DW Akademie Study Safer platforms, stronger participation
2.4 Sampling strategy
2.3.3 Focus group discussions (FGDs)
– Purpose
To explore collective perceptions, community norms,
and shared strategies related to GBVO.
– Participants
Three FGDs with 5-6 participants each, representing:
Female media professionals, Youth activists, Civil society
actors working on digital rights/gender equality.
– Format
Semi-structured, participatory discussions (90 mins),
facilitated to encourage dialogue while avoiding pressure for personal disclosure.
Ektimisi sought maximum variation across several dimensions to capture a diversity of perspectives (Creswell
and Poth, 2018). This included geographic diversity
(encompassing different Syrian regions and the diaspora),
professional background, and age. The sample size was
determined by the principle of thematic saturation (Guest
et al., 2006), whereby data collection continues until no
new substantive themes or insights emerge. The final
sample (19 KIIs, 12 IDIs, 3 FGDs) was deemed sufficient to
reach this point of informational redundancy.
– Disaggregation
The table shows the number of FGDs by category and
participant gender.
TOOL
Female Male Total
FGD 1 (Female media professionals and journalists)
6
0
6
FGD 2 (Civil society actors)
1
4
5
FGD 3 (Youth activists)
0
5
5
TOTAL
7
9
16
Given the sensitive nature of GBVO and the challenges of
conducting research in Syria, a non-probability purposive
sampling strategy was essential (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003).
Initial participants were identified based on their expertise
or experience relevant to the research questions. This level
of identifying the participants was based on personal connections of the research team, and a list of actors shared
by DW Akademie. This was supplemented by snowball
sampling, whereby initial contacts referred other potential
participants from within their trusted networks, a crucial
technique for building rapport and accessing hidden populations in high-risk contexts (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981).
2.5 Data analysis procedures
Analysis was an iterative, reflexive process moving
between data, codes, and emerging themes. All Arabic
transcripts were managed and coded using a structured
matrix system in Excel.
In FGDs 2 and 3, men were overrepresented for three main
reasons: (1) overall FGD recruitment was limited, and several potential participants, especially women, were hesitant to join group discussions because the format can feel
less private when the topics are sensitive; (2) FGD 1 was
intentionally designed as a women-only space to allow
more open and safer discussion, so the men who agreed to
participate were therefore assigned across the remaining
two FGDs, while women participants were prioritized for
the women-only group; and (3) the gender imbalance also
reflects broader realities in Syria’s public sphere, where
men are more visible as activists, policymakers, and advocates, while women’s participation is often constrained by
social norms, safety concerns, and risks linked to GBV.
A hybrid (deductive-inductive) thematic analysis was
conducted (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Deductive coding
began with a priori categories derived from the research
objectives and theoretical framework (“forms of harassment,” “legal barriers”). Simultaneously, inductive coding
remained open to themes emerging directly from participants’ narratives, allowing for context-specific insights
unique to the Syrian digital landscape to surface.
This thematic analysis was complemented by a focused
narrative and discourse analysis (Wodak and Meyer, 2011).
This layer examined how language, framing, and sentiment
in both interview transcripts and sampled online spaces
serve to normalize violence, discredit women in public
roles, or conversely, foster resistance and solidarity.
16