The focus group discussion was the final aspect of data collection of the study. I organised for it to take place in a workspace that was neutral in terms of ownership and use between Diana, Anne, Catherine and I. The nature of the study in my working with a small sample of three trainee-teachers was not by design. The withdrawal from the study by four other trainee-teachers prior to the semi-structured interviews shaped a ‘Mini-focus group’. Here was a potential limitation in not being able to draw upon a wider range of responses from trainee-teachers. But that also has its advantages where Denscombe (2007, p.181) writes: ‘Larger groups can inhibit contributions for less confident people’. Furthermore: ‘Larger groups can become unwieldy and hard to control. The more participants there are, the more likely it is that the group will fragment’ (Denscombe, 2007, p. 181).
The focus group discussion was used as a forum for the co-construction of meaning, in developing insights and understanding on MEGroMMaS over the ages via the transcribed conversation (amended) between my mother and me (Chapter Five) and the Key Stage 2 history curriculum aims and contents (see p. 331-333, Appendix u) as the stimulus of their conversation. Exchanges between Diana, Anne, Catherine and I were audio-recorded and transcribed (see p. 317- 330, Appendix t) in
100
accordance with the informed consent offered via the trainee-teacher information sheet (see p. 251-253, Appendix h).
My role in the focus group discussion was as a moderator. This meant that my position was not to shape consensus or to illuminate differences, as is the purpose and interest of some focus groups (Denscombe, 2007). Instead, my desire was to allow for similarity or divergence in perspectives of Diana, Anne and Catherine to emerge freely. In a similar process to the conversation that I had with my mother, my role was to provide structure to the focus group discussion. In that respect, an aspect of control laid with me i.e. in bringing a focus on the topic and structure to our
conversation. On the other hand, Diana, Anne and Catherine had the power and freedom to decide how they wanted to talk individually and collaboratively as trainee- teachers about their ideas emerging from their interpretations of the transcribed conversation between my mother and me (Chapter Five) and the Key Stage 2 history curriculum aims and contents (Appendix u). My position as focus group moderator was one in which I had to manage my own biases. I saw that in being able to encourage their deeper discussion for seeking to extract the reasoning behind the views, opinions and feelings they held. Morgan (2006, p.121) discusses focus group participants as:
Sharing their experiences and thoughts, while also comparing their own contributions to what others have said. This process of sharing and comparing is especially useful for hearing and understanding a range of responses on a research topic. The best focus groups thus not only provide data on what the participants think but also why they think the way they do.
Through the focus group discussion, I wanted to discover the extent to which the data produced through the conversation between my mother and me had impacted upon Diana, Anne and Catherine when thinking about MEGroMMaS and their
101
professional practice with the Key Stage 2 history curriculum aims and contents. As discussed earlier, I realised that with my respondents being mostly White and female and I being a Black-British male Senior Lecturer in Education, our contrasting identities and positions in the study could have led them to produce responses that they perceived would satisfy what I they may have thought I wanted to hear because of my professional position; my identities and my declarations of the study’s intent via the information sheets I have given them. However, my sense during the focus group discussion was that they found freedom and comfort in the responses they each made as trainee-teachers. I felt from my impressions of their body language, responses and interactions with each other and me that they did not seem to feel inhibited by my presence and that being a barrier to freely express their views. The focus group discussion was to test a key question of the study:
Do accounts of recent MEGroMMaS from an Afro-Caribbean immigrant parent and their Black-British born child assist trainee-teachers in generating ideas for planning, teaching and learning about a more diverse and multicultural perspective of British history?
Following the focus group discussion, I made contact with Diana, Anne and Catherine to provide them with a transcript of their responses, seeking their
verification and endorsement of the contents. As with the semi-structured interviews, I did not share with them any ideas that I was generating and considering for my analysis of their responses, as they had not fully emerged at that point of the study. It was not the intention of the study to seek process consent from Diana, Anne and Catherine in my analysis of their focus-group responses. There were no requests for amendments by Diana, Anne or Catherine to the text and data that had been generated.
102
I will now discuss the methods and processes of data analysis applied in Chapter Six to my interpretation of the responses from twenty-one trainee-teachers to the semi- structured questionnaire and the responses of Diana, Anne and Catherine through my semi-structured interviews and their focus group discussion.