Swartz, 2011). This enabled learners to feel free to retell their sensitive stories and the exercise also helped them feel better after they shared and heard other refugee children’s stories. According to Liamputtong (2007) researching the vulnerable is essential because some victims of circumstances may get therapy through participation.
The proposal was handed to the University’s ethics committee to check if the study would not infringe on human rights of the respondents. An ethical certificate was awarded by the University of KwaZulu-Natal Ethics Committee. The Chitate Street School of Refugees works closely with trained counsellors who are responsible for counselling traumatised children. I requested a counsellor to be on the standby throughout my entire data collection period at the school. Some children faced traumatic experiences both in Zimbabwe and in South Africa. This is why I decided to involve a trained counsellor to help children who could have been re- traumatised by retelling their stories. Fortunately, neither re-traumatisation nor any negative experience occurred throughout the interview and group discussion sessions. Rapport building was used in order to gain learners’ trust to participate in this study.
4.11.2 Rapport Building as an Ethical Strategy
In a sensitive research project like this, learners are usually reluctant to be part of the study and to share their experiences. Stevens, Lord, Proctor, Nagy and O'Riordan (2010) argued that recruiting participants is one of the challenges common to sensitive topics. In order to do such a study, rapport building has to be done. Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen and Liamputtong (2009) contend that establishing rapport building is fundamental to every qualitative research which is considered sensitive. Rapport makes participants feel relaxed and free to discuss very sensitive
99 issues in their lives. It enables children to share their experiences or poignant moments in their lives.
King and Horrocks (2010) said: “rapport is essentially about trust-enabling the participants to feel comfortable in opening up to you. There are no guaranteed recipes for rapport, but there are things you can do to encourage a positive relationship that enables trust to develop” (p. 48).
Similarly, Ready and Burton (2012) maintained that there are different models and approaches to rapport building, but one prominent is the relationship building approach. The relationship building approach entails formulating a working connection with participants in order to gain their trust and confidence (Ready & Burton, 2012). In that respect, I established rapport by building a relationship with the learners. I shared my experiences with learners as a Zimbabwean who also went through horrific and traumatising experiences.
Stevens et al. (2010) claimed that sharing your personal experiences with participants makes them free to share their experiences with you in the interview. Sharing experiences with the children made them feel free and encouraged to share their own experience as well. I familiarised myself with the children prior to interviewing and engaging in discussions with them. I spent a day at the school interacting with learners and their teachers before interviews and FGDs begun.
Some of the learners felt close to me to the extent of asking me to help them with their history homework. King and Horrocks (2010) argued that rapport can be made by introducing your project, sharing expressions, spending time at the school and familiarising with participants.