In this step, I used four focus group interviews to obtain qualitative information about the perception and attitudes of 38 public servants to current Training Programs in Emotional Intelligence in Rayong Province. Focus group principles
Wenger (1998) points out that a focus group is a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and who interact regularly to learn how to do it better. Krueger & Casey (2000) have defined, a focus group as a group of interacting individuals having some common interest or characteristics, brought together by a moderator, who uses the group and its interaction as a way to gain information about a specific or focused issue. Consistent with both these views, a focus group typically consists of 7-10 people who are unfamiliar with each other. These participants are selected because they have certain characteristics in common that relate to the topic of the focus group. A group session should last about 1-1/2 hours with two hours being the absolute maximum time. The moderator or interviewer creates a permissive and nurturing environment that encourages different perceptions and points of view, without pressuring participants to vote, plan or reach consensus.
Krueger & Casey (2000) recommend that group discussions should be conducted several times with similar types of participants to identify trends and patterns in perceptions. Careful and systematic analysis of the discussions provides clues and insights as to how a product, service, or opportunity is perceived by the group.
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
Conducting a focus group requires a high level of resources: I, as researcher, needed to be familiar with facilitation techniques, how to write appropriate questions, and how to analyse qualitative data.
Advantages of focus groups
Focus groups can be used at the preliminary or exploratory stages of a study (Krueger 1988); during a study, perhaps to evaluate or develop a particular programme of activities (Race et al 1994); or after a program has been completed, to assess its impact or to generate further avenues of research. Focus groups can be used either as a method in their own right or to complement other methods, especially for triangulation (Morgan 1988) and validity checking.
Krueger (1988) suggests that the technique has several advantages. It is low cost and provides speedy results. Its flexible format allows the facilitator to explore unanticipated issues and encourages interaction among participants. In a group setting, participants provide checks and balances, thus minimising false or extreme views.
Limitations of focus groups
Focus groups have some limitations; however the flexible format makes it susceptible to facilitator bias, which can undermine the validity and reliability of findings (Morgan 1988). Discussions can be sidetracked or dominated by a few vocal individuals. Focus group interviews generate relevant qualitative information, but no quantitative data from which generalizations can be made for a whole population. Moreover, the information can be difficult to analyse; comments should be interpreted in the context of the group setting.
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
Participants
I established four focus groups, consisting of ten people per focus group; ultimately, two people were unable to attend, reducing the number of participants to 38. My sample of thirty eight people, consisting of 20 men and 18 women all at level five or higher, was randomly chosen from 27 government departments in Rayong Province. I invited them to participate by means of a personal letter (see Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8), accompanied by a letter of support from the Governor of the Province.
Data collection
I made audio-tape recordings of all the focus group interviews. As a consequence, the participants were able to: share with me and others their shared experiences; to identify key factors for developing best practices, pool knowledge, resources and guidelines for developing Training program; and to develop networks with their colleagues who faced similar issues in their workplaces.
I usedthe findings from these focus groups to identify key elements related to the actual Training Programs in Emotional Intelligence that are offered in the province. These elements related to the following:
• the range of perceptions that these public servants have about Emotional Intelligence in general;
• understanding differences of perspective on Emotional Intelligence between public servants working at different levels within the province; and
• gaining insight to factors that influence public servant opinions regarding the application of Training Programs in Emotional Intelligence.
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
Data analysis
I produced transcripts of the four focus groups and used standard qualitative data reduction procedures of analysis by induction (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, 2000, 2005; Miles, 1994, Miles & Huberman, 1994; Owen, 2006) to produce a set of actual and desired outcomes of Training Programs in Emotional Intelligence for this group of public servants.
During the analysis I coded the key actual needs and needs issues, according to the methods described by Miles & Huberman (1994), using Microsoft Excel software: words and phrases were colour-coded, labelled and sorted. I further analysed the colour-coded needs issues, looking for common patterns, similarities and differences related to Training Programs in Emotional Intelligence; again, I colour-coded, labelled and sorted the elements. Using this method of data reduction, I was able to establish criteria and standards relating to the actual and desired outcomes.
After each focus group discussion, I prepared a carefully typed transcript. I then read the transcript looking for key words and concepts. I counted each instance of a key word or concept. The next step was to group the key words and phrases into categories of key actual needs and needs issue. All comments were fitted into at least one category; some comments had several key words and these were placed into different categories.
Key words and phrases were coded for (1) key actual needs, (2) needs issue, and (3) comments (positive, negative, neutral, suggestion for TPEI). After the key words and phrases had been grouped into categories, the interpretation step began. Central themes and issues had emerged. The relative weight of each key actual need was calculated by counting the number of needs issues that it represented. These were then reported as a percentage of the total needs issues identified. Finally, I established an arbitrary standard for the weighting of each key actual need: a strong weighting was greater than 30 per cent of identified needs issues; a moderate weighting was between 15 and 29 per cent of identified needs issues; a low
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
weighting was less than 15 per cent of identified needs issues. Thus, the key actual needs comments were able to be categorised as ‘strong’, ‘moderate’, or ‘weak’, respectively.
During the data analysis, I was able to clarify the desired situation, and identified and prepared a set of questions for the next stage: a set of semi-structured interviews. At this time, my data collection and analysis were closely intertwined.
Step 2: Semi-structured Interview of the Heads of Public Sectors