quality of implementation. These two variables (level of participation and level of implementation) are used for the quantitative analysis of impact in chapter 7.
recommended within par. Aiming for equal samples per area, transport allowances were added to secure participation of those who were interested but lived further away (Dev_5).
Table 6-1: Deviations from design
Deviation or Adaptation Emerging Reasons Dev_1 Added a second computer training
event Initial findings on general level of computer knowledge and perceived limited ability of participants to employ computer use to pursue goals.
Dev_2 Changed dissemination process to focus on participants and local area presentations and not USAASA.
Limited interest and action from USAASA regarding CLIQ, and high enthusiasm from participants.
Dev_3 Increased importance of goal- setting, requiring extra fieldworker training and fieldwork in two areas to adequately facilitate goal-setting.
Reflection on participants’ engagement with goal- setting during initial-QLA together with emerging thoughts on subsequent research process on how best to support participants to improve their QoL.
Dev_4 Unable to attain the desired sample quotas with respect to sex and occupation.
Less interest from men and from self-employed people. Occupation categories were not appropriate, given multiple livelihoods, frequent occupation
changes and alternate definitions in operation locally.
Dev_5 Added transport allowance for each day of scheduled CLIQ activity
The dispersed nature of homesteads and interest from people who resided about two hours walk from
telecentres.
Dev_6 Unable to adhere to computer training schedules, resulting in different time periods for computer use between areas.
Ongoing and varying problems with functionality of telecentres in all four areas.
Dev_7 QLA dates differed from the co- ordinated and regular intervals indicated in the design.
Delays in computer training and additional time in field had a knock-on effect. Process in each area needed to unfold according to the local context.
Dev_8 Longer time needed in-field and for
post-field data collation Underestimation of time required for range of topics investigated; oversampling increased the work load;
managing a field-team of six fieldworkers made logistics more time-consuming.
Dev_9 Dropped second final-QLA in
manje areas. Uncoordinated timing of QLAs and computer training, and contextual differences among areas had already resulted in substantial implementation differences and therefore the logic behind the difference-in-difference approach had faded.
The greatest change in design resulted from problems with the functionality of the computing equipment and connectivity (see Dev_6 in Table 6-1), which was experienced to some degree at all sites. ICT equipment at telecentres functioned poorly (e.g. very slow internet at eMpumalanga); intermittently (e.g. periods of no connectivity at eNingizimu, and
an unpredictable electricity supply at eNyakatho); or not at all (e.g. at eNtshonalanga where the computers were stolen twice during fieldwork).71 The worst impact was on
eNtshonalanga participants, where the telecentre was non-functional from the start of the project until April 2010. This meant eNtshonalanga participants only received phase 1 training, followed two weeks later by the final-QLA, thus skipping the mid-QLA and phase two training all together (see Appendix E- Figure 4, p323).72
Computer training delays had a knock-on effect on the timing of the local QLA to follow training. It also affected the scheduling of training and QLAs in other areas, because CLIQ had one fieldwork team (and we had initially attempted to use one computer trainer for all sites (see Dev_7 in Table 6-1). Adding to this, the need to spend more time in-field and post-field than originally anticipated (see Dev_8), meant fieldwork could not progress according to CLIQ’s relatively tight co-ordinated timeframe. Consequently, the validity of cross-site comparisons was reduced because participants at different sites had different periods of time over which to use computers as well as a different quality of access.
As a result, we decided not to conduct a second final assessment (or 4th QLA) in the two manje areas (Dev_9 in Table 6-1), included in the design to allow for difference-in- difference analysis (see subsection 5.2.1, p120). Two other reasons for this decision were that the final-QLAs in the manje areas were intensive, yielding sufficient information; and that it would have been difficult to justify using more of participants’ time for a follow-up final-QLA, without providing more computer training (as constantly requested by them). The difference-in-difference approach based on co-ordinated timing of field activities was
dropped in favour of a more holistic approach to analysis, which accounted for variations in implementation and participation, with respect to telecentre functionality and other aspects of context.
71 Initial project findings on PAC venue performance are discussed in Attwood et al. (2010) and summarised in section 8.4.
72 The project had run out of time and money for fieldwork, which was the part of reason for not continuing with the process in eNtshonalanga in order to conduct a mid-QLA and phase 2 training. While we did consider completeing the full CLIQ process, poor telecentre management indicated that it was unlikely that participants would have access to the computers in the telecentre (even if technical computer functionality was
maintained).
The research process was allowed to adapt to the specifics at each, reflecting the par principles of a flexible and evolving process in response to the local context, emerging findings, and the expressed needs of stakeholders and participants. Our inability to
implement CLIQ according to our planned time-frames was not surprising. The flexible and evolving nature of complex community initiatives (CCIs) is one of six features of CCIs which complicate multi-site comparative evaluations (Kubisch et al., 1995:3-5).73
These deviations created methodological and fieldwork opportunities, as well as challenges. For example, the change to a local dissemination process (Dev_2 in Table 6-1) and increased focus on goal-setting (see Dev-3), both benefitted the action goal of assisting participants to improve their lives, and the research goal in terms of richer data. The addition of a transport allowance for participants (see Dev_5) and the second phase of computer training (see Dev-1) created a further administrative burden, which was
exacerbated by changes to the scheduling of field trips (see Dev_6 & Dev_7) with regard to project finances. The section below discusses a selection of methodological and practical challenges faced during the implementation of CLIQ.