Responsibilities of the Author in the Focus Group workshop and Interviews

The author utilized three assistant interviewers to assist in the workshop and interview process that was involved. The author acted as the moderator, facilitator and the key interviewer; and his role in focus groups is a key to deriving useful data for the research (Carey, 1994). The task of the author is to ensure that each of the questions in the interview questions is covered and that all participants have the opportunity to discuss freely and contribute significantly to the best of their knowledge, understanding and experience. The writer further ensured that the outputs of the

group discussions including responses to the questions are recorded. The recording of the group discussions was not done through audio or video tape recording for the same reason given earlier including fear that they may be quoted out of context, situation that could jeopardize their roles in national fishery safety control systems and competitiveness.

The recording of the focus groups was done by note taking and the utilization of assistant interviewers simplified the process and enables the author to cover the satisfactory sample size. The discussion was summarized and each group was asked if they are happy, satisfied and that the summary represented their views. They all unanimously agreed that the summary was a fair representation of what they said in the workshop discussion. There were also lot of flexibilities and where the group disagreed or wished to modify the focus group discussion notes; this was allowed smoothly until saturation was achieved. The whole process of the workshop interview and discussion followed iterations until each participant was satisfied that a reasonable record had been made, that undoubtedly reflect their views on the barriers.

The author was very aware of the danger of interviewer-bias and therefore was not underestimated considering the sensitive nature of the data to be collected. In workshop interview there could be a danger where the need to fully exhaust the numerous interview questions on all the barriers plus the requirements to move across the three groups almost at the same time, and the need to steer each group to some conclusions, can sometimes become a directive style where the group is forced and ignited to accept results that may not necessarily represent their actual views on the barriers. This urged the author to adopt the style recommended for focus group facilitation of low control or high process and crave the indulgence of the assistant interviewers to follow the same recommendation (Millward, 1995). As a result, the author and the assistant interviewers adopted and implemented a minimalist approach to the barriers including all the questions of the workshop discussions. Nevertheless, at the same time the author ensured that all of the contents under investigation have been adequately covered according to the research design, through a high degree of professionalism, and summarized all findings in timely manner, to achieve the aims and objectives of the research.

One of the major components in achieving the aims and objectives of a research study project through valid and reliable data from focus group interviews lies with the research design that is effective to guide the process of research, especially in terms of the protocol used in conducting the workshop where questions are discussed and answered in-group forum. The existence of such protocol and workshop strategy as effective research design allows the study to be replicated among the three focus groups, as was facilitated by the workshop in this study. The workshop focus group protocol helps to underpin the reliability and validity of the study as it allows the research to be repeated by others and can help overcome interviewer bias where transparency, honesty and fairness were openly exhibited in an explicit and systematic manner to the questions and examine the barriers.

The availability of clear and consistent research questions derived from the earlier parts of this study, that is questionnaires and Stages I and II questions on barriers, helped to satisfactorily achieve the internal validity from the focus group workshop. The focus group workshop protocol for this study is given in table 44 above. The protocol was designed in such a way as to direct and guide group discussions throughout the workshop as a means to facilitate conversation about the issues under investigation (Morgan, 1996). The core theme is to allow all the participants of the workshop to actively contribute from the beginning to the end of the workshop.

The questions and statements given in the protocol (Appendix 5, page 331) are followed systematically at each day of the workshop meetings and discussions. The nature and style of the protocol are developed in manner that allow moving from a general opening statement to cordially set the scene and inform each focus group about the background to HACCP including the aims and objectives of the research. It leads to a statement describing the rules and procedures that are set to protect the anonymity, the value of sharing ideas, views, opinions, and the freedom of speech about the issues of HACCP and barriers that hinder its successful implementation or whatever they think, whether positive or negative, right or wrong, sensible or non-sensible. This approach was able to create self-confidence among the participants and acquired a feeling of ownership, competence and trust in the procedures, assistant interviewers and author. At the end of the first part of the focus group workshop protocol, a room was created

for all the participants and the interviewers to do self-introduction prior to the commencement of interviewing, questioning, answering and discussions.

The main section of the focus group workshop interviewing, questioning, answering and discussions centred on the HACCP barriers that were identified in stage I and explored in stage II. In this regard, each focus group will be interviewed on the questions so that each member of the group would be allowed to say what they thought about each of the barriers. The questions were also structured in such a way that the manner in which barriers were suggested and presented earlier could be fully explored to satisfaction. For example, the barrier on “lack of enforcement” were broken down and presented into 5 questions:

 Why the rate of juvenile fishing or catch is on the increase in the country?

 Are regulators enforcing Fishery Act 1994, amended 2007?

 How would you describe the level of enforcement of the existing Fishery Act 1994, amended 2007– adequate, inadequate or none?

 Are regulators strengthened to effectively enforce Fishery Act 1994, amended 2007?

 What will be the impact of effectively implementing and enforcing the Fishery Act 1994, amended 2007?

The aim of such questions is to ensure that the questions did not lead the participants into an answer being sought, but rather opportunities and options were created for each focus group to agree or disagree with the whole barrier of “lack of enforcement”. The existence of enforcement as a barrier was explored through an oblique question that looked at the key areas in the fishery act 1994 that if effectively implemented and enforced could prevent and control the high rate of juvenile fishing or catching. The stakeholders are aware of the lapses in the enforcement system and this question is intended to dig out their views on the level of enforcements. When the “lack of enforcement” was agreed as a barrier, the next part of the discussion was an attempt to see what benefits that could be achieved by national fishery operations from removing these barriers. This is the purpose of the last question or question 5.

Once the answers and discussions on these questions by each focus group have been exhausted and reached saturation, the issue of “lack of enforcement” was re-examined again, but at this time in the presence of all the three groups during the final validation on the fourth day of the focus group workshop to ensure that all the group ideas on the topic were fully explored. The questions for all of the barriers followed this format of exploration in capturing the group’s views, thoughts and opinions to ensure that agreement or disagreement with the notion of a particular barrier could be critically challenged by all the groups prior to final decision, validation and confirmation as barrier or not.

The advantage was that the protocol questions and the workshop structure worked very well and straightforward, because there was no situation that warrants complete change of questions during the workshop as all the focus groups appear to understand the questions, and discuss and respond well throughout the workshop procedures. The duration of the workshop for questioning, answering and discussion was maximum 6 hours per day but the debate over each question varies according to the particular interests and concerns of the focus groups, but the bottom line was that the discussions and responses were good and cordial and each participant was satisfied with the outcomes of the focus group workshop. At the end of the validation process on the fourth day a final set of questions were posed on both the process of undertaking the focus group workshop and the decision to invite the members to participate in the workshop. The overall feedback about the nature of the structure, procedure and questions were positive and supportive and there was no suggestion on the need to apply different style, nature and approach in the future, rather all recommended the approach for future studies in even other different disciplines.

3.11.6 Conclusions

Conclusively, it can be visualized that the selection of an excellent research methodology and specific techniques derived from the aspiration to investigate an issue of interest that was open to qualitative case study approaches, produced a fruitful result and created a useful knowledge in the world of academia. The author’s preference for the qualitative case study methodological approaches in this research was also influenced by the type of knowledge being sought, which is essentially considered internal and subjective. What the writer means here is that the perception

and understanding of stakeholders towards “real” HACCP barriers that exist within the fishery safety systems in Sierra Leone were internal, but could be unveil to maximum by using appropriate research methods.

The decision and readiness to use meticulously a three part structure of convergent interviews, case interviews and focus groups workshop were highly influenced by a need to gain triangulated data as an attempt to achieve the requirements for valid and reliable data collection. Secondly, it was a deliberate attempt to satisfy the long standing aspiration of the researcher to use a variety of attractive, motivating, amazing and sound tools in order to maximally achieve the aims and specific objectives set out in chapter one of this researcher. On the other hand, the author is fully aware of the fact that no research methodology can make perfect claims, or else no need for further research as all researchers would apply one straightforward method or methodology. The mistake or error in the selection of research methods for this study is counterbalanced by the kind of achievements, values, knowledge and academic contribution obtained from them.