Reflexiones finales sobre la Reparación Colectiva de REDEPAZ

This section seeks to evaluate the study’s strengths and weaknesses through examination of its research design and methods. Further suggestions are made for improving the strength of future cross-cultural investigation. The purpose of this is to support accurate understanding of how to interpret the study’s findings and therefore its transferability to similar situations.

6.3.1 Cultural familiarity.

I considered my Malaysian heritage to enhance my pursuit of adapting ECI to meet the families' cultural needs. As I was already aware of potential cultural conflicts between traditional Malaysian values and beliefs with the ECI culture, I anticipated that it would assist my ability to respond to the families’ intervention needs. Additionally, I

considered the possibility of how my familiarity might influence the identification of cultural considerations, where some characteristics may be accentuated and others potentially diminished. Certain supports within this study ensured that information captured was detailed allowing for rich descriptions to be analysed. Inherent in the practitioner inquiry research design was the ability to engage with and explore my personal practice (Heikkinen et al., 2016). This enabled the consideration of my personal characteristics and perspective as part of this study, such as my culture and experiences. This feature permitted open and honest reflective practice to take place and to be documented for analysis. Furthermore, the collection of four data sources allowed the triangulation of findings, strengthening the process of analysis by enabling the emergence of themes based on the quality of the evidence.

84 6.3.2 Ethnographic interviewing.

Ethnographic interviewing functioned as both an ECI method and a research method. This interviewing method has been suggested and identified in this study to be an effective strategy to gather information that enables greater understanding about an individual's perspective of an event (Westby, 2009). The use of this method was seen to be successful within the Assessment Phase as it allowed me to gain insight as a naïve listener into the parents’ and their families’ experiences of their daily life.

During the Planning-Intervention and Wrap-Up phases I sought to comprehend the parents' view around their ongoing intervention experiences, the effectiveness of this tool within this context may have been influenced by the familiarity of the interviewer with the event. Spradley (1979), an influential author on ethnographic interviewing suggested that the interview was best conducted as a naïve listener. It is possible that parents presupposed the information that was commonly known through shared experiences and avoided sharing about these areas in detail within the interviews. I attempted to offset this from occurring by clearly communicating the purpose of the interview at the beginning of the session (Westby et al., 2003). I emphasised that although some questions might sound ‘odd’, my aim was to accurately understand the parents’ perspective of their intervention experience. However, I also considered that discussion about the ECI activities and outcomes may be difficult for the parents if they did not feel safe to share openly with me, the interviewer and their SLT. Given their potential alignment with collectivist values in communication, they may feel that their comments could affect the harmony and 'face' within the relationship. I often reminded parents that the purpose of this study was to explore their perceptions and to ensure that their intervention needs were met, rather than my own. In response, the parents seemed to share openly throughout the study, although it is not known whether they avoided sharing certain details.

At times I was unsure of whether I followed the prescribed method of ethnographic interviewing accurately. I encountered situations during the interview where I was not sure whether I had used the right technique to support the parents to share further. This suggested a gap in my knowledge and experience in how to use this technique flexibly.

85

Supervision from an individual with experience should be considered to ensure that the questioning techniques used encouraged rather than constrained the parents' sharing and hence the study’s findings. I supported my implementation of this interviewing

technique through reviewing the literature and practicing it in a personal setting in preparation for the study. Within the study I prepared protocols (Appendix D) and tips to assist my use of this in a session with the parents.

6.3.3 Data collection and analysis process.

The data collection and analysis process were identified to contribute to the trustworthiness of the study’s findings, in particular credibility, transferability and confirmability. Four sources of data were captured: interviews, field notes, parent-child observations and self-reflections.

Credibility was enhanced through the availability of multiple sources that were able to portray different aspects of the triadic intervention relationship, therefore accounting for the complexity of the studied phenomenon. Furthermore, credibility was also supported through the prolonged participation in the intervention relationship with the parents. The frequency of sessions and length of time assisted the intentional development of rapport and level of trust within the intervention relationship, which was noted to encourage in-depth sharing. This intensive involvement facilitated the process of analysis by increasing the opportunities to identify and confirm patterns of information (Krefting, 1991).

Transferability was also supported through the use of multiple sources as descriptive detail was gathered in areas that were pertinent to this study’s investigation. Information was gathered about each cases’ family-SLT and family-child relationship and the

context of the relationship. Finally, confirmability was supported through the

convergence of the triangulated sources. In addition to this, the self-reflection source permitted a transparency of my role within this study.

However, an identified limitation to the data collection process was that non-verbal communication was not systematically recorded. As the use of indirect communication

86

styles has been identified as common within the Asian culture, a lot of information is conveyed through non-verbal communication (S. Chan & Chen, 2011). This

information could have provided depth to the information gathered about the family- SLT interaction.

6.3.4 Sample size.

The characteristics of this study meant that a small sample size was appropriate as it allowed for in-depth documentation of the process (i.e., rich data description) which increased the credibility of this study’s findings. Each parent received an intensive level of input that allowed the development of a close partnership and ultimately

personalisation to the ECI service they received. This study focused on comparing and contrasting findings from two parent-child pairs which meant the scope of differences between family cultural considerations could be explored. Further studies including a larger sample group will undoubtedly support the generation of insights to the

understanding of cultural competency.