4.8.1: Recruitment and Training of Research assistants
I recruited and trained three research assistants who helped me administer the questionnaire. I conducted Focus Group Discussions, Key Informant Interviews and made observations on my own. I selected research assistants who had a Social Science Degree and experience in data collection. In addition, I also selected those who were proficient in the dialect of the Shona spoken in the area. This ensured that they could communicate with ease with the respondents.
I arranged a two-day training workshop with them (although I was financially challenged, I made sure that they received this training). In addition, I instructed them to administer a maximum of six questionnaires per day to avoid rushing and I also told them, especially the
females, to adhere to a dress code that would be acceptable to the community. None of the female research assistants were allowed to wear trousers. In addition to this, when in the field, I supervised their completed questionnaires to ensure that the relevant questions were addressed. I also identified problems that arose in the process of the data collection. I also had meetings with them in the evening to discuss their challenges and experiences.
4.8.2: Employing Strategies to Increase the Validity and Reliability of the research (reduce bias and error)
Validity and reliability are significant concepts to be considered in research. The findings of a study must be generalizable in different settings and readers and other scholars should have trust in the findings. Casey et al (2013: 12) defined validity as “the degree to which a research study measures what it intends to measure”. There are two types of validity namely internal validity that is defined by Thyer (2010: 566) as the “approximate truth about inferences in relation to cause effect or causal relationships” and external validity which is defined as the ability to generalize the research findings to the target population, for instance, Muzarabani residents. Reliability is defined as the “stability of responses to multiple coders of data sets”
Creswell 2007: 210). Drost (2011: 106) defines reliability as the extent to which “measurement is dependable, repeatable and consistent”. Simply put, reliability refers to the repeatability of a measure. There are two aspects of reliability which are stability and equivalence. “Stability is concerned with securing consistent results with repeated measurements by the same person and with the same instrument” (Kothari 2004: 75). Equivalence considers “how much error may get introduced by different investigators or different samples of items being studied” (Kothari, 2004: 75).
However “reliability is not as valuable as validity” (Kothari, 2004: 74). I made use of unobtrusive methods to reduce bias and error. According to Payne and Payne (2004: 229):
The presence of an interviewer modifies their reported position, because they react under scrutiny. They might do any or all of the following: withhold socially unacceptable views; act the way they think researchers want to study; become self
conscious about audio recorders; respond to questions in a routine fashion; or just modify activities to accommodate the presence of a researcher in a confined space.
Thus, to reduce these problems as well as increase the validity and reliability of the research, I therefore, did the following:
a) adopted the reflexivity approach- Reflexivity is defined by Charmaz (2006: 188) as “the researcher’s scrutiny of his or her research experience, decisions and interpretations in ways that bring the researcher into the process and allow the reader to assess how and to what extent the researcher’s interest, position and assumptions influenced inquiry.” A reflexive stance informs how the researcher conducts the research, relating it to the research participants and presenting them in written reports. There are three types of reflexivity; the personal, epistemological and critical language awareness. “Personal reflexivity involves reflecting upon ways in which our own values, experiences, interests, beliefs, political commitments, wider aims in life and social identities have shaped the research” (Willig, 2008: 10). I adopted this approach in order to understand how both my contextual history and the contextual history of the data affect any knowledge claims that I made regarding my findings. According to Willig (2008: 10), “reflexivity requires an awareness of the researcher’s contribution to the construction of meanings throughout the research process and an acknowledgment of the impossibility of remaining outside of one’s subject matter while conducting a research”. For that reason, it was therefore, necessary for me as a researcher to reflect on how my personal background might impact the research findings. Accordingly, I would continuously reflect on how my actions, values and perceptions impact upon the research setting and how they might affect the data collection and analysis to reduce bias. In addition, I made sure that the behaviours, beliefs systems and actions of the respondents did not affect my data analysis.
b) Epistemological reflectivity requires one to engage with questions such as “how has the research question definition limited what can be found, how has the design of the study and method analysis constructed the data and the findings, how could the research question have been investigated differently and to what extent would this have given rise to a different understanding of the phenomena under study? On critical language awareness, I interacted with people more frequently to be familiarised with some words that I did not understand well so that it would be easier for me to interpret the meaning as it is as well as to report truthfully.
c) In addition, I also made use of triangulation to reduce bias and error. Rahman and Yeasmin (2012: 154) define triangulation as the process of combining multiple theories, methods, observers and empirical materials as a way of overcoming the weaknesses and biases that come from a single method or approach. In this research I applied triangulation at various phases of the research. Accordingly, I made use of two theories (though they are complimentary) namely, Social Capital and social networks. At data collection phase, I made use of questionnaires, observations, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and transect walks. Furthermore, I made use of both probability and non
probability sampling to choose respondents. In fact, the sampling was influenced by the choice of data collection tool. All was done to increase the validity and credibility of the research. Basically, triangulation encompasses the use of multiple data gathering methods to produce complimentary measures of concepts thereby reducing the margin of error.
Thus, I used the following data collection tools: questionnaires, key informant interviews, focus group discussions and observations to obtain a balanced response.
d) I sought and was granted permission to use voice recorders prior to conducting focus group discussions and when asking questions during observations.
e) Furthermore, I did audit trail. Audit trail is defined as the process that encompasses a
“thorough collection of documents regarding all aspects of research” (Carcaray, 2009: 12).
Thus, I was expected to “keep all records of study processes” (ibid: 12). I have kept all the documents that I used at each and every stage of my research. I stored all the videos and recordings in my external hard drive and made sure that no one can have easy access to the videos except me. All counter books with field notes, dates, daily reports are also kept in a safe place. I will destroy these after 10 years.
4.8.3: Pilot study and the pre-testing of data collection instruments
I conducted a pilot study to increase the validity and credibility of the research findings.
According to Barker (2002: 33), a pilot study is “a mini-version of a full-scale study or a trial run done in preparation of complete study”. It is a “reassessment without tears” (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 1996: 121) where I was trying out all research techniques and methods in mind to see “how well they work in practice” (ibid: 121). Conducting a pilot study helped me identify pertinent logistical issues before embarking on the main study since its (pilot study) results can inform feasibility of the study and identify modifications needed in the main study.
Furthermore, the pilot study made me avoid embarrassment and discomfort. This is because of the fact that the “non-verbal behaviour of participants in the pilot study would give important information about embarrassment or discomfort experience concerning content or wording of questions” (Krugger 1999: 146). In overall, pilot study helped me to identify potential practical problems in following the research procedure.
I administered 10 questionnaires to the respondents in each ward in the study area to check whether the questions were of quality, unambiguous, having the meaning intended, the duration that each questionnaire would take and weather the questions were short and precise. After this, I revised the questionnaire with the research assistants to make sure that it would enable me to solicit the information needed and to ensure that the information will be easy to analyse using the Statistical packaging for Social Sciences (SPSS). Moreover, I pre-tested my Focus Group discussion questions to limit potential risks that would affect respondents’ responses.