Reflections on the Value of Mixed Focus Groups with Adult Learner Research Participants: Exploring Gender Disparities and Gendered Relationships

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 290 - 309, 30.01.2023

Xoliswa Tawana Norma Romm

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.16.10.1

Abstract

The purpose of this article is two-fold. Firstly, we consider whether the setting up of mixed-gender focus group sessions has the potential as a research process to contribute to transforming people’s understandings of their gendered relationships. Secondly, we relate our discussion to the question of the mutability of stereotypical thinking in the context in question, taking into account the idea that cultures in different contexts can be seen as “in the making” through the way in which people together create meaning. We explain how the first author of the article organized focus groups which were mixed in terms of gender with the purpose that the adult learner participants could develop their perceptions as they related to each other around the topic of gender inequalities.). The sessions were conducted in two adult learning Centers located in a rural and an urban area respectively – Xola and Zodwa – within the Cacadu District of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Two mixed focus groups took place in 2016 (one in each Center, with 19 females and 5 males altogether), and a follow up took place in 2018, to further discuss recommendations. In 2022, another set of focus group sessions was arranged in the same Centers, with 10 females and 6 males who were asked to participate and agreed. As part of a related discussion on gendered relationships, they were asked specific questions regarding how they understood the value of the mixed-gender conversations. Results from the various sets of groups suggest that focus groups can indeed help people to explore and rethink gender disparities and to think of ways forward in terms of enriched understandings. We recommend that mixed-gender focus group sessions should be regarded by researchers as a potential space to fruitfully set up a way for people to develop their sense of interdependence in their social relations.

Keywords

African feminist thinking, gendered relationships, gender inequalities, relational existence, transformative research

Supporting Institution

University of South Africa

Project Number

There is no project number - this was research done initially towards a doctoral degree and then with follow up research

References

• Adyanga F. A. (2019). Ancient governance in Africa. In N. Wane (Ed.), Gender, democracy and institutional development in Africa (pp. 37-65). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Ahlung, S. (2017). Deconstructing gender: Interdisciplinary degree project. Gothenburg: Göterborgs Universitet.
• Amaefula, R. C. (2021). African feminisms: paradigms, problems and prospects. Feminism/s, 37, 289-305.
• Anney, V. N. (2014). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5(2), 272-281.
• Buswell, C., & Corcoran-Nantes, Y. (2018). Precarious liaisons: Gender, moral authority and marriage in colonial Kenya. In J. J. McIntyre-Mills, N. R. A. Romm & Y. Corcoran-Nantes (Eds.), Balancing Individualism and collectivism (pp. 395-414). Cham: Springer.
• Chilisa, B. (2009.) Indigenous African-centered ethics: Contesting and complementing dominant models. In D. M. Mertens & P. E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 407–426). London: Sage.
• Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. London: Sage Publications.
• Chilisa, B. (2020.) Indigenous research methodologies (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
• Chilisa, B., Major, T. E., & Khudu-Petersen, K. (2017). Community engagement with a postcolonial, African-based relational paradigm. Qualitative Research, 17(3), 326-339.
• Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). London: Harper Collins.
• Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Quantitative inquiry and research designs: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications.
• Dillard, C. B. (2000). The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: Examining an endarkened feminist epistemology in educational research and leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(6), 661-681.
• Dillard, C. B. (2008). When the ground is black, the ground is fertile: Exploring endarkened feminist epistemology and healing methodologies in the spirit. In N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln, & L.T. Smith, (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 277-292). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Dilshad, R. M., & Latif, M. I. (2013). Focus group interview as a tool for qualitative research: An analysis. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 33(1), 191-198
• Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.
• Freire, P. (1974). Education for critical consciousness. London: Sheed and Ward Ltd.
• Gundumogula, M. (2020). Importance of FGs in qualitative research. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 8 (11), 299-302.
• Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus groups: Strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 887–907). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Kiguwa, P. (2019). Feminist approaches: An exploration of women’s gendered experiences. In S. Laher, A. Fynn, & S. Kramer (Eds.), Transforming research methods in the social sciences: Case studies from South Africa (pp. 220-235). Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
• Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principles and practice. London.
• Lindsey, L. L. (2005). Gender roles: A sociological perspective. London: Prentice Hall.
• Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). The constructivist credo. Walnut Creek: Left Coast press.
• Loots, A. (2009). Focus groups in research: Information gathering or real in-depth value? Acta Academica, 41(1), 164-182.
• Madambi, S. (2020). Breaking the shackles of gender stereotyping to create new norms: the case of Zimbabwean migrant women in Mthatha Town. Gender Questions, (1), 1-15.
• Maldonado, V. E. M., Torres, L. M. T., & de Sáez, M. J. N. (2013). Focus Group discussion as tool to study gender relations in urban community members. Enfermería Global, 29, 450-461.
• Maqutu, T. M. (2018). African philosophy and Ubuntu: Concepts lost in translation. Master’s dissertation in the Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria.
• Marshall, M. D., & Young, J. C. (2006). Gender and methodology. In C. Skelton, B. Francis & l. Smulyan (Eds.), The Sage handbook of gender and education (pp. 63-78). London: Sage.
• Matshidze, P. E. (2013). The role of Makhadzi in traditional leadership among the Venda. PhD thesis in the Faculty of Anthropology and Development Studies, University of Zululand.
• Mkabela, Q. (2005). Using the Afrocentric method in researching Indigenous African culture. The Qualitative Report, 10(1), 178-189.
• Mertens, D. M. (2017). Transformative research: Personal and societal. International Journal for Transformative Research, 4(1), 18-24.
• Moreton-Robinson, A. (2013). Towards an Australian Indigenous women's standpoint theory: A methodological tool. Australian Feminist Studies, 28(78), 331–347.
• Musimenta, A., Adyanga, F. A., & Sekiwu, D. (2020). Gender and performance disparity in mathematics: A study of South Western Uganda. African Educational Research Journal, 8(4), 664-673.
• Ndimande, B. S. 2(012). Decolonizing research in post-apartheid South Africa. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(3), 215–226.
• Nel, N. M., Romm, & Tlale, L. D. (2015). Reflections on focus group sessions regarding inclusive education: Reconsidering focus group research possibilities. Australian Educational Researcher, 42(1), 35-53.
• Ngulube, Z. (2018). The influence of Traditional gender roles and Power relations on women and girls’ education and health in Northern Ghana. B.A Thesis. University of Iceland School of Education.
• Nyumba, T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018) The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20-32.
• Okoji, O. O., & Ladeji, O. O. (2014). Influence of adult literacy education on socio-economic empowerment of rural women in Oyo State, Nigeria. Gender and Behaviour, 12(1), 6016-6026.
• Onwuegbuzie, A J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analyses. Quality & Quantity, 41(1), 105-121.
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Frels, R. K. (2015). A framework for conducting critical dialectical pluralist focus group discussions using mixed research techniques. Journal of Educational Issues, 1(2), 159–177.
• Oyewumi, O. (2002). Conceptualizing gender. The Eurocentric foundations of feminist concepts and the challenge of Africa epistemologies. Journal of Culture and African Women’s Studies, 2(1), 1–9.
• Poth, C. N. (2018). Innovation in mixed methods research. London: Sage.
• Quan-Baffour, K., Romm, N. R. A., & McIntyre-Mills, J. J. (2019). Ubuntu: A dialogue on connectedness, environmental protection and education. In J. McIntyre-Mills & N.R.A. Romm (Eds.), Mixed methods and Cross-Disciplinary Research Towards Cultivating Eco-Systemic Living (pp. 221-250). Cham (Switzerland): Springer.
• Roller, M. R., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2015). Applied qualitative research design: A total quality framework approach. New York: Guilford Press.
• Romm, N. R. A. (2015a). Reviewing the transformative paradigm: A critical systemic and relational (Indigenous) lens. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(5), 411–427.
• Romm, N. R. A. (2015b). Conducting focus groups in terms of an appreciation of Indigenous ways of knowing: Some examples from South Africa. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(1) (Art. 2).
• Romm, N. R. A. (2017). Researching Indigenous ways of knowing-and-being: Revitalizing relational quality of living. In P. Ngulube (Ed.), Handbook of research on theoretical perspectives on indigenous knowledge systems in developing countries (pp. 22–48). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Romm, N. R. A. (2018). Responsible Research Practice. Cham: Springer.
• Tawana, X. (2019). A critical investigation of the role of Community Learning Centers in Mitigating gender disparities in the Cacadu District of the Eastern Cape. Doctor of Education thesis, University of South Africa.
• Siry, C., Ali-Khan, C., & Zuss, M. (2011). Cultures in the making: An examination of the ethical and methodological implications of collaborative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(2), Art 24.
• Thakhathi, A. (2017). Historical lessons for Africa's gender parity-based sustainable development. Gender and Behaviour, 15(2), 8643-8653.
• UNFPA Advocacy Brief (2012). Engaging men, changing gender forms: Directions for gender-transformative action. New York: United Nations Population Fund.
• Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax: Fernwood
• Wirawan, R., McIntyre-Mills, J.J., Makaulule, M., Lethole, P. V., Pitsoane, E., Achemfuor, A., & Romm (2022). Together we can grow: Resourcing the commons through pathways to wellbeing. Systemic Practice and Action Research (online first): https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-022-09613-z.
• Woldegies, B. D. (2016). Research highlighting options for gender empowerment in Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 58–80.