Focus groups

In addition to the one-on-one interviews, four FG discussions of eight students each were used to gather data from final year learners of each training institution under study. FGs allow shared opinions of a particular defined subject that is of interest to a group of individuals who have had certain shared experiences (Myers, 2009). The aim of the FGs was to answer the ‗how‘ and ‘why‘ questions that produce rich, multifaceted, nuanced and even challenging explanations of how people attribute meaning to, and construe their understandings (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2011). To conduct a successful FG discussion, an interviewer has to possess rich interview skills so as to elicit opinions, attitudes and beliefs held by members of a group. Such skills include being sensitive to others‘ views, being quick to spot issues that deserve further clarification, and being able to keep all participants attentive and responsive and to avoid wasting time (Myers, 2009). In this study, the researcher had been a trainer and an assessor at the TVET institutions, making it easy for her to develop a rapport with the trainees. She was able to sufficiently moderate the discussions and ensured the participation by a majority of respondents instead of allowing a few participants to dominate the conversations. This was done by asking participants to clarify their answers, by using additional questions to elaborate on a point, and, by asking the less confident members for their opinions.

108

When well done, data generated from FGs are rich and descriptive because ideas build and people work to explain why they feel the way they do. FG discussions bring synergy in the conception and dynamism of ideas‘while generating data that can complement that produced from individual interviewing. The FG discussions also present ideal sources of data on how diverse groups in a community perceive their status or challenges (Murray, 1998). FG discussions have several advantages, as shown in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 Advantages of group discussion

Synergism Combined effect of the group produces a wider range of information, ideas etc.

Snowballing A comment by an individual often triggers a chain of responses from other respondents.

Stimulation Respondents become more responsive after initial introduction and are more likely to express their attitudes and feelings as the general level of excitement increases. Security Most respondents find comfort in a group that shares their

feelings and beliefs.

Spontaneity As individuals are not required to answer specific questions, their responses are likely to be more spontaneous and less conventional.

Serendipity The ethos of the group is likely to produce wider ideas and often when least expected.

Specialisation The content allows a more trained interviewer to be used and minimises the possibility of subjectivity.

Scientific scrutiny

The nature of the inquiry allows a closer scrutiny in the technique by allowing observers or by later playing back and analysing recording sessions.

Structure Discussions afford more flexibility in the topics that can be covered and in the depth in which these are treated.

Speed Given that several individuals are being interviewed at the same time, this speeds up the process of collecting and analysing the data.

Adapted from (Fahad, 1986, p. 322).

Some of the above-stated advantages were observed during the study: for example, a contribution by one individual triggered a chain of reactions from the others, which then sparked diverse,

109

spontaneous and less conventional ideas; members of the group seemed to express themselves freely—they were flexible and confident, and the excitement increased as the discussion progressed; and a lot of data were recorded by taking notes and audio taping the interviews in a relatively short time.

FG discussions also have potential disadvantages: doubts about validity, interviewer variability, degree of freedom, sample size, too much interaction, and self-appointed leaders who may influence others‘ opinions (Fahad, 1986). The researcher addressed some of the issues that arose at various stages of the discussion. For example, the number and choice of the respondents were determined to ensure adequate interaction and sufficient data. Final year learners were chosen because they had already been trained for two years and had experienced the workplace during field attachments that lasted six months. Although they had not finished their course, they were presumed to have had enough experience of the motor vehicle vocational education course to provide views on their training. Eight participants in each FG allowed for sufficient interaction among members, while being small enough for the interviewer‘s moderation.

The first FG discussion was challenging for the interviewer, but the successive ones improved as the interviewer‘s confidence grew. Further, it was found that the learners at the lowest level of training (the youth polytechnic) were less expressive and had more difficulty with technical terms compared to those at higher levels. But in all instances, the participants were encouraged to speak in Kiswahili, which was later translated to English by the researcher, who is conversant in both languages. Another aspect of the discussion was that some respondents attempted to influence the responses of others, which required intervention by the interviewer to ensure that the voices of more timid participants were heard.