(d) Family Adjustment
TABLE 1.2 INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH PROBING QUESTIONS FOR THE FOCUS GROUP AND FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWS
Focus group and semi-structured face-to-face interviews Section 1: Introduction
The following will shortly be discussed:
• Ground rules for the focus group interview.
• Ethical considerations that will guide the researcher’s behaviour during the research.
• Introduction of the research question: “How (and by doing what) can social workers foster and sustain family resilience to strengthen and preserve families”.
• The goal of the research is: “To develop practice guidelines for social workers on fostering and sustaining family resilience.”
The research objectives are:
- To explore and describe social workers’ understanding of family resilience.
- To explore and describe social workers’ experiences of interventions that foster and sustain family resilience.
- To explore and describe social workers’ suggestions on interventions to foster and sustain family resilience.
Section 2: What is your understanding of family resilience?
• What is the meaning of crisis/adversity?
• What happens when your client family is experiencing crisis/adversity?
• What impact do you think a crisis/adversity will have on the way the family is functioning?
• What is your understanding of resilience?
• Which words refer to “family?
• Is there a difference between “resilience” and “family resilience”?
• Let us look at the diagram of family resilience. Would you say that it reflects what we discussed about family resilience?
• Let us list the things that happen in resilient families that help them deal with day-to-day functioning.
• Let us cluster these actions within a resilient family.
• Literature identifies the following clusters/domains of family resilience.
• Do we differ or agree after our brainstorming session?
• Do you agree that these actions listed in clusters/domains be called family processes?
Why?
• Do you think that these domains/family processes have an influence on each other? Why? Please illustrate with metaphors, images (rope, balloon, water)
• If one or more of these domains are weak will such a family be resilient?
Section 3: What is your experience (what do you do or know about) of fostering and sustaining family resilience?
• What is your experience as social worker on fostering and sustaining family resilience? What do you do or know about the fostering (bring change) and sustaining (support to maintain) of family resilience?
• Do you think the fact that you as social worker also come from a family will have an impact on rendering services that could foster and sustain family resilience, especially if you had previously experienced similar challenges?
• Do family processes occur in families independent of the family being resilient or not?
- What is a stressor?
- What does coping entail?
• Please describe “risk factors”, “family strengths” and “protective factors/buffering factors”. Give practical examples.
• What is the difference between a strength and a protective factor?
• How would you establish these factors within the family situation?
• How important is it to be able to adapt to life’s circumstances?
• Which enabling factors would let you adapt to changed circumstances?
• Explain how the family processes render families resilient?
Section 4: Explore and describe social workers’ suggestions on interventions to foster and sustain family resilience
• What fosters the family processes of family resilience?
• What sustains the family processes of family resilience?
• What theoretical frameworks or approaches could be used in addressing family resilience?
• Different social work theories – how do they apply to family resilience?
• Which principles can we formulate from these frameworks that are applicable to family resilience?
• What are the enabling factors that are experienced or could be anticipated in rendering services that foster and sustain family resilience?
• What would be the obstacles that are experienced or could be anticipated in rendering services that foster and sustain family resilience?
• What would be the goals and objectives of such a programme?
• What elements would you consider critical to address in a family resilience programme?
• Do you think that a frame of reference to base the guidelines on is necessary?
Section 5: Conclusion
The discussion on the understanding of family resilience reached saturation earlier than the other aspects to be covered. That gave me the chance during the later interviews to concentrate more on interventions that the social workers suggested would be useful in fostering and sustaining family resilience which contributed to comprehensive descriptions of the data.
Recording of interviews and focus-group discussions:
I digitally recorded the focus groups and face-to-face semi-structured interviews to ensure that as much data as possible was retained and kept as evidence. The data was later transcribed for analysis. In order to ensure that the data recording did not become a disturbance, I carefully planned the seating arrangements for the focus groups, as well as where to position the recorder. The first focus group I recorded without a video recorder, I however, discovered that without visual material, the transcription of the focus-group discussion became difficult. I, therefore, video recorded all the following focus groups. I found the video recorder on a stand most useful and did not have any technical problems in that regard. I utilised a flipchart to assist me with the facilitation process.
I, however, only audio taped the face-to-face interviews. Utilising recordings allowed for a much fuller record than notes taken during the interview. It enabled me to concentrate on how the interview was proceeding and to note all the relevant aspects of the interview process. This action is supported by Gill, Stewart Treasure and Chadwick (2008) stating that videotaping is recommended for focus-group discussions as recordings should be transcribed verbatim and that speakers should also be identified in a way that makes it possible to follow the contributions of each individual. During the interviews, I made use of the different interview techniques as was discussed in chapter 1, i.e.:
• Facilitation: I facilitated the focus groups and tried to create a safe and comfortable environment for the groups to stimulate discussion. I gave participants ample opportunity to participate and support each other’s opinions or even to express a different opinion. I also encouraged quiet participants to also participate in the discussions. The facilitator made use of breaks to drink tea and also provided lunch.
• Minimal encouraging of verbal and non-verbal responses: I, for example, said “yes”
or “more” when a participant gave a comment to which I was forced to respond. This technique also served as encouragement for further discussion.
• Clarification: I used this technique with care to avoid me leading the participants to say what I hoped they would say when bringing vague data into shape by rephrasing and by repeating the question.
• Focusing: Making use of focussing assisted me to continuously ensure that the interviews were on track and that we did not get side-tracked. As further assistance I used the flipchart to assist me to not to lose focus by making notes on the main issues being discussed.
• Summarising: I made use of summarising comments such as “So, what you were saying is ...” to focus the discussion and to stimulate further in-depth discussions on specific issues.
Probing: I made use of open-ended questions as means of follow-up to ensure that the maximum amount of data was obtained. I, however, was careful not to let research participants expose themselves by giving more information as than were comfortable to share.
In conclusion, I experienced a number of logistical challenges. However, due to the active participation of the social workers, “thick” data was obtained and data saturation could be reached.
Phase 1, Step 4: Analysing the identified concerns and data collected
Step 4 in Phase 1 of the IDD-model of Rothman and Thomas concerns itself with analysing the identified concerns as articulated by the participants in the previous step (Fawcett et al 1994:31). This step followed on the collection of qualitative data obtained from social workers.
Data analysis already started during the focus group and face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Informal data analysis takes place during interviews as participants’ responses are followed up in different ways as probes are used to obtain richer description. The formal process of analysing the data started off with the transcription of the interviews. Transcribing of interviews is a very time-consuming process. However, the intensive engagement with the research data provided me with the opportunity to methodically analyse and assess the data. I made sure that I did not conduct any follow-up interviews before finishing the transcription of the previous interview. This process assisted me in realising when data saturation had been reached (Flick 2002:65).
I used the eight-step framework for data analysis of Tesch (cited in Creswell 2009:186) to analyse the data. These steps assisted me to analyse the data in a comprehensive and systematic manner. After conducting the focus-group interviews and face-to-face semi-structured interviews:
• I read through the transcriptions to get a sense of the whole and then started reading through the first transcription to identify topics or themes from the data and substantiating the topics or themes with story lines.
• I followed the same process with all the other transcriptions and then collated all the above information in one document with provisional themes, categories and sub-categories with their storylines.
• After completing the transcriptions, I gave all the transcribed interviews to an independent coder who, like me, used Tesch’s framework in Creswell (2009:1) to independently identify topics and themes.
• A consensus discussion between the independent coder, my supervisor and I, took place during which we came to a consensus on the themes, categories and sub-categories interpreted from the data.
• The themes, sub-themes, categories and sub-categories of the analysed data are presented in chapter 3 and 4.
Trustworthiness of the research data
Data verification in qualitative data takes place during data collection, data analysis and the writing of the research report (Alston & Bowles 2003:48). For data verification, Guba’s model (cited in Krefting 1991:214–222) was used to describe four criteria of trustworthiness, i.e. truth value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality.
• Truth value
I endeavoured to establish the credibility of the research data by basing data collection on the research design, the participants and the context in which the study was undertaken. I increased the truth value of the presenting data by using the recorded words of the different interviews to represent the multiple realities of the participants. Krefting (1991:216) states that credibility is enhanced when “the data presents such accurate descriptions or interpretation of human experience that people who also share that experience would immediately recognize the descriptions”.
As was planned, I established confidence in the truth of the findings through the use of the following strategies to increase the rigor of the qualitative study:
• Interviewing techniques
I used interview and communication techniques such as encouragement, probing, reassurance, clarification, summarising, focusing, minimal verbal responses and avoiding leading comments and remarks to minimise interviewer influence. I used an interview guide and recorded all the interviews.
• Triangulation
I utilized the following to enhance triangulation:
- Four focus group interviews.
- Six semi-structured individual interviews to create a triangulation of methods and sources of data.
- A prototype ‘practice guidelines for social workers to foster and sustain family resilience’ was compiled.
- Two-day national consultative workshop utilising the prototype ‘practise guidelines for social workers to foster and sustain family resilience’ as baseline information was conducted for input on the prototype.
- The workshop was co-facilitated by me and my UNISA supervisor.
- A video recording was made of the national consultative workshop. The small group discussions, which took place during the workshop, were transcribed.
- A workshop report on the outcomes of the workshop is available and is discussed in Chapter 6.
- The inputs of workshop delegates from the national consultative workshop were incorporated into Chapter 7, “Practice guidelines for social workers to foster and sustain family resilience to strengthen and preserve families”.
I deliberately chose this strategy so as to develop a more complex understanding of social workers’ understanding of family resilience and suggestions on interventions that could foster and sustain family resilience.
• Peer-examination
Peer-examination is useful for data verification, as well as trustworthiness. Advice is provided and guidance given by colleagues in the field and the UNISA supervisor.
• The value of the authority of the researcher
As was mentioned in Chapter 1, I am specialised in the field of services to families. I am employed by the National Department of Social Development and have been working in the Families Directorate as a policy developer and later manager since 2001. I was directly involved in the development of the Family Policy, now the White Paper on Families, which was approved by Cabinet in 2013. I was also involved in the facilitation and the development of three manuals on family developmental programmes, i.e. the Manuals on Family Preservation Services, Marriage Preparation and Marriage Enrichment programmes and the Framework on Mediation for Social Services Professionals mediating family matters. I was also involved in the development of Norms and Standards for Services to Families. The process that was followed in developing these documents was to conduct consultative workshops in provinces facilitated by myself.
I conducted a qualitative research study for my Master’s Degree in Social Work through the University of South Africa with the topic: “Exploring family resilience amongst South African Social Work Clients” (Moss 2010).
Applicability
The degree to which the findings of a research study are applicable to other contexts or groups, determines the trustworthiness of the research. Transferability is a strategy through which applicability of qualitative data is assessed (Krefting 1991:216). “Transferability can be fostered when researchers provide detailed information about the participants and the research process so that the readers can judge whether findings might transfer to other settings” (Hill 2012: 176). Transferability in qualitative research is enhanced through the
criterion of a “thick” description of the methodology, as well as the purposive sampling technique.
In order to enhance the applicability and the transferability of the research findings, I carefully described the sample population and the organisations and the locations where the social workers worked, so as to clearly define to whom the results might apply (Hill 2012:72).
Consistency
In order to enhance consistency, I made use of an independent coder to ensure consistency in the findings. I requested the coder to independently carry out an analysis. The researcher and the coder met thereafter to compare and critically discuss the coding. The aim of independent coding was not only to improve reliability but also to assist me to think critically about the thematic structure that had been developed and the coding decisions that were made (Guba cited in Krefting 1991:216).
Neutrality
I made use of confirmability strategies to achieve neutrality. I reflected on my part in the research process by making notes on feelings and challenges I experienced. I noted how tedious the arrangements for conducting the focus-group interviews were due to a continuous change in the arrangements. The fact that I only had assistance with the first two focus groups was strenuous and required meticulous advance planning to ensure the success of the focus groups. These notes made me aware of possible biases and preconceived assumptions and, therefore, allowed me to minimize my influence on the data (Krefting 1991:221).
I made use of triangulation by using both face-to-face and focus-group interviews, as well as a national consultative workshop and an independent coder for the analysis of data so as to ensure neutrality and to prevent subjective perspectives from guiding the process.
Phase 1, Step 4 provided me with the opportunity to validate the data using Guba’s model (cited in Krefting 1991:214–222) for trustworthiness, truth value, triangulation, peer examination and the authority of the researcher. Further validation techniques that were used included applicability, consistency and neutrality.
Phase 1, Step 5: Setting goals and objectives of “The Guidelines”
The final step in the first phase of the IDD-model refers to the identification of a goal and objectives for “The Guidelines”. The goal of the “The Guidelines” informed by the research
question was the provision to social workers within the South African welfare context with systematically developed statements to guide social workers in implementing interventions with the outcome of family resilience. The guidelines needed to address the need of the social workers as community of interest to be informed as outcome on how to implement a family resilience intervention
Objectives refer to those more specific changes in programmes, policies or practices that would contribute to the broader goal. An objective can also be described as a focus of interest, purpose or aim or “the steps one has to take, one by one, realistically at grass-roots level within a certain time span” to attain the research goal (De Vos & Strydom 2011:479).
The objectives of “The Guidelines” were not developed during this phase of the IDD due to the fact that I thought it appropriate to first develop a prototype practice guidelines for social workers to foster and sustain family resilience with suggestions of possible objectives of the guidelines. In this regard, I was led by objectives stated in developed guidelines that I utilised and studied during a literature review to guide the decision on what format to be used to develop the guidelines. As part of the task objectives a consultative workshop on the draft guidelines for input from relevant social workers in the welfare sector was conducted as part of Phase 4, Step 2, conducting a pilot test.
The formulation of the objectives for the guidelines were only finalised after the workshop took place and the inputs of the workshop delegates were collated into the final guidelines.
Phase 1, Step 5 was, therefore, only finalised hereafter.
The following objectives for the guidelines were formulated:
(1) to empower families to deal with life’s stresses and challenges (2) to build, foster and sustain family resilience and family well-being (3) to guide families to independence and self-reliance and
(4) to educate social workers to have a clear understanding of the family resilience construct and how family resilience operates so as to be able to develop interventions that would foster and sustain family resilience
The national consultative workshop was most valuable in finalising the objectives of the guidelines and also acted as a peer review mechanism.
PHASE 2: INFORMATION GATHERING AND SYNTHESIS ON EXISTING