Adherencia a los tratamientos

My initial interaction and engagement with the SIF ‘Education in Employment’ project in 2008 laid the foundation for an interest on the experiences of migrant workers and their struggle to gain access to higher education opportunities in Ireland. In particular, I sought to widen my knowledge of the unique demographics situation in modern Ireland, by devising and undertaking further in-depth research, which involved an additional succession of interviews with key education and migration policy experts, at regional, national and international level. The SIF/EiE project steering committee chose to adopt a qualitative approach in their research. I was immersed in this research modus operandi – and for reasons advanced below – I also chose to use qualitative methods.

4.4.1 Research design and process: interview and focus group approach

This section seeks to present a rationale for the selection of the methodologies employed in this thesis, including an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of adopting the interview approach as a form of qualitative strategy. This is followed by a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of adopting the focus group approach, another form of qualitative research. In the context of the contribution that this thesis seeks to make to our understanding of the experiences and barriers migrants encounter in higher education and in accessing higher education, it is apparent that a qualitative research approach is most apposite. Qualitative methods tend to favour exploring people’s everyday life experiences, such as the experiences that migrants encounter in

167 accessing higher education courses and can be tailored to extract the desired information by way of semi-structured interviews and focus groups techniques. Outside the social research arena quantitative data research tends to dominate the research process (Silverman, 2000). This section provides an overview of the choices made throughout the research process.

One core rationalisation that briefly describes both strategies is that ‘qualitative refers to descriptive characteristics rather than numerical measurements. Quantitative refers to numerical measurements rather than descriptive’ (O’Leary, 2007, 214). However, this definition presents the idea that there is a clear dividing line between the two approaches, which is clearly not the case and is limiting and artificial, according to O’Leary as ‘most quantitative data starts out as word-based’ qualitative inquiry which in turn is transferred and coded numerically into statistics (O’Leary, 2007, 214). The most appropriate rationale is the role or purpose of the research and what the researcher is trying to ascertain. In social research, the research question often leads to a definitive research approach that is either quantitative or qualitative or a combination of both. During the planning stage of the research process, decisions are made as to the best possible approach, based on factors such as the relevance, feasibility, availability of resources, practicality of the research and availability of participants with expert knowledge in the field. More often than not, practical considerations become a definitive feature, in the context of obtaining access to participants, time constraints, financial cost of conducting the research and so forth. Ethics is another key consideration in social research which is further discussed in section 4.8 of this chapter.

Both qualitative and quantitative approaches have their advantages and disadvantages in social research. One of the main advantages of qualitative analysis, according to Denscombe (2007), is that the research data is ‘grounded in [the] reality’ of social existence. The data is rich and detailed. Another advantage is that there may be contradictions in the data but this is not a sign of weakness, rather a measure of uncertainty or ambiguity around the data analysis, as the social reality is not static (Denscombe, 2007). There is also a possibility of multi interpretations of the data. There are a number of disadvantages of qualitative analysis. One of them is the fact that the data may be less representative, as qualitative social research is generally

168 conducted on a smaller scale than quantitative research (Bryman, 2008). The possibility of decontextualizing the data is another disadvantage, particularly in the coding process where the meaning of the data may be lost. A further problem in data analysis is under-developing the data or finding data that does not ‘fit’. Data analysis takes longer to work through than quantitative data analysis and this may often appear daunting but it is attainable (Denscombe, 2007). Bryman (2008) outlines a simple version of the of contrasts between the two approaches. These are:

 numbers versus words;

 the point of view of the research versus the point of view of the research participants;

 the research is distant versus the research is close;

 the theory and concepts test the research versus the theory and concepts emerge from the data;

 hard reliable data versus rich deep data;

 artificial settings versus natural settings (natural environment settings) (Bryman, 2008, 393-394).

There are a number of similarities between the two approaches. Both are concerned with answering research questions and with ‘relating data analysis to the research literature’ (Bryman, 2008, 395). Both treat ‘frequency as a springboard for analysis’ of the data and both ‘seek to ensure that deliberate distortion does not occur’ (Bryman, 2008, 395). The interpretation of data is bound up with the ‘self’ of the researcher, which is not necessarily a huge disadvantage if the researcher is aware of this fact. The personal beliefs and values of the researcher can impact the choice of the research topic, ‘the formulation of the research question’, the ‘research design and data collection techniques’, the analysis and interpretation of the data and the final conclusions (Bryman, 2008, 24-25). Often in qualitative research, the researcher can develop a close affinity with the research participants, especially ‘underdog groups’ (2008, 25). The concept of ‘self-reflection’ plays a part in the ‘values’ element of the researcher (Bryman, 2008, 25). The following is a brief overview of the advantages and disadvantages of a quantitative research approach.

169 The advantages of quantitative analysis lie in the strong scientific framework of mathematical statistics. Statistical tests give the researcher creditability, while interpretations and findings are based on measurements. Large volumes of research can be analysed relatively quickly through this approach. Charts and tables provide an effective way to present the data and there are a number of computer programmes that help to analyse the statistical data (Denscombe, 2007) thus making this aspect of the research easier. One of the disadvantages is that the data is only as good as the methodology used in the data collection process (Denscombe, 2007). Another major criticism is that it ‘ignores the differences between the natural and social world by failing to understand ‘meanings’ that are brought to social life’ (Silverman, 2000, 4-5). However, most quantitative researchers argue that they ‘aim to produce a set of cumulative generalizations’ based on the data (Silverman, 2000, 5), which is critical for the evaluation of the data (Silverman, 2000).

There are different approaches to conducting research interviews. The interview process in quantitative research is highly structured, while in qualitative research it is either semi-structured or unstructured. The latter approach enables the participants’ views to be investigated. It is a more flexible approach as it also responds to the direction in which the interview is heading. Also, additional questions can surface during the qualitative interview approach allowing for further and deeper probing of the research topic (Bryman, 2008, 436-437). The semi-structured question approach was used here in all the interview and focus group research activity. This type of interview strategy is becoming more and more identified as an in-depth interview approach (Bryman, 2008, 438).

Forty-one interviews were conducted with professionals purposively selected because of their expertise on migrants and the issues they encounter on a national and international basis. Purposive sampling in qualitative research is a strategic approach which ensures the researcher ‘samples on the basis of wanting to interview people who are relevant to the research questions’ (Bryman, 2008, 458). This approach may also ensure that participants differ in their perspectives, knowledge and expertise (Bryman, 2008). Having reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of the qualitative approach underpinning this research, an exploration of a micro-enabling research method, namely a focus group, is highlighted in the following section.

170 The focus group approach is basically a group interview. The original idea involved a group of experts in a chosen field interviewed in an unstructured way, where the discussion between participants generated further discussion on specific fields of interest. This whole process presents the researcher with the opportunity to develop an understanding of why participants feel the way they do and how they justify their opinion. The participants can probe each other’s reasons for holding a certain view, or voice agreement with that view (Bryman, 2008). Another advantage of the focus group is the opportunity for the participant to be challenged by other group members and therefore to think ‘or possibly revise their views’ (Bryman, 2008, 475). One of the more important aspects of recording the focus group research is ‘not just what people say but how they say it’ (Bryman, 2008, 476). The focus group participants were chosen because of their specific background experience in the field, the criteria being that they must be migrant workers, migrant students or potential students.

Focus groups have considerable potential but there are also limitations. The data is often more difficult to analyse. The participants may talk over one another other or interrupt another participant’s flow of discussion. Finally, certain research topics are of a sensitive nature (may contain personal or private details) and therefore are unsuitable for a focus group while other topics may be a source of embarrassment to group members (Bryman, 2008). An expert researcher should be aware of and sensitive to these issues. This section has provided a brief overview and rationale of the research design and methodologies employed in this research process. Section 4.5 further justifies the deployment and rationale of the qualitative approaches is.