Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

The use of FGDs in qualitative research is regarded as a powerful tool. It gives voice to those who may be reluctant to be interviewed individually, or those who initially feel they have nothing to say (Robson, 2011: 293). This study therefore adopted the use of FGDs for addressing two objectives of the study: Objective 2 – the identification of behaviours, beliefs, and attitudes of rice research and extension personnel influencing the functioning of rice innovation systems in Sierra Leone; and Objective 3 – the influence of research and extension programmes on smallholder farmers’ innovative capacity. FGDs have been widely used in the elicitation stage of the TORA/TPB constructs (e.g. McKemey, K., and Rehman, T., 2005; Mose, 2013; Lalani et al., 2016), hence they were adopted in this study.

For Objective 2, agricultural research scientists from SLARI, agricultural extension professionals from MAFFS, and key agriculture-sector NGOs were selected and engaged in the FGDs. The FGDs were used to elicit information on research and extension professionals’ outcome, control and normative beliefs (social referents) used in computing TPB variables. For Objective 3, smallholder farmers in eight communities were selected and engaged in FGDs across the four target districts. During these FGDs, the researcher used tools including agricultural timelines and innovation histories to understand the farmers’ agricultural enterprises, and the innovations therein, which occurred within the study timeframe.

Though opinions vary on a suitable group size and composition for FGDs, Stewart and Shamdasani (1990) suggest eight to 12, whereas Morgan (1998) opts for six to 10, Robson (2011) highlighted the use of convenience samples and pre-existing groups by most researchers. This study aligned itself with both Robson (2011) and Morgan (1998). That is, it used a convenient sample size of at least four participants for the FGDs for research and extension professionals since it was difficult to gather many participants at once due to their official duties/engagements. The FGDs were conducted at two levels, senior management and junior level staff of the participating organisations. This was to ensure that perspectives from the ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ cadres of the target organisations were fully captured so as to provide a complete picture to reflect the views of all categories of respondents. A total of 12 FGDs were conducted among research and extension professionals at the elicitation stage to generate data for the beliefs used in computing the TPB variables. Three FGDs were conducted with SLARI personnel – one at senior and two at junior staff levels; five FGDs were conducted with MAFFS personnel – one at national/senior staff level and four at junior level in each district; and four FGDs were conducted with NGO personnel – one at national/senior level and three at junior staff level in each district. During the FGDs, participants were asked to:

105 | P a g e

a) individually list the key behaviours that characterise a functioning AIS in research and extension; b) individually list the advantages and disadvantages of using an AIS approach in research and extension programmes;

c) list people or organisations that would approve or disapprove of its use;

d) list conditions that would make it easy and/or difficult if they were to use an AIS approach in their work.

After completion of this exercise, participants shared their responses in a plenary session. The responses were listed on a flip chart and the number of people who had listed each was recorded (frequencies). This was repeated in all FGDs conducted for research and extension professionals. Responses with the highest frequencies were then compiled by the researcher and they formed the basis for the elicitation stage of the TPB variables, including outcome beliefs, salient referents, and control beliefs.

A minimum of eight farmers participated in all the FGDs conducted in the eight communities. A total of 16 FGDs were conducted in all the eight communities (two FGDs per community). In each community, male and female farmers were interviewed separately using Agricultural Timelines for one group and Innovation Histories for the other, in every two communities per district. Agricultural

timelines is a participatory tool that was used with farmers to record changes that have occurred in

their communities, as well as smallholder rice farmers’ innovations and how they have adapted to these changes over time. Participating farmers were encouraged to identify key agricultural events that have occurred in their communities, and when they occurred. To help farmers put these events in a historical perspective, these events were recorded in a horizontal line on a vanguard, by the researcher, specifying a defined time period, while the research assistant helped with facilitation. The aim was to provide general information about farmers’ key agricultural events in their communities, the innovations that have occurred, and the key enterprises they have undertaken. They were encouraged to select the most important changes that had occurred in their communities and to discuss where these ideas had came from and why, and how they were diffused and adapted among them. This helped to understand the key enterprises in which farmers engage, and the key changes they have effected in their rice farming systems over a given period of time. This information was then used to design the quantitative survey administered in the second phase of the study.

Innovation histories provide a comprehensive analysis of innovation through the recording and

106 | P a g e

constrain innovation (Gabb, 2013). An “innovation history” is a history of a given innovation told in the order in which the events of its creation and adoption occurred. It is a method of recording and reflecting on an innovation process where actors construct a detailed account based on their recollection and on available documents (Gervacio, 2012). In this study, innovation histories were used to identify the key changes that farmers have affected in their rice farming systems in the past ten years, and to identify the drivers and the key actors of those changes. Guided by the full list of rice innovations that have been promoted by the key research and extension actors in the country, completing this exercise with the farmers helped gather the information that guided the design of questionnaires for the collection of quantitative data, subsequently used to understand the extent to which research and extension programmes have influenced smallholder farmers innovative capacity in the target communities.

Figure 4.8: Researcher posing with male smallholder farmers after a FGD in Konta Line, Kambia District (photo credit: Researcher)

Rese

ar

107 | P a g e

Figure 4.9: Female FGD participants in Petifu Line, Tonkolili District (photo credit: Researcher)

Figure 4.10: Female farmers demonstrating increased spacing of seedlings in their farms before and after participating in TP-R activities (respectively) in Koinadugu District (photo credit: Researcher)

108 | P a g e