Mixed methods approach

Chapters one and three clearly demonstrate that this research touches on different aspects of hybrid discourse practices of urbanites in late modern Lusaka, for example, casual conversations, print advertisements and online discourses. In as much as these aspects are inter-related, gathering information from them required an array of data collection methods that would cancel out respective weaknesses of one or the other. Such a method of combining or mixing methods or strategies of data collection and analysis is referred to as triangulation or simply mixed methods approach. In view of the nature of the study, it was inevitable to use mixed methods to data collection (see Flick 2007).

Triangulation is said to be an application of two or more methods of data collection in the study of aspects of human behavior (Flick 2007). However, the notion of triangulation as used in research was (still is) originally used to combine quantitative and qualitative research approaches for interpretive validity purposes (Maree 2007; Welman et. al. 2005; Flick 2007). The idea of using triangulation methodology is to ensure quality of data and subsequent results of an investigation. However, in this study I use triangulation in terms of combining different qualitative research methods within the general qualitative research paradigm taken (Flick 2007). The combination of the research methods are diagrammatically represented in Figure 1 below:

100

Figure 1: An illustration of different qualitative research methods (adapted from Barbour 2007)

The methods presented in Figure 1 above were chosen on account of their suitability in dealing with different sources of data that the study had targeted. These methods collectively addressed the research questions which ultimately addressed the research issue. In the section below, I explain in detail how each of the methods was applied in the process of data collection and the motivation behind their selection.

(a) Qualitative method I-Focus Group Discussion (FGD): Kitzinger and Barbour (1999) define focus groups as group discussions exploring a specific set of issues. They point out that they are ‘focused’ because they place a premium in achieving a collective goal through debating a set of different questions or topics. Focus groups are distinguished from group interviews in that they involve group interaction to generate data. In focus groups, the researcher provides stimulus materials in order to encourage participants’ interaction with one another. The researcher also pays attention to the composition of the group to ensure that discussions seem appropriate

Qualitative method I Focus Group Discussion

Qualitative method III Semi-structured interviews Qualitative method IV Participant observation Qualitative method V Analysis of written/print data

Qualitative method II Follow-Up Key Informant Interviews

Issue of Research study (language practices)

101

(Barbour 2007). In so doing, from a linguist point of view, focus groups encourage natural talk. It is for this reason that I found them as one of the important methods of data collection in the study as the research sought to find naturally occurring talk. The idea was to get people together, provide a general contentious topic for discussion and encourage the talking and then generate the data. In as much as this could appear to be a controlled discussion, care was taken to avoid controlling the discussion as the objective was to get natural talk. In the first instances, the discussions began at a slow pace as participants were conscious they were being recorded. However, as time progressed, they had forgotten they were being recorded. In this case, naturally occurring data was generated. Therefore, the aim of the FDGs was to target natural occurring talk.

From the foregoing, a total of 8 focus groups were conducted. These focus groups were taken from the following sites: market place, Boutique, ents’ Barbershop, Ladies’ Hair Saloon, 2 music groups and 1 from the workplace. The numbers of participants in the groups ranged between 5 and 8 participants. Since the study was designed to capture how people interact and use hybrid discourses in informal or casual conversations, some general question/s of topical nature were asked to stimulate discussions. Nonetheless, I included the workplaces to explore the mobility of language across the informal and formal spaces. Consent was sought from participants before recording them, although scholars such as Moody (1985) have observed that when interlocutors realize they are being recorded they pay much attention to how they use language hence making the setting unnatural. However, this is not always the case when the discussion is long as participants tend to forget they are being recorded. In this case, the researcher deliberately allowed the discussions to be longer. The idea was to ensure that respondents overcome their anxieties in order for them to provide natural conversations. I also tried to maintain the natural settings by conducting the focus group discussions within the places where I got the groups from. For example, I used the same markets and Barbershops to conduct the discussions from. This was particularly important in view of the type of data I was targeting. The topics of discussions varied from homosexuality to politics as these were at that time topics of debate nationwide. The choice of the topics was deliberate as the idea was to get everyone in the groups, including the introverts, participate. This method proved to be useful in two isolated

102

cases where two ladies, although they had consented to be part of the groups, had shown no interest in the beginning of the discussions but as others progressed, they also found themselves joining in and interestingly, did most of the talking.

(b) Qualitative method II-Follow up key informant interviews (KIIs): This method was used as a ‘within-method triangulation’ (see Flick 2007) to follow-up the FGDs. The KIIs were conducted with two selected participants from the groups mentioned in (a) above. The criterion for the selection was based on those that provided rich information as determined by the objectives of this study (see Creswell 2002). The KIIs were used in order to get further insights into the information provided by the participants. In particular, it was used to see whether the participant could shed light on the forms of language they unwittingly used during the FGDs. For example, whether they were able to associate particular linguistic resources they had used during the discussions to specific languages. Further, it was used to find out more about their home language, and other languages they used and how they use them. It was also used to find out general attitudes that they have on the languages they used in the FGDs.

(c) Qualitative method III-semi-structured interviews: Semi-structured interviews are commonly used in research projects to collaborate data emerging from other data sources. They seek to obtain the participants’ ideas and opinions on a given phenomenon. It rarely spans a long time and often requires the participant to answer predetermined questions. However, there is room for probing and clarification of answers (Nieuwenhuis 2007). This method was found to be necessary and a useful tool in obtaining ideas and opinions about multilingual language practices in formal and informal settings of urban Lusaka. Particularly, the method sought to find out what people’s opinions were about the hybrid discourse practices in various spheres of social life in Lusaka. That is, whether their opinions were in consonance with the dominant ideological views about language. This was important for the purposes of involving participants so they can have a say on their language practices which is a critical methodological issue in recent sociolinguistic theorizing that places speakers at the centre of language research (see Pennycook 2010; Heller 2007; Blackledge & Creese 2010). Thus, the method was used to collect data from purposefully

103

selected participants, one each from the focus groups, two random interviews from two professionals at a university and two street traders. The method was also used to solicit ideas and opinions from four musicians regarding the use of language in song lyrics. The questions in the interviews were predetermined.

(d) Qualitative method V Analysis of written/print/audio-visual data: The, first step involved under this method involved identifying the materials to be used in the study and then selecting the most relevant ones that ultimately constituted the corpus of documents and videos. This corpus included 50 web-based discourses (from news blogs and Facebook) accompanied by an extract of the article upon which each conversation was based; it also included 50 print ads and 50 music videos/song lyrics. The idea here was to establish how language and other semiotics are being localized in the process of meaning making and projection of identities by urban speakers. Secondly, having made a consolidated corpus of documents and videos, the researcher identified parts or sections from the corpus which were felt to be relevant in answering the research question. For example, from the music data base, the researcher settled for music lyrics and videos which had a bias toward one theme, that is, HIV/AIDS messages because this source revealed rich data in terms of the different semiotics used. Therefore, not all the corpus in their entirely were used for detailed analysis.

(e) Qualitative method IV-participant observation: The term ‘observation’ in research generally refers to the systematic process of recording the behavioral patterns of participants, objects and events without having to question or seeking to ask any questions (Nieuwenhuis 2007; Kothari 2004; Welman et. al. 2005; Heigham & Croker 2009). Thus participant observation is a type of research method in which the researcher actively participates in the activities of the people s/he is researching about. Therefore, a participant observer immerses or becomes part of the people being observed. The current researcher used the method of active participation in which he took part in the conversation during which time he observed and took notes of particular information pertinent to the study. The researcher also passively observed people’s interactions in order to see how they engaged their linguistic repertoire during their interactions to make meaning and

104

stylize identities. The limitation for using this method was that the recording of information using an audio recorder slightly interfered with the process of data collection as some participants viewed this with suspicion. However, the advantage of using this method was that it allowed the researcher to get an insight of actual language practices in places where FGDs could not be conducted such as on public buses, drinking places and busy workplaces. Therefore, the method was used to complement data collected using the methods highlighted above. This method was not only used in areas in which other research methods could not be used, but rather, it was also used in collaboration with other research methods, for example, the researcher used this method during the FGDs by observing the flow of the discussions and the common patterns of language use. The data collected using this method was recorded in a notebook as part of the research notes. In addition, a digital camera was used to capture print ads posted on billboards and other public areas. The idea was to choose only those ads which displayed the use of hybrid discourses or appropriated language. Like with music, the researcher also settled for print ads from mobile phone companies as they provided rich data that would yield answers to the objectives.