Focus groups were chosen as the vehicle for data gathering for several reasons. Firstly, the group dynamics within focus groups provide a way of bridging cultural divides and diffusing researcher power (Frith, 2000; Morgan, 2002), and this was particularly important in this project given the major differences between me and my target participants. Cultural bridging occurs as group members jointly explain unfamiliar vocabulary and idioms to the interviewer, and likewise interpret or explain the interviewer‘s questions to one another. This happened at several points in my interviews, conducted in English, with participants whose mother tongue was not English. The power of the interviewer is more limited than in an individual interview due to the larger number of participants,
62
which allows the participants to steer the discussion in the direction of greater personal interest, and to disagree more freely with the interviewer (Frith, 2000). In a related vein, Kitzinger (1995) claims that focus groups may be an empowering experience for participants as they interact with others who have had similar experiences, and this may allow for positive shifts in perspectives. This appeared to be the case for many of the participants in this research, as a number of them expressed how helpful the discussions had been, and some expressed a desire for further discussions of the same nature.
Furthermore, the fact that I was actively seeking and valuing their opinions on the sexualities of high school learners, and on what would improve sexuality education in schools, may have been an empowering experience. Given the power differentials existing between me as an older, resourced, educated ‗White‘ person and my participants as younger ‗Black‘ students with less educational and (probably) less material resources than me, I considered this reduction in power differentials to be a necessary facet of the research design.
Secondly, the interactive, social nature of focus group discussions provides greater insight into the social dynamics (Frith, 2000) and gendered norms operating as participants perform sexual subjectivities with their peers. Group interviews generally encourage a wider array of communicative forms than individual interviews, including jokes and teasing, arguing and posturing, and the telling of anecdotes (Kitzinger, 1995). The strength of consensus for a particular view can be easily gauged, as well as which topics or views cause contention, discomfort, or are taboo. An example of this is shown in the extract below, where the strong group agreement that virginity is not precious for males is evident:
Group 2MX9
R: Is virginity seen as precious with guys?
2MXm3: Yoo
Many: NO/NO/ NO, /LAUGHTER 2MXf1: Not at all, not at all
Groups therefore allow an analysis of how knowledge and ideas are produced and mobilized within a particular social context (Kitzinger, 1995). Kidd and Parshall (2000) claim that such knowledge ―is essential to developing credible and emotionally compelling interventions‖ (p. 297). This is important for the research goal of drawing out implications for enhancing equitable gender relationships within sexuality education programmes. Group members who are familiar with one
9 See Appendix A for transcription conventions, and section 5.2, below, for an explanation of group and participant designations.
63
another and the social context under review are at more liberty to challenge other members‘ views than the interviewer is (Frith, 2000). An example of this in the data can be seen in chapter six, section 2.2, where women and men disagree over whether ―all guys just want sex‖. When participants within a group have dissenting views, this can be explored immediately and directly with the participants. In contrast, when participants who are being interviewed individually express divergent views, it is harder for the researcher to discuss the differences with participants across interviews (Kitzinger, 1995).
A third reason for using focus groups is that the communal nature of focus groups can encourage people, who may be reluctant to be interviewed individually, to volunteer to participate (Kitzinger, 1995). Furthermore, whilst one may assume that the disclosure of highly personal information may be inhibited in a group situation, authors suggests that such disclosures may in fact be enhanced in a group (Frith, 2000; Kitzinger, 1995). Frith (2000) claims that focus groups are ideal for qualitatively exploring questions related to sexuality as such groups ―provide conditions under which people feel comfortable discussing sexual experiences and which encourage people to talk about sex‖(p. 277).
This may be due to group accountability factors, whereby risk (including the risk involved in talking about personal issues) is perceived to be less in a group situation. Groups allow members to become aware of shared experiences as ―less inhibited members … break the ice for shyer participants‖
(Kitzinger, 1995, p. 300), and this encourages discussion of sensitive issues (Frith, 2000). Agreement between group members allows a fuller picture of the issues to emerge, while disagreements force participants to think more deeply about their views and can push the discussion to a deeper level (Frith, 2000). For these reasons commonality between group members is important, and these commonalities add to a sense of safety in the disclosure of personal information (Frith, 2000).
Finally, participants may be more willing to express anger and criticism at a particular situation within focus groups than within individual interviews, and can more effectively generate possible solutions (Frith, 2000; Kitzinger, 1995). This was seen in the data in chapter six, section 2.4, where women assertively confronted men on multiple partners and intimate partner violence. Thus focus group interviews are the method of choice for exploring possible ways of improving sexuality education programmes.
Nevertheless, there are drawbacks in using focus groups to research sexuality, particularly around issues of confidentiality (Kitzinger, 1995). The sometimes intimate nature of discussions may result in participants revealing information which they later regret (Frith, 2000). In my research, the importance of group members keeping the confidence of other members was discussed at the start of
64
the group, and a clause committing the members to maintain confidentiality was highlighted in the agreement form between the participants and researcher that participants signed (Appendix B).
Questions about participants‘ own sexual experiences were not asked, although participants quite often gave personal examples to illustrate a point. I hope that the respect that I modelled towards participants‘ personal disclosures enhanced other participants‘ ability to honour such disclosures.
Participants in one follow up group in fact commented on how respect and confidentiality had been maintained after their initial group, as shown below:
Group 1FU
1MXf3: …Because I remember from the last session we had, it was very nice, no one was like finger pointing /Ps: yes, mm/R: ok/
1M1: And no one had to discuss other people‘s business when they are outside /MM/
Furthermore, I attempted to limit discussion when highly personal information was at risk of being disclosed, such as HIV status. However I acknowledge that these steps provided no guarantee that members abided by the confidentiality clause and agreement, and this is a weakness of focus group discussions around personal issues such as sexuality, particularly when members, such as mine (where group members were generally drawn from the same college class), have ongoing relationships with other members.
The second major weakness of focus group interviewing that commentators highlight is the issue of the social desirability of responses. Frith (2000) states that ―In focus groups, the presence of other group members may pressure participants into manipulating their responses in order to present themselves as they would like to be seen, as opposed to how they really are‖ (p. 288). However, Frith goes on to say that socially desirable responses are useful data in their own right, revealing social norms, and it is these social norms, or performative constraints, that are part of the focus of this investigation, not how people ‗really are‘. Furthermore, as discussed above, group interviews can also give rise to less socially desirable responses than individual interviews, as participants may be freed to voice more personal information or discredited views by the support and disclosure of other members, and the ―power of the (interviewer) is devolved to group members‖ (Frith, 2000, p. 286).