PERSPECTIVA CRÍTICA DE LOS ESTUDIOS DE GÉNERO EN

Data collection for this study relied on focus group discussions and individual interviews. Focus group discussions allow participants to give more information on how they witnessed physical violence because they are the ones with violence experience. The interviews were semi- structured, and the researcher used open-ended questions to allow the participant to lead the interview. The researcher used a combination of focus group discussions and one-on-one interviews to gain a better understanding of the experiences and perceptions on learner-on- learner physical violence.

47

3.7.1. Administration of the interview schedule

Interviews are “planned, prearranged interactions between two or more people, where one is responsible for asking questions pertaining to a particular theme or topic of formal interest and other(s) is responsible for responding to the questions” (Lankshear and Knobel 2004: 198). Carpecken (1996) advocates that interviewers should take the opportunity to generate content about an event from an insider perspective. They must also, check the trustworthiness, the assurance and the careful importance of the subject's reply in a face to face interview, get to an individual's definitions and understandings of ideas and procedures that are interest to the researcher analyze both verbal and non-verbal responses, give immediate clarity if the interviewee was uncertain in his or her reply. Follow-up questions, which can emerge, to provide detailed or specific answers, tap into beliefs, values, perspectives and the like on the part of the interviewee.

Interviews were conducted with the 13 participants, both males and females during the month of October 2018. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain information on the perceptions and experiences of physical violence on learners- on -learner physical violence in Intshisekelo High School in Inanda. The purpose of the semi-structured interviews was to gain in-depth responses from the participants without intimidating them with too formal procedures.

Another intended outcome of conducting these interviews was an attempt to gain an understanding of how the educators and leaders interpreted their experience of violence and to understand the meanings they attached to this exposure. All the interviews were conducted by the researcher. An interview schedule that was generated after a thorough literature search was used. The interview schedule was written in English (see appendix 2 and 3). However, the interview schedule was administered through translation into Zulu. This was meant to ensure that the participants give more information through an own expression of feelings, attitudes and understanding of the subject matter. This proved very effective as it allowed the researcher to elicit participants’ perceptions on school-based violence.

The time of participation was negotiated between the participant, school educators and the researcher, which mainly ensured that the interviews were scheduled at the time convenient for educators. Thus, the interviews were mainly conducted when there were no scheduled lessons. The venues for interviews were also negotiated with the educator, although the educator preferred the classrooms as venues that the learners were used to, rather than offices. Thus, this allowed for a comfortable and non-threatening environment.

48

3.7.2. Focus group discussions

A focus group discussion “involves several participants in a group discussion, often with a facilitator whose goal is to keep the group discussion targeted on a specific topic” (Mackey and Gass, 2005:356). These individuals are expected to give opinions on a particular subject matter. Focus group discussions provide qualitative data through discussions with the help of a mediator who directs and controls the discussion (Breakwell, Hammond and Smith, 2006). The selection of participants in focus group discussions is done either randomly to ensure representation of segments of society, or non-randomly in order to elicit specific data (Morgan, 1997; Breakwell et al., 2006).

Table 3.5: Learners distribution for focus group discussions

This table below illustrates the breakdown of the focus group discussion and also provides the detailed characteristics of the discussion.

Focus group Learners distribution Below 18 yrs. (20 learners )

Gender: 10 males 10 females

Above 18 yrs. (4 learners)

Gender :2males 2 females

Direct victims : 12 learners indirect victims : 12 learners Total =24 Learners

The table above it portrays that they were learners who were above 18 year of age and also learners who are below 18 year of age. The focus group discussions were broken into 4 groups. Each group consisted 6 members. The focus group discussion were made by 2 direct victim groups which were 6 males and 6 females learners and also 2 indirect victim groups which were mad by 6 male and 6 females learners. Each group were having discussion for limit of 60 minutes.

Denzin and Lincoln, (1994) summarized the more common uses of focus groups as follows: obtaining general background information about a topic of interest, generating research hypotheses that can be submitted to further research and testing using more qualitative approaches, stimulating new ideas and creative concepts, diagnosing the potential for problems with a new programme, service or product, generating impressions of products, programs, services, institutions, or other objects of interest, learning how respondents talk about the phenomenon of interest which may facilitate quantitative research tools

49

Merton, Fiske and Kendall (1990: 137) suggest that "the size of the group should manifestly be governed by two considerations: it should not be as large as to be unwieldy or to preclude adequate participation by most members nor should it be so small that it fails to provide substantially greater coverage than that of an interview with one individual". In this study, each focus group discussions were composed of six people. Four separate focus groups were conducted, two consisted of males and the other consisted of females. Denzin and Lincoln (1994) stress that smaller groups (four to six people) are preferable when the participants have a great deal to share about the topic or have had intense or lengthy experiences with the topic of discussion.

Merton et al. (1990) believe that one group is never enough as you may be observing the dynamics of that group and little else. Some studies require that several (three to four) groups are convened. Therefore, four focus group discussions of learners were conducted purposively. The types of question asked were open-ended questions, since the researcher wanted to allow the participants to tackle the questions from a wide range of perspectives.

3.7.3. Setting the scene for focus group discussions

It is important for the researcher to build rapport in the focus group discussions. Stewart and Shamdasani (1990) suggest that it is a good idea to have group members introduce themselves and tell a little more about themselves. This method can help "break the ice". The recommended pattern for introducing the group discussion includes the welcome of participants, overview of the topic, ground rules and the first question (Stewart and Shamdasani, 1990). This method was applied in this research and it encouraged participation from the learners since they felt like they really knew each other after introducing themselves.