Focus group

Focus groups were used in conjunction with semi-structured interviews in order to enhance the breadth, depth, and reliability of the research. Following semi-structured interviews, I used focus group to check the emerging conclusions from my initial analysis and to obtain the reactions of participants in a different social context. Focus groups offered me insights into the ways in which the participants discussed issues as members of a group, rather than simply

as individuals. I could study the ways in which individuals collectively make sense of a phenomenon and construct meanings around it. ‘It therefore reflects the process through which meaning is constructed in everyday life and to that extent can be regarded as more realistic than individual interviews’ (Wilkinson, 1998: 111-125). I conducted focus groups after gathering interview data and following my initial data analysis. Following initial analysis of interview data, I sensed that there were enthusiastic students who wanted to contribute more to the research. They were chosen to take part in the focus group. There were also emerging themes from the individual interviews with students that I thought warranted fuller exploration. After the initial problems of finding a free room to conduct the focus group the session started off in the students’ common room. The researcher and the respondents became slightly uncomfortable as other students wandered in for their break. We moved to a private room for the remainder of the session, which continued smoothly. However, there were teachers in the adjacent room which made us conscious of our voice levels.

For the focus group I used interview data and quotations to produce scenarios about key issues and emerging themes and got pupils to discuss them. Hypothetical scenarios were produced for discussion. These hypothetical scenarios allowed the respondents to talk freely about their experiences without implicating themselves. The focus group was used as a vignette and also mirrored the data collected by oral history interviews. This method gave me the opportunity to allow the students to probe each other's reasons for holding certain views. It is less predictable than the question and answer approach. As they begin to listen to each other, they may want to modify or qualify their own views, or even voice agreement to something they might not have agreed with if they did not have the opportunity to hear others points of view. As a result of individuals challenging each other's views, I might end up with

a more reflective account of what pupils think, because they are forced to think about and possibly revise their view. There was an emphasis on interaction with the group and the joint construction of meaning. The participants were selected because of their similarity, for example, they were academically successful and some had previously attended a

supplementary school. They were called upon to recall crucial moments in their lives when the protective process was strengthened, hence the coping skills that form the backbone of their resilience.

The adoption of an oral history approach to this research was also ideal because I possess the personal characteristics that would positively influence the personal dynamics between the respondents and myself, which lead to the collection of ‘quality data’ (Sikes et al., 1996: 43). I am fascinated by, curious, and interested in how African-Caribbean people make sense of the world around them. I am also sensitive to the issues and experiences of the respondents. Being a good listener who listens beyond what is actually being said enabled me to ask sensitive and important questions in a non-threatening way. I initiated all my interviews by briefly sharing relevant information about myself and portrayed myself as someone that the respondents would want to talk to. As a result I was able to develop the sort of relationship that encouraged the respondents to ‘open up’ and give ‘in-depth data’.

3.9 Analysis

After tape recording the initial interviews, I transcribed the recordings myself. Although this process was time-consuming it enabled me to become more familiar with the data. This helped in the analysis of the data as I began to identify common themes and ideas that were beginning to emerge and develop (Lofland and Lofland (1995). Through listening closely to

the respondents’ annotations, I was able to connect this with their body language and gestures which helped with subsequent readings and interpretations. Following the first stage of

interviews, I began fully transcribing the data. I started to observe emerging themes and issues that were surfacing. While conducting interviews at Highbury Secondary School I began to notice that there were common elements of the respondent’s accounts which mirrored the accounts of the first group at Broadfield Secondary School. By the time I conduced the focus group it became apparent that the data coming from the focus group though illuminating was also centred on the emerging themes of resilience, identity and social and cultural capital. The focus group consisted of mainly the students with whom I conduct individual interviews. I also felt that the data received from teachers and parents added to the breadth and richness of the data. At this stage I felt that my data had reached a point of saturation.

I started by using ‘open coding’ which involved breaking down the data, examining them carefully, comparing them and look out for emerging themes (Silverman, 2000; Bryman, 2004; Thomas, 2013). My understanding of the relationships within the data which came from my knowledge of pre-existing research and my research questions also helped to provide a focus for my analysis. However, at each stage of the analysis, I had to be reflexive to ensure that my background knowledge of the data and position did not affect the research process.

My approach to analysing the accounts contained in participants’ interviews drew on what Thomas (2013) describes as the ‘constant comparative’ method. This method is the basic method used by interpretative researchers. It involves going through the data several times and comparing each element, phrase, sentence and paragraph with all other elements. From the constant comparison the data is marked up with codes (abbreviations, names, colours)

with describes its important facets. Eventually themes emerge which captures or summarises the content of the data.

I began a constant comparison method, by firstly looking for key events or turning points in the respondents’ lives as well as the impact of significant others. I also compared patterns of behaviour of the cultural group within the school setting and considered the shared

assumptions, view, beliefs and some of the taken for granted norms within the culture. I then looked at the means by which the family help us to make sense of individuals’ lives in the context of the home and broader cultural context such as black supplementary schools and black churches.

The emerging themes which surfaced from my initial analysis formed the basis of the main categories, that is, resilience, identity and black cultural and social capital. I examined the complete data field carefully and highlighted the bits of data that might relate to each main category and merged them with the main categories. Following this, I wrote a summary of the merged data. Through a process of ‘constant comparison’ (Silverman, 2000; Bryman, 2004; Thomas 2013), I examined the merged data segments in order to identify similarities, differences and connections between them. This enabled me to identify sub-categories which were further summarised and refined. This lead to an analytic account and an explanation of theory ‘grounded’ in the data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). I used the Microsoft Word programme to highlight and tag text which related to particular emerging themes and to merge the data with the particular categories to which they belonged.