98
The focus within this case, is on the learning experiences of the women as they went through various processes of coping and learning about their HIV positive condition, the ARV programme and the wider socio-cultural situation of the district and the country. The case study examines these women, from the period 2005 to 2012. This case study uses a qualitative style that I describe in the section below.
A qualitative style
A qualitative approach involves taking people’s subjective experiences as the essence of what is real for the study. This style makes sense of people’s experiences through interacting with them, listening carefully to what they say and to make use of data collection techniques such as interviews, questionnaires, group discussion etc, to elicit responses from the people. Situated within the paradigm of interpretivism, qualitative style relies on first-hand accounts, and it tries to describe what it sees in rich detail and it presents its findings, in engaging and sometimes evocative language. The style according to the following scholars (Blanch, Kelly, and Durrheim 1999; Simons, 2009; and Rule & John, 2011), focusses on how people feel, think and act.
The next part looks at data collection methods and processes, data generation and analyzing and reporting.
Part Three
99
for each method, the researcher used the vernacular to enable the participants to understand what is being asked.
Duration of the data collection process:
The questionnaires took a maximum of one hour to complete. The one-on-one interview ranged from a minimum of 45 minutes to a maximum of 1 hour for each participant. The focus group discussion, as I have already mentioned, dragged from the 20 minutes that was initially allocated to 1 hour. It is befitting to reiterate on the longetivity of the focus group, that participants seemed to be willing to participate, given the nature of the study which they seemingly enjoyed.
Each of the methods are described below:
Questionnaires
Marshall, (2006) provides a holistic view of the questionnaire as a data collection instrument. In elaborating on its uses, he brings in the element of its ability to collect data from a large number of people simultaneously. It has a bi-purpose nature of using both open or close-ended questions or items that measures facts, attitudes or values. Close-ended questions compel a participant to respond only to the asked questions. The open-ended questions allow participants to provide a more complete or comprehensive response. While open-ended responses might seem difficult to analyse, Marshall, (2006) argues that open-ended responses provide specific and meaningful information.
Strength of this tool
Questionnaires can yield high quality usable data. The researcher is likely to achieve a good response rate with the use of questionnaires. Questionnaires provide anonymity, thus it encourages more honest and frank answers. They also reduce some element of bias. The majority of participants understand what is being asked of them, therefore there are high possibilities of getting relevant responses to the questions asked.
100 Limitations with the use of questionnaires
Questionnaires are unsuitable for illiterate people and the visually impaired, unless they are suitably modified. The questionnaire format has the potential of creating gaps in the completion of information because the researcher may not be able to monitor its completion. Confusions caused by the questionnaire cannot be easily clarified. Questionnaires may pose the challenge of unlimited presentation of information – does not have room to probe for additional information (Marshall, 2005).
Special considerations for using questionnaires
The response success rate with the use of questionnaires requires careful planning and design as well as an effective method of distribution. Marshall, (2005) identified some of the considerations that the researcher needs to be aware of when designing a questionnaire. These include the issue of wording. The questionnaire should use every day wording to enable participants to understand what is being asked. It should use simple and easy to use words that participants can easily relate to. Other elements to consider include minimum use of jargon as more jargon can end up distorting the meaning of what is being asked. The other issue relates to the sequencing of questions which Marshall cautions that it is better to begin with easy, non- threatening and less sensitive questions, then to gradually delve into more complex ones as the process continues.
Interviews
A number of scholars provided their contribution about the interview as a data collection instrument. Some of them are Simons, (2009); Yin, (2009); and Rule and John, (2011). They view interviews as the most common sources of case study information. Interviews are conducted at two levels; an in-depth interview – which asks about the facts of the matter, as well as opinions about events. The other level is the focused interview; in which a person is
101
interviewed for a short period of time – leaving the interview still open for an open ended session, as and when additional information becomes necessary.
Confirming the richness of data emanating from the in-depth interviews, the following is the purpose of in-depth interview: to document the interviewee’s perspective on the topic; to promote active engagement and to offer flexibility to change direction to pursue emergent issues.
It probes the topic thereby eliciting or deepening a response. This method has the potential to uncover and represent unobserved feeling and events that could otherwise not be observed.
Focus Group Discussion
The focus group discussion is a conversation or dialogue between groups of people who share similar types of experiences. It is useful for gaining a sense of the discussion in a group setting.
The diversity of views, of how dialogue/conversation shifts, the understanding of members in a group, are what promote the discussion. Focus group discussions are used to generate information on collective views and opinions as well as meanings that participants make behind those views. They are also useful in generating rich understandings of participants’ experiences and beliefs. A focus group discussion is useful when the researcher has a series of open-ended questions and wishes to encourage research participants to explore the issues of importance to them in their own vocabulary, generating their own questions and pursuing their own priorities (Kitzinger, 1995; Gill, Steward, Treasure & Chadwick, 2008; and Simon, 2009).