Focus groups

Working in a group, participants might be more willing to express their opinions particularly if they believe it might not fit with the researcher’s beliefs (Hatch, 2002). Participants also have a say in the direction of the interview in that although there are directing questions, a sensitive researcher will go in the direction the group chooses, as long as it remains on the topic. When conducting focus group interviews, the researcher tries to create an atmosphere in which participants feel

Page | 140 comfortable to share ideas and their experiences around a topic (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Focus groups rely on the synergy of the group. Focus groups are established as part of the ‘social researcher’s toolkit’ (Katz & William, 2001). They provide the researcher the opportunity to assemble a group with defined characteristics to consider a particular issue. Both collective and individual responses are generated.

For this study, three focus group interviews were conducted. Each focus group comprised a

minimum of two people, necessitated by people’s schedules. Two experienced groups of seven and two participants were held, as opposed to the single group originally planned. Time to meet created an obstacle for two members. One early career group of seven participants was also included.

Morse identifies that six participants would support discerning the essence of their experiences (Morse, 1994). Poskitt (2007) 8 however, suggested that data from an odd number is preferable. Patton (1990) believes that a sample should be large enough to get reasonable coverage of the phenomenon and Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommend sampling until saturation of data is reached. The sample for this research, although small, used a range of methods to give the research greater credibility.

The three focus groups participants were invited to attend an interview (Appendix 4.p.310) set in a central part of the city. Issues of access, parking, and neutral venue were all considered. The interviews were all set for 11am. This gave principals time to set up their school day and return before the end of the day. Too often principals miss their lunchtime so the discussion flowed on over a provided lunch, which enabled the researcher to listen to the aspects of the interview that

8

Page | 141 stimulated further discussion. Formal learning requirements dominated all three over-lunch

discussions.

Participants were required to select pseudonyms for themselves and their schools. They were advised of the accepted practices of focus group interviews that each person’s viewpoint is valid for that person and that confidentiality of what they hear and say is implicit in their role as participants and in my case the researcher role. The focus group interviews were semi-structured (Appendix 7, p.316) which supports coding the rich data more easily.

The responses tended to be grouped around key ideas that were developed from the literature links (examples of idea linking to literature Table 6, p.134). Questions such as, “Tell me about your pre- principalship learning,” provoked multiple comments about how participants embarked on their principalship journey. Although the questions provided a guide there was still scope for the participants to develop ideas outside the researcher’s brief. Motherhood, rural pathways, family issues, and principals’ influence on developing new leaders were ideas not previously encountered. This necessitated further literature trawling to ascertain whether they had previously been raised in educational research.

Flexibility was inherent in the focus group interviewing. The researcher’s role at times was one of bringing the conversation back to the topic. Flexibility distinguishes a focus group from a

standardised qualitative interview. The standard version uses a specific set of questions, and does not deviate from them. This semi-led discussion therefore enables complex issues to be probed in a relaxed atmosphere. The limitations are that one interview data set cannot be compared to another and the depth of information can be sometimes difficult to analyse and is dependent on researcher skill (Klenke, 2008).

Focus group interviewing is a formal approach. The researcher is “in charge” of the interview, sets the time and place and records the dialogue (Hatch, 2002).Two assumptions underpin the use of

Page | 142 focus groups. Firstly, that they are a rich source of information and secondly that they produce material that is different from other sources (Glitz, 1998). Disadvantages arise when researchers control the discussion too tightly. Another disadvantage could arise from the group interaction contributing to another person’s discomfort. Potentially, however, both these disadvantages are ameliorated through clearly defined processes and expectations (Appendix 8, p.302 outlines interview expectations). Finally, if there is too much flexibility afforded, the data around the actual topic can be hard to determine.

The three focus groups interviews were each completed in just over one hour, providing a large dialogue set in transcript form. Analysis began as soon as the transcripts were loaded into Nvivo 7, the qualitative analysis software. This allowed the researcher in the early phase of data pawing to identify ideas that had not previously been encountered through the literature. This in turn provided an area for further exploration through the individual embedded case studies. Although the

individual story interviews were unstructured, there was opportunity at the end of the interviews to probe issues raised at focus group level.

Selection for the individual phase came from the focus group participants self-electing to take part. The third phase of data gathering was developed to gather in-depth descriptions; the personal stories of principals’ learning. Two experienced and two early career principals from the focus groups comprised the sample.