Primary Data Collection: Non-Survey Method - Focus Group Discussions

Generally, non-survey methods have the ―ability to focus closely and in-depth on a case that has a number of features that are of interest from an analytical point of view, and has been selected for that reason‖ (Appleton and Booth, 2005, p. 124). As for the collection of qualitative data, the study relied primarily on focus group discussions. FGD was the very first data

collection method employed by the researcher because through its proceedings, insights were given to both what was thought by the participants and the reason for the thought as emphasized by (AEDEDC, 2004), and also because the data generated from it was capable of being integrated into the contents of questionnaires that could be used for survey purposes which further aggrandizes the reliability and validity of a research work as emphasized by (Halcomb, et al., 2007). This study chose FGD as it method of collecting the qualitative data because it is a more exertive and activating social discussion through which a cumulative understanding of the identified problem is achievable (Gillis and Jackson, 2002). Also, because it creates an atmosphere where the participants express their ideas and experiences and listen to that of others;

that is, it is characterized by the group effect under which participants are engaged in what (Lindlof and Taylor, 2002, p. 182) refer to as ―a kind of ‗chaining‘ or ‗cascading‘ effect; talk links to, or tumbles out of, the topics and expressions preceding it.‖ In other words, FGDs are not limited to the ambit or confine of views, ideas or perception sought as obtained in questionnaires administration (Burns and Grove, 2001). If well coordinated, FGD ensures that conversation is always on track; it affords the researcher the opportunity of knowing who have been involved; if compared to surveys, the method is reasonably low cost and it is possible for a researcher to gets results almost quickly (Sherraden, 2001; Fern 2001; Krueger and Casey, 2000;

Marshall and Gretchen, 1999; Creswell, 1998). For this research work, the discussion took place in February, 2011 and March, 2011 in Osun and Jigawa States respectively. In Osun State, the discussion was held at the conference room of the STEB B programme, Federal Polytechnic, Ede, Osun State, and in Jigawa State, it was held at conference room of Jigawa Hotels Limited, Dutse, Jigawa State. Both places were comfortable as they were roomy, well ventilated, well lit

up, and they had in them upholstered chairs as prescribed by Ressel, et al. (2002). In addition to this, they were affixed with slit air conditioners.

4.4.1.1 Focus Group Discussions’ Sampling Strategy and Recruitment

The researcher constituted an 8-member focus group in each of the two states captured by the study, that is, Osun and Jigawa States using purposive sampling method. The reason for the choice of a purposive sampling method was that the FGDs were not aimed at producing a statistically representative sample or aimed at drawing statistical inference. The characteristics of individuals were used as the basis of selection. In line with the discourse of (Burns and Grove, 2001), the researcher did carefully address the issue of the focus group composition to heighten the level of interaction among the participants so as to generate data that were valid and reliable from the exercise. The homogeneous focus group discussion was employed in the composition of the participants in both states captured by the research under which the discussions consisted of eight (8) Family Household Heads. Homogeneous focus group was employed because such groups ―share common identity relevant to discussion‖ as they are with common threads being the issues for discussion as emphasized by Goldmans, (1962, p. 62) and Vaughn, Schumm and Sinagub (1996); and because they are ―generally more comfortable and open with one another‖

as claimed by Keown, (1983, p. 66). The statuses/occupations of these household heads were however heterogenous; their statuses/occupations included farming, trading, clergy, civil servant, public servant, teaching, lectureship, social worker, community leadership, and studentship; the household heads were also of male and female genders. The focus groups were characterized by such diverse profiles because ―it is usually helpful to provide for both homogeneity and contrast within specific groups‖ as argued by Wells (1974, p. 4). Through this kind of composition, the groups in both states did achieve an expansive magnitude of views in line with the submission of

(Ressel et al., 2002). The decision to limit the number of participants involved in the FGDs to eight (8) per state was in line with the position of Barbour and Kitzinger (1999) which emphasize that it is cumbersome to guarantee contribution from all participants if they are more than fifteen (15) in number; it is equally in line with the position of Morgan (1997) which emphasizes that the chances of adequately covering the themes of a FGD is limited where there are less than four (4) participants. Eight (8) participants chosen in both states were adequate as the size was neither to large nor too small (McLafferty, 2004).

4.4.1.2 Focus Group Discussions’ Strategy

In both Osun and Jigawa States, the researcher was the moderator of the FGDs and he did appoint an assistant moderator who was a professional colleague and an established researcher in the field of marketing. The mean time for conducting the discussions was one hundred and twenty (120) minutes. Luckily, there were no time wasters as all the participants kept to time. As the moderator, the researcher functioned to guide the participants through the process, particularly, where conversations went off track; the participants had more control of the discussions though. In other words, the researcher‘s involvement in the discussions was low as he asked questions and allowed the participants to converse; this was in line with the submission of (Burns and Grove, 2001). The moderator added no comments in the conversation but occasionally asked follow-up questions and changed the subjects when discussions dragged, and he indicated no specific information he wanted about the topics/themes as this might have effect on the discussions and create biased findings. The moderator, that is, the researcher was seated in a vantage position which enabled him have easy and smooth communication with all the participants. Each participant was seated around the table and had a clear view of the rest of the group.

Before undertaking the FGDs proper in both states, the moderator briefly introduced himself; specified the objectives and information needs of the focus group discussion; broke down the major topics into discussion themes; prepared probe question; reviewed the guide and eliminated irrelevant questions. In undertaking the discussions in both states, the moderator (the researcher) collected the demographic information of participants and discussions were based on a list of relevant key themes drawn up by the researcher (see appendix 2 for the discussion questions/themes of the FDGs).

The focus groups were moderately structured using a deductive approach. Going by Kendall and Kendall (2005, pp. 4-18) the discussions followed a ‗funnel structure‘ format under which the moderator began with generalized, open-ended questions (broad and less structured questions) and concluded by narrowing the responses using closed questions (specific and more structured questions); this did provide an easy, nonthreatening way to begin an interview. In short, the ―analogy is to a discussion that moves from broader to narrower topics‖ (Morgan, 1997, p. 53). The funnel design helped the moderator to hear the participants‘ general perspectives; led him into covering the topics of most interest; and helped him obtain answers to his specific needs assessment questions. Also, the funnel design was useful when participants felt emotional about a topic as they were at liberty to express themselves Kendall and Kendall (2005). The researcher used brainstorming as a strategy of engaging the discussants in both Osun and Jigawa States. This encouraged each group member as it gave each of them chance to speak and this helped in casting a broad net across all the participants to ensure they were all involved.

In both states, the proceedings of the discussions exercise were recorded to ensure adequate analysis. The assistant moderator did audiotape the focus groups using a ‗Clarity USB Cassette Recorder.‘ Before the recording of the proceedings commenced, each participant was

requested to endorse an informed consent; the contents of this document was written in plain English language, and they clearly stated the following: that the information would be collected and used to look at a particular research topic; that participants could choose to stop at any time without penalty; that participation was anonymous except for listed persons; and it did state who would have access to the recording tapes (see appendix 1). This audiotape recording saved the moderator from having to write plenteous notes during the discussions. During the discussions, participants were served light refreshments by the assistant moderator which served the purpose of creating a social cum friendly environment for discussion; it was ensured that this did not disorganize the flow of discussions as non-noisy edible snacks were served. The functions performed by the assistant moderator apart from recording the session and arranging refreshments included taking some notes and creating a conducive environment for discussants;

this is in line with (Krueger and Casey, 2000).

In summary, the FGD exercise provided rich data via direct interaction between researcher and participants. This was necessitated by the very fact that participants in the focus group discussions frequently voiced views that they otherwise might not express in other settings, or if individually interviewed. Thus, it was easy to make participants fully engaged during discussion and non-discussion time. It allowed for social interaction within the group that did yield a more gratuitous and more complicated responses as there did exist interactive synergy, spontaneity and security of participants within the group.

4.4.1.3 Brief Discussion on the Cultural Context with Respect to the FGDs

All the discussants in Osun State were Yorubas. Culturally, the Yorubas are gregarious and sociable. According to Fadipe (1970), the Yorubas are more of an extrovert than an introvert.

They are self-contained and self-reliant people that capable of keeping their mental and physical

suffering to themselves so that others may not express their sympathy for them. They look upon expressions of sympathy offered to a man who is experiencing temporary or permanent injury as helping to lighten the pain (pp. 301-303). The thoughts of the Yorubas are mainly narrative and they hold the belief that any lore that widens people's horizons and presents food for thought is the beginning of a philosophy. The Yorubas are very religious people professing Christianity, Islam and traditional religions and they tolerant about their religious differences (Karade, 1994).

As for all the discussants in Jigawa State, they were all Hausas. Regardless of ethnic affiliation, most Hausas are Muslims as there is a strong connection between Hausa and Islam. Culturally, the Hausas value personal qualities which include consistent geniality, cheeriness and pleasant manners. This has the connotation of a calm stoical pleasantness no matter the level of stress or provocation. They admit their needs in public and they have the ability to endure severe pain without complaint (LeVine, 2007).

It is important to state that in the assessment of the researcher, the cultural characteristics of the discussants in both states seemed not to present them as people that might not be factual in their contributions to the themes of the FGDs. Also, the extrovert characteristic of the Yorubas and the admission of needs characteristic of the Hausas gave the researcher a bit of more

Household Head Leadership/Farming

4.4.2 Primary Data Collection: Survey Method-Household Questionnaire