Focus group discussions

In this study, focus group discussions were held with fifty participants (out of the fifty-nine study participants) but at different intervals and sessions. Their age range was from thirty–fours and above. Out of the fifty participants, seventeen were women. The reason for the small number of women was that they are not given room to talk about church issues. The ones whom I talked to were to some extent related to the leaders in the ZAFM church. They were from different social contexts and had different educational status. Most of them are peasant farmers.

Focus groups are used for generating information on collective views, and the meanings that lie behind those views. They are also useful in generating a rich understanding of participants' experiences and beliefs (Morgan, 1998).

80

The first part of the focus group discussions was carried out in Chivi District in Masvingo at the Headquarters of ZAFM Church in May 2016. The Information Officer of the ZAFM church facilitated the focus group discussions. This was done so that the researcher would find more time to listen, record and write notes on the deliberations of the discussions. It was also done to enable the issue of suspending preconceived ideas. Interesting to note is the contention that prior arrangements had been made with the facilitator on my first visit and all necessary modalities on how to facilitate the focus group discussions were made. The major issues that we discussed with the facilitator included how to keep the discussions focused and how to prevent the discussion from being dominated by one member (Acocella, 2011).

The facilitator made it clear before the discussions that we want to hear a range of views. The participants were also informed that their views would be audio taped and an assurance of confidentiality was clearly spelt out. In addition, the church leadership was also informed that the views of their adherents would be audio taped and an agreement was struck. The participants were given the opportunity to withdraw if they were uncomfortable with being taped but no one withdrew. The facilitator ensured that all participants had many opportunities to contribute; he allowed differences of opinions to be discussed fairly, and was even able to encourage reticent participants to air their views.

During these discussions, the researcher had ample time to participate in the worship services of the ZAFM church at its headquarters. The researcher assumed that in the church’s worship services and special programmes like annual conferences, it would be easy to observe the leadership system and practices of the ZAFM.

During the focus group discussions, the perceptions, experiences and understandings of the members of the ZAFM church who had some experience in common with regard to the issue of succession disputes were explored. This study explored with relevant groups issues to do with the causes of succession disputes in the ZAFM church of Andreas Shoko. Informal discussions were held with different groups from the ZAFM church. To make the discussions more manageable, I followed Litosseliti (2003:1) who said that focus groups need to be comprised of a relatively small structured group of people with similar characteristics such as language, geographical location and or same economic and social status who participate in a group interaction under the facilitation of a moderator. The first focus group was carried out at the headquarters of the ZAFM church on May 21, 2016, as mentioned earlier. The group consisted of the members of the council of high priests from the ZAFM formation under Bishop

81

Jamson Pedzisai Shoko. They were from different centres that include Chivi, Bikita and Mberengwa areas. The group comprised of six members.

The participants were purposively selected because of their seniority and they shared the same characteristics of being overseers in their areas of jurisdiction, and further, they all report to the vice bishop. The leaders from these centres are the most senior ones in the church. Their ages were ranged from fifty-five and above and they were all males. The other reason why these participants were chosen was that they are at the same level of leadership in the church, hence they were familiar to each other and they were airing their views without any fear of victimization. As they are high priests in their areas of jurisdiction, I wanted to get their understanding and opinions on the causes of succession disputes. As people in high positions of authority, it was vital to hear their views first. The high priests in the ZAFM play the role of an overseer. They have many congregations that they oversee and the Vafundisi (Pastors) leads the congregations. The high priest reports to the vice-bishop who is a second person from the office of the bishop. The group was small because I wanted it to be easy to control and sustain. The discussion went on smoothly and the participants were very enthusiastic to narrate how they experienced succession disputes and how they would rally with the bishop of their choice in the event of any succession disputes. Every member was ready to let his story be heard and this was prompted by the fact that the group was comprised of people of the same position in the church. On the question on how high priests combat succession disputes in the areas under their jurisdiction, everyone was happy to narrate the ordeal.

The discussion proved to be very fruitful and we discussed many issues concerning the causes of succession disputes, the roles of a bishop, how to choose a successor, methods of preventing disputes and the different characteristics of a good leader in the ZAFM.

The second focus group was undertaken on June 18, 2016 with ten circuit leaders (Pastors/ Vafundisi) of ZAFM from Chasiyatende, Shindi, Neshuro, Zaka, Musvovi, Bikita, Berejena, Negari, Chomuruvati and Madzivire areas. These were also from the ZAFM church formation under Bishop Jamson Pedzisai Shoko. The choice to target circuit leaders (Vafundisi) was purposely done since the information that I wanted lies in their jurisdiction as local church leaders. They were chosen by virtue of them being the pastors of the local churches. They had the same characteristics in that they all report to the high priests in the ZAFM church, they lead multitudes of followers and they are the ones who manage the day to day running of their local churches or congregations. Further, they are potential threats to the bishop since they are the

82

ones who would be with the people every day and have some autonomy over their congregations. Their age groups were ranged from thirty-five to fifty-five years and they were all males. I had wanted more time with the local congregation leaders because in most cases they are the ones who influence their followers to secede and form splinter groups if they are dissatisfied by any move taken by the bishop or his deputy or the high priest. The Vafundisi are the ones who will be with the followers, day in and day out. They are very influential as far as they are close to the followers and they know the character of each congregant since they spend time with them. The basic questions that we discussed included how a successor is chosen in the ZAFM, methods used to select a successor, the people responsible for choosing the successor, the qualities which are considered, the steps followed in choosing a successor upon the death of the bishop, and what the church constitution says about leadership succession.

The group had mixed feelings, particularly on who should choose the successor and the methods that should be used on selecting the successor in the event a leader dies. The discussions were so free and the circuit leaders were feeling at home. The main reason why they were free to discuss was that I had told them that the findings are specifically for academic purposes and that no real names will be used in the final document. In addition, some of the leaders were from my home area hence they knew me personally.

So, the first two sessions of focus group discussions were made up of members from pre- existing ZAFM church structures. This was in line with Bloor et al (2001:22-3), who said the use of established structures make recruitment of participants to be less expensive because the people will be easy to locate and call for a discussion. Further, people in the existing church structure regard attending a meeting at the church premises to be their obligation hence method was not labour intensive. The discussions with existing structures also proved to be fruitful because the people were sharing their lived experiences on succession disputes. The people were at some point involved or affected by the succession disputes and they considered the discussions as platforms to share their experiences.

The participants were also able to remind each other about long forgotten, and recent past events and circumstances. As one leader was narrating the ordeals of succession disputes, others were interrupting where they thought the narrator had left out something important. This proved to be very fruitful and the participants enjoyed it.

83

The third focus group was held at Museva area at the ZAFM church headquarters on 14 April 2017 with lay people of the church. The members were from different circuits but familiar to one another since they always meet at annual conferences at the ZAFM church shrine in Museva area. The group comprised of two sessions; the first session was held with eighteen people, nine males and nine females from the ZAFM church formation under bishop Ezra Pedzisai Shoko. The other session was held on 15 April 2017 and it comprised of sixteen lay people – eight females and eight males from the ZAFM formation under Bishop Jamson Pedzisai Shoko. These two sessions had people of different age groups. The main reason for not having a systematic age variation was to capture the feelings of different people concerning the causes of succession disputes. During the two sessions with the members of the laity, I realized that the males were dominating the discussions. This was mainly caused by the fact that the ZAFM church does not allow women to take the lead in discussions to do with the church. I had to encourage the women to talk and air their views by asking those questions that directly require women’s viewpoints. We asked questions related to how members should react if there is a succession dispute, who should the members of the laity follow in the event of the leadership succession dispute, the methods which they think should be followed in choosing a leader, the main causes of succession disputes, and the roles of the members of the laity in choosing a leader.

For each of the focus group sessions we did not take longer than two hours. This was congruent with Bloor et al (2001:53) guideline that the time frame for each focus group discussion should only be more than two hours if participants are provided with motivations in cash and kind. On the same note, May (2011:138) highlighted that one and a half to two and a half hours is enough for each session of a focus group. This implies that the time we spent for each discussion session was within the expected limit.

The responses of these focus groups were captured and every participant was encouraged to ask questions where necessary and contribute to the proceedings of the discussions. Nevertheless, the time allocation for each group was largely determined by the quick responses by the participants. To curb the problem of participants who were reserved, especially women, I had to ask questions that were directed to their skills and knowledge to make them feel obliged to open up for discussions. So, the potential for reluctance was restrained by the nature of the questions that seemed to compel each individual member to share his or her views on the issue of succession disputes. This is in line with McIntyre (2008) who argued that in focus group

84

discussions, chances are high that some participates might be reluctant to share their views with others on a particular topic, especially if it touches something to do with their lives.

Due to the manner in which the focus group discussions were conducted, all members of the focus group were expressing their opinions freely while we were discussing issues about the causes of leadership succession disputes. In the process of the discussions, the researcher ensured that everything the groups were discussing was recorded accurately. Notes were taken during discussions and care was ensured so as not to lose important issues in the discussions. Where necessary, verification and confirmation were done to ensure that accurate information had been recorded.

As Drake (2013) said, focus group discussions create an accepting environment that allows participants to be free thereby allowing them to answer questions in their own words. In line with the view of Drake (2013), the focus groups were large enough to allow a rich discussion but small enough to enable all participants to participate. Further, following Drake’s advice, the questions that I asked in the focus group discussions were short and straight to the point and each question focused on a particular dimension of leadership succession disputes.

The focus group discussions proved to be very useful in the collection of information on the history and causes of succession disputes in the ZAFM church. The people had different views and this helped in providing a wide range of insights and ideas. The groups were manageably small and the participants knew one another but were not from the same home areas. This created a free environment, the interaction was good, and the responses were frank. The efficacy of the focus group discussions was amalgamated with in-depth interviews.