4.5.1 Desk Review
Desk review research, according to Dingemanse (2017), is a method applied in gathering facts and existing information that aids the provision of data needed to answer the question posed in a study. She further remarks that performing a good desk review entails following the selection of some good keywords/search terms; finding relevant sources, selecting the best facts that suits the research problem or question, and processing the facts gathered. In the words of Junega (n.d), desk review is very effective and can be conducted in the starting phase of a study to provide information which can be used as benchmark in the research process.
4.5.2 Document Analysis
Document analysis, according to Bowen (2009), is a form of qualitative research in which documents are interpreted by the researcher to give voice and meaning in a subject matter. Although document analysis is predominantly applied as a data collection tool in qualitative research, the focus in this study is on the nature of data generated, which is numeric and statistical. Hence, this follows this argument that both quantitative and qualitative have their distinct features in theory, but that in practice they complement each other.
77
4.5.3 Survey
As remarked by O’Leary (2014), surveying is the process by which researcher generates data through the use of a questionnaire. Survey research, according to Murray and Beglar (2009), is very informative; it is used where full descriptions of people and situations are sought and in investigation of attitudes and beliefs. It is adjudged a popular form of research in the social sciences because researchers in these fields are often interested in what people believe about an issue, their emotional reactions to various situations, and their opinions about people and events. Questionnaires and interviews are used in determining that relationship between these variables (Murray & Beglar, 2009; Bryman, 2012). In the words of Cohen (2013), a questionnaire is the instrument for collecting primary data in a given study.
In addressing responding to the research question three in the preliminary study, and question one in the main section, a questionnaire was used to assess the efficiency of TVET provision in four geopolitical zones, and the existence of partnerships.
4.5.4 Community Based Participatory Action Research (CBPAR)
As mentioned earlier, CBPAR was adopted for the last phase. According to Burns, Cooke, and Schweidler (2011), CBPAR is considered an approach or orientation to conducting research rather than a method. In agreement with the assertion, Bergold and Thomas (2012) reported that CBPAR is aimed at planning and conducting research on those problems being investigated. It is also described as “a collaborative approach that equitably involves community members, organisational representatives, and researchers in all aspects of the study in proffering solution to the problem at hand” (Bordeaux, Wiley, Tandon, Horowitz, Brown, & Bass, 2007). In the words of Banks, Armstrong, Carter, Graham, Hayward, Henry... and Strachan (2013), CBPAR is considered a research that entails some level of active involvement of a range of community stakeholders and generally operates from a value base that is derived from a commitment to sharing power and resources and working for the beneficial outcomes for all involved.
Burns, Cooke, and Schweidler (2011) argued that CBPAR offers a framework that begins with a community issue, proposed action, or strategy, and then supports or enhances this action with research that is community based and engaged. CBPAR is applied research, as it seeks to change issues that are critical to communities and focuses on engaging community members in research directed at addressing their social concerns (Burns, Cooke, & Schweidler,
78
2011). It is also described as collaborative research, education and action used to gather information to use for change on social or environmental issues that mainly involves people who are concerned or affected by such problem taking a leading role in producing and using knowledge about it (Pain, Whitman & Milledge, 2012).
The methods employed in the CBPAR approach in this study consisted of minutes of meetings, individual and focus group interviews.
4.5.5 Minutes of Meetings
In qualitative research, minutes of meetings are regarded as documents through which data is generated, having determined the objective of such study (Anderson, 2010). According to Al-kathiri (n.d), meeting minutes are written documents where qualitative researchers obtain either public or private records about a site or participants in a study, which are in participants’ words and are readily available for analysis. Myers puts it that written documents can be extremely valuable as they often provide evidence for things which people sometimes have difficulties remembering, for example, the exact date of a specific event, or attendee list at a particular meeting, and so forth (Myers, 2008). Another scholar puts it that minutes of meeting is one of the methods of data collection in MMR, although they may not be publicised, but are probably most valuable when analysed together with other instruments used for data collection (Barbour, 2013). This, according to her, allows the researcher to clarify the process through which face-to-face discussion comes to be interpreted into organisationally-endorsed text.
Discussions with community members during the planning and implementation of the CBPAR intervention programme were taken in the form of meeting minutes.
4.5.6 Individual Interviews
An unstructured open-ended interview was adopted as a method for data collection. This method was deemed fit in order to allow stakeholders involved in the implementation to share their unrestricted views about the programme. According to Gubrium and Holstein (2002, p. 35), unlike the structured or closed-ended interview, the open-ended allows for flexibility between the interviewer and the interviewee in terms of planning, implementing and organising the interview content. However, Dörnyei (2007, p. 136) stated that the interviewer needs to be careful in following up interesting developments and allowing the interviewee to elaborate on various issues. A ‘good’ qualitative interview has two major characteristics, namely: “it flows naturally; and it is rich in detail”(Dörnyei, 2007, p. 140). Stakeholders who were interviewed were allowed to flow naturally, so as to ensure the richness of data generated.
79
Community members that participated were interviewed on telephone, to share their experience on the intervention on a weekly basis (van Teijlingen, 2014).
4.5.7 Focus Group
Focus group was adopted because it is a recognized qualitative inquiry tool (Morgan, Fellows, & Guevara, 2008). Focus group, according to Descombe (2007, p. 115) “consists of a small group of people, who are brought together by a researcher to explore attitudes and perceptions, feelings and ideas concerning a topic”. In Abawi’s words, focus group is a structured discussion with the aim of stimulating conversation around a specific topic (Abawi, 2013). He further points out that a focus group discussion gives us the possibility to validate one individual’s opinion with other opinions gathered (ibid.). On the why and when to apply a focus group discussion, Dilshad and Latif (2013) argued that a focus group may be necessary when the researcher lacks substantial information about the subjects being studied; to give a voice to the marginalized segment of the society; and to examine sensitive issues. According to Myers (2009) focus group avails a group of individuals the opportunity to share their views on a particular subject of interest based on certain shared experiences. Its purpose is to produce answers to the ‘how’ and ‘why’ that yield rich multidimensional, nuanced and even thought- provoking descriptions of how people attribute meaning to, and interpret their understanding (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2011).
To validate the responses of community members who participated in the intervention programme, four different focus group discussions were held with TVET trainers, industry employers and students from the two trades sampled.
As mentioned earlier, the study followed a sequential approach of the mixed methods technique where the quantitative phase preceded the qualitative phase. In the next section, I present the mixed methods protocol of a sequential design.