Focus groups

A focus group refers to a group of participants who can generate information on the topic provided by the researcher – through interacting and communicating (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007). Data emerge as participants discuss the topic among themselves, helped by prompts introduced to them by the researcher (Burton and Bartlett, 2005). In this way, participants bring their views to the surface, while the researcher listens. Meanwhile, an interviewer is expected to be attentive to the responses of the participants, so that he/she can identify new, emerging lines of inquiry that are directly related to the phenomenon being studied (Maree, 2007). Terell (2011:2) points out that “in a focus group the researcher relies on visual and verbal cues to begin to establish rapport between the participants”. The richness of a focus-group interview is that it allows a researcher to enter the participants’ world and to access information from their lived experiences (Denscombe, 2007).

A potential challenge associated with focus groups, which the researcher had to overcome in order to improve the quality and reliability of his study, involved ensuring that everyone in the groups had real opportunities to contribute in the discussions. Cohen et al. (2007) and Bless and Higson-Smith (2000) indicate that in focus groups, people with more education or skills tend to dominate and speak more than those with less expertise in these areas. As aptly stated by the Ohio State University (2008:1): “Shy persons may be intimidated by more assertive persons.” With the current study, it was possible that teachers who had more experience in teaching children with disabilities and/or special educational needs might dominate those with less experience. The issue of experience was, however, taken into consideration when selecting the participants, and the importance of avoiding ‘supremacy’ was discussed with the participants prior to the interviews – and this was also made part of the ground rules.

Palomba and Banta (1999) stated that the data collected from focus-group discussions lack confidentiality and anonymity. Consequently, the ground rules stated that the use of identifying names would be avoided. Furthermore, the researcher was mindful that a case-study approach is not easy to undertake, as it involves good listening, questioning and observation skills with an unbiased mind (Johnson and Christensen, 2008).

On the positive side, focus-group research is considered to be valuable in terms of generating data in the participants’ own words. This provides insights into the participants’ real perceptions of the phenomenon being investigated. It is also maintained that participants may feel free to talk in a group, but not in an individual interview. Their interactions in the group may generate more discussion, which shall provide more information. In addition, participants can learn from each other. The Ohio State University (2008:1) stresses that focus-group discussions can enable participants to “feed off each other as they respond to each other’s comments.”

3.1.3 Sampling

This study used a sample of 12 secondary schools in the Maseru District – in which there are (or have been) some students with disabilities and/or special educational needs. The total number of secondary schools in the Maseru District is well over 50 (Lerotholi, 2001; Ntho, 2013). Participants were teachers with at least two years’ teaching experience in classes which included some children with disabilities and/or special educational needs, as they were considered to have rich and relevant information. It is argued that direct experiences of including students with disabilities into mainstream settings is an essential aspect of shaping teachers' knowledge of and views towards inclusive settings (Avramidis, Bayliss and Burden, 2000).

Six schools were drawn from rural regions and the other six from urban regions of the Maseru District. Two focus groups were constituted: one comprised teachers from rural schools and the other comprised teachers from urban schools. An ideal number of participants in a focus group are four to eight (Hancock et al., 2007). Dawson (2006) advises researchers to opt for odd numbers when dealing with focus groups, as it may then be harder for participants to pair up in breakaway

conversations. The initial plan was to have seven teachers per group, but one participant did not arrive for the first interview. Thus, the researcher decided to work with six people per group. The sample sought to address maximum variability in terms of participant work locations. In doing so, the study attempted to provide a full and rich understanding of Lesotho secondary school teacher perceptions of IE. The participants were required to have an applicable teaching qualification: a degree, diploma, or certificate.

Purposive sampling (Dawson, 2006) with maximum variation was used to select the participants. Purposive sampling is used in “special situations where the sampling is done with a specific purpose in mind” (Maree, 2007:178), and where the researcher only targets the people whom he believes are rich in information related to the subject of the study. This sampling method was based on the fact that the researcher wanted to discover, understand and gain insight into Lesotho secondary school teacher knowledge of IE, and therefore had to select a sample from which the maximum could be learned. This increased the trustworthiness of the research (see Creswell, 2007; Golafshani, 2003). There are a few secondary schools in the Maseru District (and in Lesotho in general) in which there are (or have been) children with disabilities (Ntho, 2013), and so purposive sampling was used to select such schools. The schools were grouped on the basis of demographic locations within the Maseru District (urban and rural), and six schools were randomly selected from each group. Purposive sampling was used again to identify teachers who met the above- mentioned criterion in each school. Finally, one teacher was randomly selected among those who qualified in each school – while adhering to the ethical codes of research outlined later in section 3.4.