DESARROLLO URBANÍSTICO

“Those who read or listen to our stories see everything as through a lens. This lens is the secret of narration, and it is ground anew in every story, ground between the temporal and the timeless. If we storytellers are Death's Secretaries, we are so because, in our brief mortal lives, we are grinders of those lenses.” John Berger 'and our faces, my heart, brief as photos' (1984).

57

Social researchers seek to expand or discover a social phenomenon through the lenses of those who live in it (Creswell, 2009). In order to achieve this, researchers need research designs, or methodologies to help them navigate through the social world and to understand meanings or reflections behind social relations (Bryman, 2004).

Crotty defines research methodology as “the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes” (1998, p.3). A qualitative methodology was adopted for this study. Creswell (1998, p.15) defines this as:

“…a process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The research builds a complex, holistic picture, analyses words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting.”

Consistent with the constructionist epistemology underpinning this study, a qualitative approach is used to achieve the research aim and objectives. The following discussion explores this approach in relation to quantitative and mixed method approaches.

3.5.1 The Different Approaches

Qualitative approaches are increasingly becoming useful tools of social inquiry (Mack et al., 2005). The purpose is to describe, interpret and understand social phenomena from the perspectives of those who reside in it, and to identify patterns in thoughts, opinions, and experiences of a phenomenon at specific space or time (Bryman, 2004). By contrast, quantitative research is concerned with observable and measurable trends that can be transformed into statistics to support or reject hypotheses, and to uncover statistically significant relationships in data (Antonius, 2003). The application of qualitative and quantitative approaches along with their perceived strengths and weaknesses have been rigorously debated, and these approaches continue to be largely dichotomous (Brown 1996). However, some researchers attempt to reconcile the two approaches to research and suggest mixed methods approach to research (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner, 2007; Johnson, and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Mixed methods allow the use of statistical analysis while at the same time maintaining deeper exploration, accounting for both measurable outputs and lived experiences (Bryman, 2004).

58

Both qualitative and quantitative research tend to be used in the field of international voluntarism. Traditionally, quantitative approaches in voluntarism research focus on ‘measurable’ impacts such as number of lives saved, or number of training programmes completed through the act of voluntarism (Lopez Franco, and Shahrokh, 2015). An example of the use of such approach in voluntarism can be found in the work of Benjamin Lough and colleagues. The authors designed the International Volunteer Impacts Survey (IVIS) to measure perceived impacts of international volunteering on students. Although some important findings such as perceived international understanding, intercultural relations, and community engagement were noted, the use of the survey significantly limited the depth and richness of the findings (Lough, McBride, and Sherraden, 2012). The authors acknowledged the need to incorporate open–ended qualitative responses from students to uncover and elucidate some of the limitations of the survey.

A similar approach to researching voluntarism was taken by OmniMed, in collaboration with the Ugandan Ministry of Health, the U.S. Peace Corps, and St. Elizabeth’s Medical Centre in Boston, the United States of America (USA). The study utilised a randomised experimental design to examine ‘measurable’ improvements in the health behaviours of Village Health Teams (VHTs) trained by American volunteers in Mukono District, Uganda (see Sherman and Nichols, 2013). However, unlike Lough et al.’s (2012) survey discussed above, the authors did not acknowledge the potential shortcomings of their survey. Instead, they stressed on the perceived rigour of the tool, stating that it was developed by ‘multi–disciplinary’ teams and interpreted using the ‘Lives Saved Impact Calculator’, a DfID promoted impact assessment tool. Despite the potential limitations highlighted above, quantitative approaches particularly surveys proved useful in accounting for demographic trends of volunteering projects. In particular, their utility to map out the broader impacts of voluntarism has helped challenge assertions that discount the important role voluntarism plays in international development (Sherman et al., 2013).

By contrast, qualitative approaches and their application in voluntarism research have particularly been successful in gaining insights into a wide range of factors such as perceptions, motivations, and benefits associated with voluntarism more generally.

59

Qualitative approaches are suited to uncovering these factors because participants are given the freedom to tell their stories and share their lived experiences (Bryman, 2004). This utility of qualitative approaches is made additionally relevant to this study by the works of Ackers et al. (2017), Hague et al. (2015), and Tate (2015), which demonstrated the appropriateness and effectiveness of these approaches in exploring voluntarism specifically in the context of Ugandan public health.

As briefly mentioned earlier, some research may be better explored by integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches. In voluntarism, there is relatively little evidence of cross pollination between the two approaches. One such exception includes the work of Michael Rozier and colleagues. The authors utilised online survey and conducted interviews to compare prevailing practices of volunteer deploying organisations with the preferences of host communities. In this study, mixed methods approach was used as a complimentary design and to provide participants a choice. It is suggested that this combination approach responds to the ‘multidimensionality’ of human experiences, and aids researchers to adopt an integrated approach to research (Mason, 2006a, p. 11). At the same time, several limitations regarding this approach to research have been highlighted. First and foremost, and notwithstanding discussions presented in 3.3.1, Mason points out potential complications that may arise from a paradigm mismatch which, she argues, may not add up to a neat fit (Mason, 2006). Mason further raises questions about executing research that may not, by design, be in the same wavelength but also cites critical issues such as interdisciplinary backgrounds and resources which can limit a researcher’s ability to adopt a combined approach in a meaningful way (Mason 2006). Having outlined the different approaches to social research along with their key characteristics, strengths, and potential limitations, the following section outlines my journey towards a qualitative methodology.

3.5.2 Towards a Qualitative Methodology

As discussed in 3.5, it appears that all research approaches have strengths and limitations, but some are more appropriate in some contexts more than others. Having briefly stated the rationale for choosing a qualitative approach in 3.5, I discuss, in this section, my journey towards identifying the most appropriate qualitative approach to this study.

60

It is one thing choosing a qualitative approach to research, and another choosing an ‘appropriate’ qualitative approach. Researchers arrive at research methodology from different perspectives. Some align with particular research methodology because it has been ‘proven’ to work in a field; others embark on an exploratory exercise to explore the research context and make an ‘informed’ decision to adopt a particular methodology (Brown, 2006).

As a novice to the research context, and researching a field dominated by ‘commodified’ voluntarism with a focus on ‘quantifiable’ outcomes (Lopez Franco et al., 2015; Pinto, 2010), I sought to arrive at an ‘informed’ methodology through exploration – namely, a scoping visit to Uganda. Brown (2006) argues research exploration involves “entry into unknown territory” (p.9), to uncover what is out there and what appropriate tools to use. Consistently, this study sought to explore what is it like for Ugandan health workers to be working with volunteers and what meanings this experience has for Ugandans thus placing the researcher in the role of the explorer who sets out to discover. In respect to entering unknown territory, one important utility of exploratory research lies in its detachment from predefined research strategies or methodologies (Brown, 2006). As a consequence, the researcher is required to maintain an open–mind and flexibility to immerse himself/herself in the research context and make use of appropriate methods of gathering information available. This was the case in the scoping phase of this study where research exploration in five Ugandan public health facilities was achieved with very little prior knowledge and without subscribing to research assumptions and methodologies or methods in any dogmatic ways22_{. The scoping phase was} conducted early on in my PhD journey, and with minimal allegiance to ‘established’ research methodologies. In fact, it was a time when I moved from deductive to inductive research and had very limited knowledge of qualitative research methodologies. The aim of the scoping phase was to gain a general overview of Ugandans hosting volunteers without being purist in any methodological sense.

22 _{Whilst the scoping phase fit in the notion of research as an exploration, it was more of a qualitative}

61

Thorne (1997b) notes the notion of viewing research as an exploration exercise, a ‘free for all’ context immersion, is particularly attractive to novice qualitative researchers such as myself because such approaches are not always an end themselves. Some are a part of a wider research process or analysis, which are developed further using appropriate research methodologies depending on the research contexts. In fact, Mason (2007) warns against adhering to one particular methodology as a means to claim privileged insights. She suggests that researchers should disrupt the notion of the privilege of the original methodology and allow to be driven by data and abide by it and not methodology or theory.

The exploratory scoping phase of this study provided the ‘groundwork’ for the research process from which a follow–up phase of this study was conducted. In the light of the emergent data and lessons learned from the scoping phase, and from the literature, it became evident that the follow–up phase of this study should adopt a research methodology that is responsive to:

a. Historical, cultural and situational underpinnings of voluntarism, and the various interpretations and meanings it has for Ugandans.

b. Ontological and epistemological underpinnings of this study which relate to the existence of ‘multiple’ perceptions, views, and experiences of voluntarism which are themselves constructed realities of the knower (I, the researcher), and the known (Ugandans).

This way of conceptualising exploration as a research process bears the traditions of qualitative approach, and more specifically, grounded theory.