The process of data collection was conducted using two focus
group discussions in Bukavu, the capital city of South Kivu. Each team
comprised seven men participants and the researcher used a qualitative
approach. Kitzinger (1994:104) notes that `a good qualitative method can help
to understand a situation that would otherwise be enigmatic or confusing'.
Because of this, the approach was very important in noting down and documenting
verbal and written information from the respondents because this was a genuine
way that allowed the researcher to gather more detailed information on the
topic under discussion. But before jotting down any data given by a respondent,
the researcher obtained written consent to have his name to appear as such in
the findings. The researcher abided by to the respondents' point of view.
Fischer (2005:48) posits that the closeness that exists
between the researcher and the respondents in this approach creates more
objectivity in the data collection. However, the researcher collected data from
men who knew about domestic violence, have once committed it or would commit
it, or again those who live close to domestic abusers. In this way, he expected
to have very few of them who admit having committed it in their homes. It was
difficult to ask someone who has committed domestic violence to their own
family members to openly admit it and tell the story during focus group
discussion. For participants who
openly avowed this, their data were very sensitive and therefore
highly protected because this is crime that is punishable. This data had to be
protected by the agreement of confidentiality.
After each focus group that lasted approximately 60 minutes,
three of the participants to the focus groups were selected and invited to
willingly partake in the in-depth interviews that took place in the period that
immediately followed the period when focus groups ended. Such interviews were
like group discussions except that the researcher had to involve one individual
in the interview at a time. The researcher expected that the respondents would
not refuse to attend and share their opinions regarding males' beliefs and
attitudes about domestic violence in South Kivu. When the researcher met the
potential participants, he explained to them the purpose of the research, its
aims and the ethical issues. Besides, he asked them if they would mind using
their own names in the research findings or if they could use pseudonyms.
In-depth interviews were necessary to this study because they
helped the researcher to investigate South Kivu men's personal, sensitive or
confidential information regarding domestic violence that was not suitable to
cover in an open group discussion. This seemed to be a best method for seeking
men's interpretations and responses to domestic violence in the province. In
other contexts, in-depth interviews are advantageous for busy people because,
as they may fail to attend focus group discussions, now this can still be an
opportunity for them to participate. In addition, in-depth interviews offer a
good opportunity that strengthens focus group talks by allowing the respondents
who have been shy in focus group talks to be free for responding. Congruent
with Ulin et al. (2004:102), such interviews bring something additional to
focus groups discussions. This procedure was used purposively; in other words,
in-depth interviews were very helpful to the researcher for collecting
supplementary insights from the focus teams on beliefs and attitudes of male
domestic violence in the area. During team talks, much and special attention
was put on the interaction among the different group members who were speaking
(Flyvbjerg, 2006:220). It should also be reminded that this approach offered
the interviewees ample space to feel like speaking in real context.
On the other hand, in-depth interviews are criticised for
their disadvantages. In case the detailed interview deals with two individuals,
one respondent may feel like `a bug under a microscope', which can cause him
not involve courageously in the discussion (Patton, 2002:23). Thus he becomes
less willing to be open up compared to the relaxed mood of a group discussion.
However, this disadvantage was overcome as the researcher made every effort to
quickly establish a good relationship and confidence with his informants in
their own units.
Accordingly, the role of the researcher during this process
was to assist the respondents to produce relevant in-depth discussions that
contain an ordered succession of open-ended questions. In-depth interviews were
organised during the week after the focus groups talks had been conducted.
