Focus group discussions (FGDs)

I decided that we had reached a theoretical and thematic saturation point after

conducting 47 one-to-one interviews with farmers and 55 with employees (including

the seasonal employee interviews) as no new themes were emerging and most participants were highlighting similar issues. Due to the circumstances noted above, we also conducted two group discussions with seasonal employees. On completing these interviews, and for reasons of triangulation discussed in section 5.4.3, I decided to invite some participants back for a more focussed discussion of insightful aspects that emerged from interviews.

FGDs can be used to explore intersubjective understandings (Crang and Cook, 2007) of particular issues or phenomena. Promoting conversation in a group setting where participants may probe or question each other can generate a different form of material to that generated by individual interviews (Bryman, 2008; Krueger and Casey, 2009). To facilitate that process as a research team we shared some findings and interpreted experiences from interviews to generate a less structured topic guide (Crang and Cook, 2007) to shape conversations. As Krueger and Casey (2009) argue, I found that using easier open questions first helped to start a conversation.¹¹³ We then explored key issues raised in interviews to check that information made sense and to check for any conflicts or queries regarding the themes and conclusions we were making. Through this process we could triangulate responses.

To focus the discussion it is preferable to form groups and discussions based on the purpose of the study (Krueger and Casey, 2009). Therefore, I decided to take a purposive sample of participants from the lists of those already interviewed to invite back for a group discussion.¹¹⁴ Based on their experiences from conducting the earlier interviews I asked the research assistants to think of participants who had raised some interesting points in interviews or who appeared to be more committed to the process.

Following good practice advice we restricted group size to a maximum of 10

(Bryman, 2008; Krueger and Casey, 2009) and maximum length of a discussion to 1.5 hours (Crang and Cook, 2007). The number of groups we selected was based on criteria of theoretical saturation and time and resource constraints (Bryman, 2008).

Krueger and Casey (2009) suggest stopping after 3 or 4 groups to check if a saturation

113 An example of this schedule can be found in Appendix F.

114 A technique also adopted by Bacon (2004) in his fair trade study.

point has been reached. In the end we conducted a total of six FGDs with farmers and permanent employees in addition to the two with seasonal employees.

As well as purposive sampling, Crang and Cook (2007) advise that it is also

potentially beneficial to converse with already existing groups. One advantage of this, in addition to convenience, is to observe a group in its familiar setting. As I discuss later this was particularly useful and insightful when we met with existing committees at Kasinthula.

Regarding criteria for selecting purposely sampled groups, I stratified the sample lists by age, gender, and occupation for employees. Selecting people by such common characteristics increases comfort when people sense they are alike (Crang and Cook 2007; Krueger and Casey, 2009). It also meant we could elicit perspectives from groups of people with different backgrounds and circumstances.

The permanent employee groups were only stratified by age as they were all male.

The age categories were based on separating participants into groups approximately under or over the age of 40 years. The reason for stratifying was to elicit views from those in elder and younger elements of society given the hierarchical nature and protocol in Malawian society. This provided each group with a more comfortable environment in which to express their views freely.

Ideally the setting for a discussion will be in a circular format that aids the use of recording equipment to capture points raised by all participants for later transcription (Bryman, 2008; Crang and Cook, 2007). Working with research assistants we agreed on such a format and who would lead each discussion. I was present at each

discussion with two assistants. In Chichewa one assistant conducted the introductions, moderated, and used a digital recorder. The other took notes of the conversations in English and interrupted at relevant points to probe further. In selecting moderators for the discussions we incorporated criteria of gender and different strengths and skill sets of assistants (Edwards, 1998).

An explanation of the reason for the meeting was given at the start of each meeting, together with a description of the format and use of technology to check that everyone

was comfortable with that process. As in all such meetings cultural wishes were observed by offering the opportunity for prayer before a discussion commenced. I was present at all group discussions so that I could join as required depending on the flow of the conversation to either probe further or to answer any questions as fully as possible. As in previous interviews soft drinks were provided to all present.

Figure 5.6 Two research assistants (right) leading a FGD with permanent employees Source: Author’s photograph

Figure 5.7 Two research assistants (right) leading a FGD with permanent employees Source: Author’s photograph

Figure 5.8 Two research assistants (left) leading a FGD with female farmers Source: Author’s photograph

Referring to Figure 5.1, we also arranged meetings for group discussions with the two phase committees of KCGL, the Fairtrade committee, and the workers committee.

The findings and interpretations from all of these interviews are the subject of analysis in Chapters Six and Seven. However, I now specify one finding of relevance to the methodology from our meeting with the Fairtrade Premium Committee.

Fairtrade Premium Committee (FPC)

As discussed earlier in Chapter Four, the standards of the FLO state that a

democratically elected committee should be formed charged with the responsibility of deciding how Fairtrade Premium funds should be spent. In the case of KCGL, the committee of ten comprised both male and female farmers but with no employee representation. Following instructions from reports generated by annual audits of the FLO, that membership structure was amended during my fieldwork period to

constitute eight farmer and two employee members.

In section 5.2.1 I introduced the term ‘native informants’ with reference to Spivak (1999). As part of my approach to give those normally silenced an opportunity to be heard in my research I approached the two employee members to ask if they would be willing to write about their experiences since being members of the FPC and to keep a diary during the period of my stay in Malawi. They consented to this proposal, and so I provided them with pens and paper to chart their experiences. A few days later they

approached me to return their transcripts charting their experiences since joining the committee.

As the FPC was an already existing group we were able to observe ways in which people positioned themselves and related to each other (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008).

Following the FPC group discussion the two employees approached us in confidence to state that they did not feel they were able to say what they wanted to in that

meeting and would prefer to be interviewed separately from the farmer members. This was another time when a postcolonial approach of giving the best opportunity for all to voice their views freely and comfortably was evidenced. Therefore, I agreed to arrange a meeting at a later date at a neutral location to minimise harm, increase comfort, and confidentiality (Fontana and Frey, 2008; Hale and Opondo, 2005). In the end only one employee was able to attend that meeting due to the personal

circumstances of the other. The outputs from all meetings and diaries related to the FPC are discussed in detail in Chapter Six.

Figure 5.9 Two research assistants (centre) leading a FGD with the Fairtrade committee.

Source: Author’s photograph