DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES –IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS.

7.4.1. In-depth interviews

I decided to make use of in-depth interviewing and focus groups as my data collection techniques. Interviews took place on either a one-on-one basis, or within a nuclear family. Focus group discussions were guided by common characteristics of the

participants. This will be discussed in Section 7.7, below. In-depth interviews and focus groups were chosen because I considered that, given the intricacies of my research questions and objectives, they would provide the most appropriate data collection method within the highly complex research setting.

In-depth interviewing allowed for the discussion of particular, focused topics whilst also providing participants with sufficient leeway to express their views and explore these as they unfolded (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Miller & Glassner, cited in Silverman, 2011). Given the intricacies of transplantation in South Africa, the

possibility of identifying important and unexpected phenomena added to the appeal of in-depth interviews as a study tool. This technique also provided an opportunity to glean an understanding of the cultural frameworks inside which individuals locate their experience (Miller & Glassner, cited in Silverman, 2011, p. 133). Within the unique and diverse socio-cultural structure of South Africa as a whole, identification and

exploration of such phenomena was considered vital.

It has been widely argued that the evidence base in healthcare must be extended to include healthcare professional interactions and interactions with patients in their specifically lived context (Barbour, 2000). In-depth interviews serve to perform this function within my research. Jones (1995) notes that incorporating this type of naturalistic, interpretive enquiry into healthcare research can serve to enhance the field.

7.4.2. Focus groups

Focus groups have a number of advantages in health research settings (Green & Thorogood, 2014). Hence I decided to utilise focus groups as one of my data collection techniques. According to Green and Thorogood (2014) in a focus group which has been carefully planned a researcher can not only collect verbal data, but also observe interactions between individual participants. Furthermore, focus groups give

participants a unique opportunity to interact with each other, to debate differing points of view and in some cases to refine or clarify shared opinions (Tong, Sainsbury & Craig, 2007). I argue that, because this is a communication study, the focus group gave me a unique window on the dynamics amongst my study participants. I was able to observe who was most dominant and opinionated, who was quieter and how

participants communicated with one another. Green and Thorogood (2014) argue that a focus group where participants are already known to each other, what they call a ‘natural group’, can provide interesting insight into how social knowledge is generated. Because of the complex backdrop of my study, where I argue both knowledge and identity are formed by historical factors, I used focus groups – where appropriate – to investigate this phenomenon.

7.4.3. Appraisal of other potential data collection techniques

phenomenon and an essential element of health practice. As such, it has been widely studied and a large number of methodological approaches have been utilised (Sparks, 2014). Amongst these approaches, observational methods and conversational analysis (Wessles, Koole & Penn, 2014) have both been used effectively in the South African setting.

In designing my study I carefully considered the ethical implications of my chosen methods and I undertook extensive consultation with transplant professionals and coordinators about the most appropriate data collection strategy. Whilst directly observing or recording actual transplant interactions with patients may have enhanced

the study, I argued – and many concurred - that the interactions themselves were of too sensitive a nature for this to be ethically feasible at this stage. For instance, I grappled with a possible data collection technique where interactions between potential donor families and transplant coordinators could be recorded. However, in these cases the family is in a state of grief, and I posit that observing interactions of so sensitive a nature may have caused additional harm to the families themselves. It could also be argued that it would have been appropriate to record or analyse interactions between transplant professionals as they took place. I discounted this method as unfeasible for two reasons. Firstly, as my study was the first of its kind in South Africa, I had little previous research to guide me as to the exact nature of communication that takes place between transplant professionals – was it face-to- face, telephonic or through the use of mobile phone technology? Hence, I was unable to accurately target the types of communication which warranted exploration.

Secondly, because transplant involves communication across a number of geographical settings, such techniques would not have been feasible in terms of time or budgetary constraints.

In fact, I posit that given the large number of interactions which take place

simultaneously – and between different transplant professionals – when coordinating a transplant, a method of direct recording or observation may have resulted in some important factors being left out of the data set. Because my objectives were to explore communication as a whole, I feel that my chosen method was most

appropriate given the nature of my research and the paucity of previous studies which could have informed my methods.