Semi-structured focus group interviews with children

The timing

The Tasmanian focus groups were conducted during the months of September, October and November in 2007, whilst the Victorian focus groups were conducted exactly one year later during the months of September, October and November in 2008. Thus, all data was collected before Black Saturday. This was extremely fortunate: not only did the events of that day receive extensive media coverage but it is highly likely that some of the Victorian children would have known people who had been directly affected by the disaster, particularly in Warrandyte which is located near the heavily impacted town of St Andrews. Whilst exposure to media coverage or personal involvement with disaster victims would have added an intriguing dimension to the data, the original aim of the research was to examine how children understand bushfire hazards during times of quiescence, because it is in this context that most children will be involved in bushfire education programs. Hence, completing the data collection phase of the research before the Black Saturday disaster, allowed for the original aims of the research to be reliably pursued.

The setting

Focus groups were conducted at the participating schools during class time. On the day of their interview, children were collected from their classrooms and taken to another location within the school, usually an unused classroom, office, library, or meeting room. The interviews were usually conducted sitting around a table. Occasionally, however, children sat in a circle on the floor. Regardless of seating arrangements, I was always seated on the same level as the students in order to reduce the child-adult power differential (Eder & Fingerson, 2002).

Introductions and icebreaking activities

Focus groups began with me re-introducing myself to the children and recapitulating the purpose of the research. It was emphasised that the questions I would ask them were ‘not like a test’ and that the aim of the interview was to find out how they, as children, understand bushfires so that the fire agencies can improve their education programs and make them more fun, interesting, and useful for children. Children were reminded that their participation in the interview was voluntary and if at any time they felt that they didn’t want to stay, they were welcome to return to their classroom. It should be noted, however, that no child took this option during the course of the research.

Children were reminded that the interview was going to be videotaped so that I would have an accurate and reliable record of their ideas. Children were shown the video camera and given an opportunity to see how it worked. This was actually a very effective ice-breaker and seemed to help the children relax into the new setting. Children were then asked how they felt about the interview being videotaped and their responses ranged from indifference to excitement. Children were reminded

that the video would only be watched by myself and my supervisor and upon completion of the project, all videotapes would erased. Children were assured that they didn’t have to be in the video frame if they didn’t want to be: however, no child took this option during the course of the research. Indeed, many children were disappointed to hear that their interview would not be broadcast on national television (!). As part of this introductory phase of the interview, younger children were also introduced to the puppets and were invited to have a play with them. This was also a very effective icebreaker and helped the children to relax and become more familiar with the interview setting.

Focus group procedure

As noted earlier, interviewing children requires careful preparation to ensure that the questions asked are within the realm of children’s language and communication abilities (Greig et al., 2007). Using the guidelines provided by Greig et al. (2007) (see Table 4.1), a semi-structured protocol was developed. This protocol covered the main topics under investigation, including children’s knowledge of 1) the conditions and processes that cause bushfires, 2) the consequences of bushfires and 3) what people can do to prevent those consequences. The protocol also included questions aimed at revealing how children’s social contexts influence the development of their bushfire knowledge. This protocol is presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Semi-structured focus group protocol

Topic area Example questions

Conditions and processes that cause bushfires

Where do bushfires happen?

When do bushfires happen?

How do bushfires happen? Why do bushfires happen?

Could there be a bushfire at [insert town/suburb]? Could there be a bushfire at your house?

Could there be bushfire at the school?

PROBES: Why/Why? How? When? How close could it

come to X?

Consequences of bushfires

What would happen here if the there was a bushfire? What would happen if there was a bushfire at [insert

town]?

What would happen if there was a bushfire at your house? What would happen if there was a bushfire at the school?? What happens to houses in bushfires?

What happens to people in bushfires?

PROBES: How would X happen? Why would X happen?

When would X happen?

Conditions and processes that prevent bushfire consequences

What can people can do to stop X from happening? What can your family do to stop X from happening? What can you do to stop X from happening?

What can your school can do to stop X from happening? How could Y stop X from happening?

PROBES: Why? When? How?

The role of social context Where did you learn about X? Who have you talked about X with?

How did you know about X?

Have you ever talked to X about Y?

PROBES: When? What? How? Why/Why not?

Whilst a high degree of flexibility was fundamental to the interview process, topic areas were usually discussed in the order presented in Table 4.4. This was because the discussion of each topic provided an important scaffold for discussions of the topics that followed. The concept of ‘scaffolding’ was originally coined by Jerome Bruner (1985, pp. 24-25) who described it as follows:

The tutor or peer serves the learner as a vicarious form of consciousness until such a time as the learner is able to master his own actions through his own consciousness and control. When a child receives that conscious control over a new function or conceptual system, it is then that he able to use it as a tool. Up to that point, the tutor in effect performs the critical function of ‘scaffolding’ the learning task to make it possible for the child to internalise external knowledge and convert it into a tool for conscious control.

Discussing the interview topics in the order presented in Table 4.4, provided a scaffold which struck a balance between providing enough freedom for the children to voice their own perspectives in their own words, but not so much freedom that the discussion was decontextualised or confusing. Striking this balance helped to engage and maintain the children’s interest and buffered their attention against distractions.

Scaffolding was also found to be an extremely useful technique for exploring children’s knowledge

within each topic area. For example, one way that children believed that they could build resilience to bushfires by making an emergency plan (see Ch. 6.4). One of the most effective ways to tap children’s knowledge of emergency plans was to guide them through a bushfire scenario that began with receiving a warning about a bushfire in the area and concluded with the arrival of a fire at the house. These type of scenario exercises provided opportunities for the children to develop the detail of their plans, as well as modify and revise them as they identified various problems and obstacles. Hence, they provided a deeper level of insight into children’s capacities for critical thinking and reflection than an un-scaffolded planning exercise.

Whilst the interview protocol and the technique of scaffolding provided the basic content and structure of the focus group discussions, the discussions themselves were embedded within the selected child-centred research techniques. For example, interviews with younger children involved working through the interview protocol using the puppets as proxy interviewers: children were informed that the puppets had just moved into the house depicted in Figure 4.1 and needed advice on how to be safe in their new home. Interviews with older children, meanwhile, involved using the illustration on its own, with me directing the discussion through the list of topics in the protocol. In these activities, children of all ages were provided with texta markers or crayons that they could use to circle or scribble out various hazards and draw in different preventative measures.

Using the draw and write technique, children were also asked to draw their own properties, and then, working through the interview protocol, they were asked to identify the various hazards as well as potential management strategies. This technique proved extremely useful for children of all ages: not only did it help to focus their attention but it helped me to gain a better understanding of their own personal situation which enhanced my capacity to ask relevant and meaningful questions. The children’s drawings also provided a very useful visual aid for focussing and scaffolding the emergency response scenarios: children were able to draw a fire approaching their house and then think about what they would do at each stage of the fire event to protect themselves, their families, and their homes. Some of the children provided verbal consent for their drawings to be used as examples in this thesis and other research outputs and these are presented in Appendix 4.6.

The focus group interviews concluded with children being encouraged to ask any questions or share any thoughts about their interview experience. I also took time to address the major misconceptions that children had articulated during the interview, making sure not to undermine their responses by emphasising that what they had contributed was extremely valuable and was going to help fire agencies develop better education programs. Children were also encouraged to go home and talk to their families about their emergency bushfire plan and share what they had learned with their parents and siblings. Lastly, school principals and teachers were informed or reminded of the school-based bushfire education programs that are delivered by both TasFire and the CFA, and were given details on how to arrange for a program to be delivered in their school.

Upon completion of the interviews, which tended to run for approximately one hour, the video footage was transcribed verbatim for coding purposes and transcripts were then stored in a password protected computer file.

4.3.4 Semi-structured interviews with parents

The aim of the semi-structured interviews with parents was to glean an understanding of how children participate in discussions and activities associated with bushfire risk reduction within the home. These interviews were typically conducted at the family home, at a local coffee shop, or at the parent’s workplace. Conducting the interviews at the family home was particularly useful because it gave me an opportunity to see for myself where the children lived, which further enhanced my understanding of how they conceptualised their own personal exposure. Whilst the majority of interviews were conducted with just one parent, for two of the interviews, both the mother and father were present. All interviews with parents were audio recorded and were transcribed verbatim for coding purposes. Transcripts were then stored in a password protected file.

Interviews with parents typically began with questions relating to their perceptions of bushfire hazards in their area and on their own property. These discussions were especially useful when the interviews were conducted away from the home because they helped to contextualise parents’ perspectives on their own personal exposure. Parents were then asked to describe what steps, if any, they had taken to mitigate bushfire hazards on their property. They were also asked to describe their bushfire emergency plan. Both of these topics were explored in-depth to gain an understanding of levels of preparedness within the household. Parents were also invited to comment on any challenges they had faced in their attempts to mitigate and prepare, and how they had dealt with those challenges. Parents were then asked about how they had involved their children in family discussions and activities pertaining to bushfire mitigation and preparedness. They were also prompted to consider whether their children had involved them in any discussions or activities. Parents were also asked to comment on the challenges of involving children in discussions and activities related to mitigation and preparedness, and how they had dealt with these challenges. Taken together, these questions and the discussions they

triggered elicited rich, dense accounts that were integral to building an understanding of the role of the family in the development of children’s bushfire knowledge.