OBSERVE
3.3 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The section outlines the broader process of overall programme monitoring and evaluation. It will then describe the tools involved in the research process, the data and how it was analysed in more specific detail.
3.3.1. Programme Monitoring
In terms of programme monitoring, this consists of examining the coverage of the programme and the delivery of the service (Patton, 1990). The coverage is the extent to which the programme reached its intended target population and this will be elaborated on in subsection 3.4.3. The delivery of the service is whether the training was accessible to the target population. This will be discussed in Chapter Five. Furthermore, the researcher needed to consider other 'interfering events' (Rossi and Freeman, 1993). Shortly after the training course began, a mothers' support group was initiated (Hemming, 2001) due to many of the caregivers expressing their uncertainty and difficulty in participating in the course as fully as they wanted to. The question arises as whether this mothers' support group, providing the opportunity for mothers to share and ask questions, may have affected the intervention of the training programme.
3.3.2. Process studies and evaluation
The purpose of this qualitative evaluation of the training course was to see how effective it was in terms of training caregivers and other trainees in caring for children with multiple disabilities. To achieve this, the focus was on how the training course was run in terms of planning and implementation. Thus the focus was on the process of the course rather than the outcomes or results.
To evaluate the course, the data used were observation notes, focus group discussions and evaluation forms which allowed for rich descriptions. The observation notes were recorded by two research assistants, focussing on the
content and process of development. The data were primarily qualitative
although parts were quantified (in terms of the attendance numbers). There was no attempt to generalise the findings outside of the setting of this course - the focus was purely on how effective this course was in its specific setting.
3.3.3. Sampling
In terms of specifying the target population for this study, certain criteria needed to be clarified. What was required was a clear definition of who the participants in the course should be. This could have involved strict inclusion and exclusion rules.
Originally, the selection of the target population was based on the "need and demand" idea (Rossi &Freeman,1993). The group was identified as requiring a psychoeducational intervention: viz. to facilitate the process in how to care for their child with multiple disabilities. What was not adequately established was that although this need may have been evident to the service provider, the degree of demand was not clearly investigated. Furthermore, although there was sensitivity of the selection of the target population - a group of caregivers of multiply disabled children who could be reached directly at the centre, there was no specificity in terms of excluding those people who did not have the same relevant needs. Thus theoretically, although the aim was to sample a homogenous group with a specific need, the study eventually used more
"opportunistic sampling" (Patton, 1990, p179). The sample shifted as the data was collected.
3.3.4 Data Triangulation
The study used a mixture of data sources and investigators. Thus there was triangulation in terms of data and investigators. Three sources of data were used. This included (i) the content and process notes of each of the training sessions, (ii) evaluation forms completed by the participants at the end of each
.5J
training session - this exercise only began from session four onwards, (iii) focus group discussions that were held with certain of the trainers and certain of the caregivers at the end of the course.
3.3.5Observation
The research assistants were not actively involved in the process as participants but rather sat to one side, observed and recorded the process of both the
planning meetings and the training course. Their presence was never explained to the other participants and as such, their observations of the training sessions were rather more covert than overt.
3.3.6. Entry into the field
As indicated in the previous subsection, the research assistants' presence were never explained to the participants. They simply attended the sessions and observed. Their permission to enter the field was thus never sought. The neglect of this aspect in the initial negotiations of the research process will be discussed in Chapter Five.
3.3.7. Focus group discussions
Focus group discussions were conducted at the end of the training course with the director and the child development officer working at the CDRC, 3 of the trainers, 9 of the trainees from the CDRC course and 5 of the Mpophomeni trainees. Focus group discussions are a highly effective qualitative method for data collection. In order to gather productive and 'rich' data from this method, the researcher needs to monitor equitable participation, to promote
communication in the group and to be a competent facilitator in the group setting.
3.3.8. Recording the data
The content and process notes were written by the research assistants and later typed out and kept in a file. The evaluation forms were handed out at the end of each training session, then collected up and kept in a file. This only occurred from session four onwards. The focus group discussions were tape recorded and later transcribed.
3.3.9. Interpreting the data - inductive analysis
Inductive analysis was employed in that themes emerged out of intensive reading of the data rather than being imposed prior to data collection and analysis. The qualitative method used to guide the structuring and analysis of the data was community based action research. The four stages of planning, action, observation and reflection was applied to the data and used to analyse and present the data in Chapter four.