MARKETING MIX

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, an outline of the research framework and methodology used to address the research objectives and questions are presented which provide a holistic picture on how, where and from whom data was collected. In addition a justification for the use of the mixed method research design, with both qualitative and quantitative research methods being used is outlined. The use of children, community leaders and members, school authorities, an AP and child service professionals as the key research participants in the study is discussed and justified. The sampling methods used in the study are highlighted. Issues of access to the CHH, schools and the communities are discussed. The process of data management, from recording, transcription, interpretation and analysis is highlighted. Information on the audit trail that justified analysis and interpretation of the findings is provided. Issues of validity and reliability of the data collected are highlighted. Ethical issues and considerations that guided the study are provided. The researcher’s reflections on the methodological limitations and how these were addressed is provided.

4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

The mixed method concurrent triangulation design with the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods was used. Mixed methods research contains a number of designs that

require researchers to choose and explain the reasons behind adopting a particular design (Mertens 2005, 2015; Creswell, 2002). The reasons behind the choice of a particular design are determined by a number of factors. These factors include, the implementation sequence of qualitative and quantitative data collection, the priority that would be given to both qualitative and quantitative methods and the stage at which the qualitative and quantitative data and findings would be integrated (Bryman, 2004; Creswell, 2003; Mertens, 2007). The current study was skewed towards the qualitative approach as I wanted to dig deeper into the contextual meanings, manifestations and definitions of resilience. The quantitative component was in the form of an objective ordinal measure of resilience using the RS 25. This was used to assess resilience in the CHH and to determine if the children in the CHH who were purposively selected to take part in the study were indeed resilient. The other purpose was to compare and cross validate results on the RS with data obtained from the qualitative enquiry on the ‘resilience statuses’ of the CHH. Hence the mixed method concurrent triangulation design was used. The concurrent triangulation design is used when a researcher uses the qualitative and quantitative methods to confirm or cross validate findings in a single study (Mertens 2005, 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Bulmer, 2008).

Quantitative research design aims at quantifying variables (Smith, 1988). The results of quantitative methods can be easily transformed into numerical form there by making it easier to interpret data. The RS 25 was used to objectively measure resilience and provided a resilience ordinal score for each child. The scores are divided into low, medium and high. The higher the score the greater the resilience and conversely, the lower the score, the lower the resilience levels. The use of this quantitative method minimised subjectivity and ensured an objective

measure on the notion of resilience which can have different manifestations in different cultures and settings. It therefore provided common ground and focal point on the fluid term which gave the study an element of objectivity. However the major drawback of this approach is that in- depth study and analysis of experiences cannot be done due to the approach’s emphasis on numbers and measurables. This limitation is addressed by the qualitative component of the study, where the in-depth interviews and FGDs carried out with the CHH and other research participants provided answers to the how and why questions which elicited deeper levels of awareness and analysis. The qualitative component provided in-depth description of the CHH’s experiences and how resilience manifests in their lives. However, qualitative research is time consuming and can be subjective. The limitation on the subjective nature of qualitative research was however addressed by the quantitative component of measuring resilience using the RS25.

I had to consider the intricacies of both quantitative and qualitative research to come up with the decision of using the concurrent triangulation design in this study, where the two methods are used ‘as a means to offset the weaknesses inherent within one method with the strengths of the other method’ (Creswell 2003:217). According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, (2009) triangulation refers to the use of different data collection methods and instruments in one study to make sure that the data is telling you what you think it is telling you. Hence in studying resilience it is imperative to be creative and use innovative ways and different methods to tap into the notion of resilience and understand it from a variety of angles. Triangulation also enabled me to check on the truthfulness and accuracy of data from different sources (Jacobsen, 2011). In this study a total of eight different groups of research participants provided their

insights on the research questions. This enabled me to compare and cross check for accuracy, consistency and mismatches in information.

Resilience is a highly elusive fluid term that can manifest differently in different cultures (Ungar, 2008; Theron et al., 2011, 2013; Masten, 2010). It was therefore imperative to objectively assess resilience with a tool like the RS which has been validated for use across ages and ethnic groups (Ahern et al., 2006; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, Norman & Combs, 2006; Neill & Dias, 2001; Wagnild, 2009). The greatest advantage of the concurrent triangulation design is that it results in effectively validated and substantiated results (Mertens, 2005; Creswell, Clark, Gutman & Hanson, 2003). The limitations are that comparison of results can be challenging and discrepancies that arise in findings may be difficult to explain (Cronin, 2008). The figure below is a diagram showing the concurrent triangulation design that was used in the study.

As shown in figure 6, qualitative and quatitative data were collected in a single study. The results from both methods were analysed, compared and integrated to strengthen conclusions and themes emanating from the study.

Figure 6: The mixed method concurrent triangulation design (Adapted from Creswell 2003:214)

Qualitative Data Collection Quantitative Data Collection

Data results compared, integrated

Analysis of findings Analysis of findings

Figure 7: The Research framework (shown on page 109)

Figure 7 on page 109 is a pictorial diagram of the overall research framework showing the research process and from who and how data was collected.

SEMI- STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH MEEMBERS OF AN AP( 2 community leaders, 2 headmasters, 2 teachers, 2 pastors, 2 child service proffessionals)

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (2 FGDs with 25 child service professionals, 4 FGDs with 46 community members including 4 leaders, 2 FGDs with 24 teachers including 4 headmasters)

SEMI- STRCTURED INTERVIEWS with 3 policy makers.

PARTICIPATORY ACTIVITIES WITH THE CHH AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE RS . Tree of Life activity, problem solving activities, the I have…, I can…. I am….. activity with the CHH ,