HS4 Suministro de agua

As ‘collective conversations or group interviews’ (Danzin & Lincoln, 2008), focus group discussions were used to collect data from the selected students’ groups sampled from those that responded to the survey. In line with Morgan (1996, 2014), FGD used group interaction to obtain data from the students on learner support delivery. It was thought-provoking to find out how qualitative method can be used to complement and compare with findings from the quantitative method (see chapter 7).

The choice of the FGD method hinged on its appropriateness and merits with respect to this study. FGD gives an opportunity for probing by the researcher as he/she plays a moderator’s role (Frey & Fortana, 1982; Khan & Manderson, 1992). In this study, I found out from the students about the nature of learner support, how they perceived the quality of the support, and the effect of learner support on their classroom practices. Morgan (1997, 2014) argues that FGDs reduce on misunderstanding of the questions by the respondents as clarification can be given by the interviewer on-spot. Additionally, Wellington (2000) alludes that this method of data collection creates a feeling of security and safety among respondents as they are together with fellow peers. In this study, the motive of the group discussion was clarified and participants were encouraged to freely voice their concerns before fellow peers. I also encouraged participants seek for clarification at any time during our discussion.

Several researchers (Gaskell, 2000; Khan & Manderson, 1992; Morgan, 1996) have credited FGD for its ability to create synergies by stimulating interactions among the respondents, and between the respondents and the investigator. In this study, there was opportunity for participants to interact and freely give their views about the nature and quality of support

98

obtained from the university and workplace. As noted by Morgan (1997, 2014), unlike the interview method that breeds the investigator’s effect, the FGD method dilutes the effect to allow open discussions. My investigative role was mainly to moderate the discussion and take note of outcomes without interfering or cutting short the respondents. Triangulation by way of cross checking the respondent’s responses with the responses from other respondents, and data collection methods merited the use of the focus groups.

In view of the literature on FGDs, anticipated challenges of using this method were identified and carefully handled for effective data collection process. Morgan (1997, 2013), and Wellington (2000) claim that FGD method is prone to peer contamination because the weak discussants are overshadowed or have their ideas rubbished by the vocal respondents. This is supported by Creswell (2003, 2014) who reveals that reality shows individual differences as the level of articulation varies among respondents. To avert such an occurrence, I encouraged participants to speak in turns without interference. This encouraged even the less vocal participants to contribute in our discussions that enriched the findings.

Merton (1990) points out that focus groups are prone to having false consensus. To counteract this, with full knowledge of participants, I took field notes, audio recorded the discussion, and reflected on the findings afterwards not to succumb to group consensus (List, 2001; Morgan, 2013). Concerning what Gillham (2005) termed as the infeasibility of the tape recording due to unclear speaking of some respondents, the recording was tested and participants encouraged to be loud enough and clear so that their rich and valuable contributions are not missed. The audio recording was complemented by the investigator’s notes taken during the discussions that enriched the transcription and presentation of the findings.

Furthermore, Newby (2010) posits that the FGD method puts the ethical issue of confidentiality at stake as individuals openly listen to the views of each other. Additionally, Morgan (2010);

Morgan and Krueger (1993) raise a danger of group dynamics slowing the process and limiting the research control. In contrast, Denscombe (1985, 2010) argues that such open discussions encourage telling the truth rather than falsifying. In this study, group discussions promoted team building, provided different perspectives and ideas from participants that were triangulated to enrich the findings. I guided and controlled the discussions within the study scope, and participants retained their freedom to decide when to contribute.

99 4.8.2 Development of FGD guide

FGDs involved designing focus group guide to collect data from the students (appendix 6).

Basing on the views of Krueger (1998), and Krueger and Casey (2015) on focus group kit, I developed concise, clear and reasonable questions; refined and revised the questions, shared with the supervisor, and two colleagues for comments. Although Krueger (1998) identifies topic guide, and questioning route as two different approaches from which to choose when developing and using focus group discussions, I mixed the two in order to harness the benefits of both and enrich the study findings. I identified themes based on each research question, and then developed questions to use under each of the study themes.

4.8.3 Piloting and Administration of FGDs

The FGD guide was piloted on a group of six students outside the main study that informed further revision and production of the final FGD guide. The sole pilot group took about two and half hours which is beyond the ideal. According to Krueger (1998), and Krueger and Casey (2015), the rule of the thumb holds that a focus group discussion should not last for more than 2 hours. I took note of areas that needed more time and what could be avoided in producing the final draft. The draft tool was refined and used in the main study.

Although I had already got permission from the university to conduct the research, there was a need to get volunteers from the questionnaire respondents to participate in focus groups. With the support of students’ course representatives, I requested for at least 24 volunteers targeting to have 4 focus groups of at least 6 participants in each. I finally got 36 volunteers to participate in group discussions. Individual participants consented prior to the start of the focus group discussions.

In order to keep within the rule of the thumb (Morgan, 1997, 2013) that a focus group discussion should have 6-10 participants and the groups should range from 3-5; this study had 4 focus groups of 8 participants in each group. These were selected in such a way that two groups were from BED and two from DEP students. In line with (Krueger, 1998; Krueger &

Casey, 2015), each discussion took about one and half hours and used 8 open ended questions with some level of probing to elicit the responses.

To ensure depth discussion of topics and allow individual expressions focusing on the study (Howell, 2013; Meron, 1990); FGDs were organised on four different days in the evening when the selected participants had finished their classes. A classroom was arranged in workshop manner so that participants could feel relaxed and encouraged to openly give their views on

100

key learner support services. Students also discussed the effect of learner support on their classroom delivery. With due permission from the participants, the discussions were audio recorded and transcribed.

The investigator attended all the four group discussions and moderated the process giving room for participants to give their views without deviating from the study focus. The cultural aspect of respecting adults and their varied views was observed (Krueger, 1998). English was used as a medium of our discussion to unite all the participants that speak different tribal-based languages. In addition, English is the official language used as a medium of instruction in Ugandan school system hence spoken by all in-service teachers.