Data collection: Focus group After the established time-frame for taking

photographs, the researcher conducts a semi-structured, open-ended focus group with participants (Creswell, 2013; Sethi, 2016) (See Appendix G). This focus group supports the second goal of Photovoice, according to Wang and Burris (1997), which is “to promote critical dialogue and knowledge about important issues through large and small group discussion of photographs” (p. 369). Participants are provided with copies of their photographs and asked to select the pictures that they feel best capture their experience or essence of the phenomenon (Burgos et al, 2014). Burgos et al (2014) suggest having participants narrow the photographs down to ten favorites, and then placing them three piles such as: positive, negative, and neutral; while other studies propose that participants choose two or three photographs for the focus group (Goodhart et al, 2006). The researcher, as the focus group leader, must be aware of the time allotted for the focus group so that each participant has enough time to share their chosen photographs (Then, Rankin, & Ali, 2014).

There are two main methods of eliciting information from participants during the focus group: SHOWED; and, PHOTO. The SHOWED technique is an acronym that stands for:

“S: What do you see?

H: What happened or is happening in the picture? O: How does this relate to our lives?

77

W: Why does this happen?

E: How could this image educate others?

D: What can we do about it?” (Hergenrather, Rhodes, Cowan, Bardhoshi, & Pula, 2009, p. 687).

The PHOTO technique is an acronym, which stands for: “P: Describe your picture?

H: What is happening in your picture? O: Why did you take a picture of this?

T: What does this picture tell us about your life?

O: How can this picture provide opportunities of us to improve life?” (Graziano, 2011, p. 5).

Both methods provide a consistent technique for data collection among participants to increase reliability of the data collection process, as well as the credibility of data (Faulkner & Faulkner, 2014).

With Photovoice, focus groups provide the context to elicit dialogues which “draw on the synergy” (Padgett, 2008, p. 100) of participants to create a sense of cohesion to challenge the status quo. Among individuals who have experienced oppression, focus group enhance

empowerment as participants validate one another’s experiences and provide support and mutual aid by discussing possible solutions (Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech, & Zoran, 2009). From a logistical standpoint, focus groups promote efficiency of data collection and are more cost- efficient than individual interviews (Creswell, 2013; Onweugbuzie et al, 2009; Padgett, 2008). Limitations to consider with focus groups include: issues related to confidentiality among

78

participants; lack of depth of interviewing among each participant; and, general issues relate to group dynamics (Padgett, 2008).

During the orientation and ethics training, this researcher was able to establish a time and location to hold the focus group that was convenient for all participants. Collaboratively, it was determined that two hours would be necessary to provide each participant with an opportunity to engage. At the first focus group interview, only three of the five participants submitted

photographs and attended the focus group. It is suggested that phenomenological studies engage at least 5 participants in order to reach saturation (Creswell, 2013); therefore, at the conclusion of the first focus group, this researcher wrote an addendum to the original IRB (See Appendix A) to include social work students in this study. The original IRB had excluded social work students from participating out of concern for potential researcher bias. The second focus group consisted of five participants, of which only one participant was a social work student.

At the focus group, this researcher provided participants with copies of their submitted photographs and asked each of them to narrow their collection down to one photograph for each of the research questions that they feel best captures their response. The SHOWED method of photovoice data analysis was utilized as an interview guide. Participants took turns sharing each of the two photographs using the researcher’s prompts from the SHOWED method. Saturation was achieved after the second focus group interview as a result of the uniformity of the interview protocol, as well as the homogeneity of the sample, given that all participants are current

undergraduate students enrolled in the same university and self-identified as having a physical disability.

In addition to audio-recording the focus group interview, this researcher took some notes using an interview protocol during the focus group interview. The interview protocol provided: a

79

general outline for the focus group; a face sheet, and interview questions. The general outline was distributed to the participants of the focus group and included: an introduction; distribution of photos to participants; photograph selection by participants; sharing of photographs using the SHOWED method; discussion of observed themes; obtaining group’s preference for respondent validation (email communication versus additional focus group); considerations for photography presentation; and, debriefing prompts to address any emotional issues that may arise (See

Appendix E).

A face sheet identifying participants by a number, rather than name, along with an interview protocol was developed for each participant so that the researcher can take notes during the focus group (Padgett, 2008). Observational notes were particularly beneficial as this information was not captured through the audio file. The transcription of the focus group interview, the face sheets, and the interview protocols were stored on a computer file which requires a passcode known only to this researcher.