Focus group discussions

I chose the FGD method of data collection for this study because the FGD occurs in a more “naturalistic setting” that reflects the social context of the participants more than an individual interview (Ritchie, 2003; Krueger, 1988) as confirmed by Finch and Lewis (2003, p. 172):

It reflects the social constructions – normative influences, collective as well as individual self-identity, shared meanings – that are an

important part of the way in which we perceive, experience and understand the world around us.

Another reason for FGDs was the fact that this method relies on group dynamics to produce responses from individuals, who will reflect on their own experiences while stimulated by the

109

group discussion. Their ideas will be shaped through conversation with others in the group, and this will give them opportunities to deepen and refine their insights into their own experiences and attitudes around the issue (Kitzinger, 1994; Peterson-Sweeney, 2005). The FGD also gives opportunities for airing and clarifying differences amongst individuals in a group (Finch & Lewis, 2003; Kitzinger, 1994). All these factors were deemed important in order to gain in-depth information for understanding HPS implementation. However, the findings of an FGD cannot be generalised to a larger population as the group does not necessarily represent the larger

population. In this study I was not looking to generalise to all schools, but rather to gain the perspectives of the participants who were directly involved, in order to understand the implementation of HPS at their particular school from their point of view (Stake, 1995). Focus group discussions were conducted with three groups of students – one at each school. I chose this method with the students, as it has been found to be particularly useful in research with school children and adolescents (Horner, 2000; Peterson-Sweeney, 2005). In FGDs the power imbalance between adults and young people is minimised as the group takes responsibility for the responses or reflections, thereby providing “a safe haven” for expressing their views (Horner, 2000).

For the student FGDs, I considered factors such as peer influence and social desirability, which are important aspects in this developmental phase of adolescents, as alluded to in the literature review (Allen et al., 2005; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Weller, 2006). These factors can play a major role because, in social desirability, views that do not conform to the group might not be shared for fear of being different. On the other hand, individuals might feel more confident in sharing their views because their peers have also done so. Similarly, Horner (2000) posits that in using FGDs with school children, certain factors need to considered, including: cognitive

development, communication skills and peer influence.

It is precisely because of such factors that I chose a moderator who had experience with working with young people and was a skilful facilitator (Horner, 2000; Finch & Lewis, 2003). I did not have much experience with young people, and therefore decided not to do the moderation myself. My role at the FGDs was mainly as an observer and listener, occasionally asking a

110

probing question or asking for some clarity in the discussion, and taking detailed notes. I also noted the participants’ non-verbal cues, when they did not agree with what someone in the group had said.

My choice of moderator was determined by her experience in working with students as an educational psychologist, and therefore her knowledge of the students’ developmental stages (Peterson-Sweeney, 2005). In addition, I had previously witnessed her skilful facilitation when she worked first-hand with the HPS students. Another reason for choosing her was that she was a member of the UWC team and was therefore knowledgeable about the discussion topic - a criterion recommended by Peterson-Sweeney (2005).

As an observer in the student FGDs, I could see that the moderator was able to fulfil her role fully. As recommended by Horner (2000) and Finch and Lewis (2003), she encouraged group interaction through, for example, linking issues that different students had raised, and

highlighting their similarities and differences. She also engaged all members of the groups, drawing in those who were silent or withdrawn, in an unobtrusive manner, as it is essential in order to elicit information from everyone and thus obtain a full picture of the participants’ experiences and views. One important aspect of the role of the moderator is having to negotiate the group dynamics when there is a dominant member, and find a way of engaging others at the same time. For example, the moderator in this study would say “I have heard your opinion, but now would also like to hear from others”. At all times, the moderator was an active listener and was respectful towards the participants, which is important in acknowledging that the students have their own knowledge and experiences to contribute to the data (Horner, 2000).

All three student FGDs took place at their respective schools; were scheduled for after school hours; and lasted approximately one-and-a-half hours. The lead teachers of each school arranged the dates and times. From my experience in working with the students on HPS implementation, the schools were a convenient place for them to meet as they were where the students normally met for their HPS meetings. It is recommended that FGDs with young people take place in a setting that they are familiar and comfortable with, and at a time that is convenient to them (Horner, 2000; Peterson-Sweeney, 2005).

111

Before commencing with the formal aspect of the FGD in this study, the students were

welcomed and given something to eat, which is an important incentive but also a way of showing appreciation to the participants for their time (Peterson-Sweeney, 2005). We emphasised to the students that active participation was important in order to capture all the different perspectives, and the fact that there were no right or wrong answers. We encouraged the students to speak their minds even if they disagreed with someone else’s views, explaining that everyone’s perspectives would be a valuable contribution to the research and to HPS implementation.

The FGDs in this study took the form of a workshop with the research objectives being used as a guide to stimulate the discussion (See Appendix 2). The metaphor of going on a road journey was employed as a creative means of collecting the data, as advised by others in the qualitative research literature. According to Ritchie (2003, p. 37), FGDs “are ideal for creative thinking and are a better setting for using stimulation material … which would be contrived in a one-to-one situation”. Similarly, Finch and Lewis (2003, p. 189) argued that the use of “enabling and projective techniques”, which are more commonly used in group discussions, can help to focus the discussion and refine participants’ views or encourage further debate.

The discussions were conducted mainly in Afrikaans because that was the language in which the students were most comfortable, and the moderator and I are both fluent in Afrikaans. It is recommended that the opening topic for FGDs is general and easy to talk about in order to put the participants at ease and make them comfortable with the moderator (Finch & Lewis, 2004). The moderator started the discussion by asking the participants to share their perceptions about their own school contexts, before narrowing the discussion to HPS. Next, she drew a picture of a road on a flip chart and asked them to describe their HPS journey (their experiences) by writing down on paper the activities with which they had been involved and then placing these papers on the road. In the next two activities, they had to reflect on what had supported them in the process or made it work, and what the perceived challenges were. These were also all placed on the road. Each activity was followed by a discussion. Finally, they were asked what advice they would have for a school that wanted to become an HPS (recommendations and lessons learnt). When necessary, they were probed more on the different aspects by the moderator responding “Let’s talk more about this one”; “Please explain this point”; or “How did you experience this?.

112

On reflection, the chosen style of data collection with the students was a useful exercise because the students were fully engaged in the process, and it seemed to suit their development stage by allowing them to communicate with one another in a constructive way and enabling them to participate meaningfully in a discussion. They were open and comfortable with each other. Due to the ease with which they reached their decisions and came to consensus, even if there was not full agreement, I could see that they were used to working together through their engagement with HPS. They achieved this by listening to each other’s views, acknowledging their

differences, and then coming to a compromise.

The students from all three schools were very vocal – highlighting both the positive and negative aspects of their schools. Their confidence in voicing their opinions quite freely could be because they were comfortable with the moderator and myself, as we were already familiar to them. I attributed this to the participatory and respectful way that we worked with the students throughout the project, which is important in adult/youth relationships, as alluded to in the literature review (Jennings et al., 2006).

At the end of the FGDs, the moderator summarised the key points and asked the participants if they wanted to add or change anything. The moderator and I had a debriefing session

immediately after the FGDs, at which we discussed the main issues that had emerged and reflected on the process to see whether anything could to be done differently. Generally, the FGDs ran smoothly without any changes to subsequent FGD processes. I wrote up the flipchart material and compared it with my notes and the audio-recordings from the FGDs.