Data Collection

Throughout the duration of the empirical study a diverse range of activities were conducted, allowing the capture of a wealth of data from many sources. Systematic data

115 collection ran from August 2016 through October 2017, then intermittently from November 2017 until the last study³⁹ in July 2018.

All of the collected data has been organised, categorised and analysed continuously.

Interviews were audio-recorded and verbatim transcripts were prepared; focus groups and workshops sessions were also audio-recorded, and notes taken from listening back to the audio files repeatedly. The observational data was photographed and archived;

fieldnotes from workshops, meetings and focus groups were systematically taken, revised and organised. All materials produced by participants – whether in group activities such as workshops, or individual activities such as the prioritising exercises – were collected, photographed, categorised and securely stored. Finally, all email exchanges between the researcher and the participants, as well as the record of the WhatsApp group messages were retrieved and amassed into two organised,

comprehensive documents.

3.3.1 Data Sources

In order to understand the plentiful data sources that this study has drawn from, it is helpful to look into the classifications proposed by two authors – Sue Hignett, and Robert K. Yin – that simultaneously offer an overarching common ground and some points of complementarity. Whereas Hignett’s classification is more ‘high-level’ in the sense that it connects the use of certain types of data sources to their corresponding ontological and epistemological groundings, Yin’s proposal is a bit more focused, and it looks at advantages and disadvantages of using each of the sources.

According to Hignett’s review of several authors (2005), qualitative data sources are plenty and diverse, though they can be clustered into three main types: interviews, observations and documents (Hignett, 2005). Interviews are capable of capturing people’s knowledge and perception through discourse, which is mediated by the researchers via the use of interview guides/scripts that prompt or favour certain issues over others. Interviews can reveal legitimate accounts of the interviewees’

understanding and lived experiences of their contexts, but the information can largely vary according to the circumstances in which the interaction takes place, as well as a response to the relationship established between interviewer and interviewee.

39 This study comprised a validation of the proposed approach to participatory quality improvement, which will be discussed separately in Chapter 06.

116 Observations provide a close look at the actions, interactions, and behaviours of people, often in real-life circumstances. Data obtained by observations is supported by the understanding that valuable information can be accessed via non-verbal means which will then require interpretation to become units of evidence. One of the issues becomes, thus, who is the interpreter and how interpretation is being utilised. Those variables introduce a considerable level of subjectivity which is liable to various types of

preconceptions or, at least, a large gamut of plausible and yet different readings out of the same data. Finally, documents offer written accounts that can be read as

expressions or representations of social phenomena, at the same time that they constitute a part of how those very phenomena are broadly understood in a wider social perspective.

Yin’s proposal includes six, rather than three data types, which he calls ‘sources of evidence’ (Yin, 2014): documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations, participant observations, and physical artefacts. While physical artefacts unequivocally comprise a ‘new’ category, archival records, direct and participant observations seem, respectively, like subcategories of documents and observations when compared to Hignett’s data types. Plus, similar to Hignett, Yin acknowledges that his categorisation is a simplification, and that qualitative data can assume plentiful formats. While doing so, the author also emphasises that each type of data (or evidence) presents a set of strengths and weaknesses to researchers, and ‘that no single source has a complete advantage over all the others’ (Yin, 2014). A summary of this author’s perspective on pros and cons of the six sources of evidence is presented here; sources of evidence are clustered by kinship (Table 3.8):

Table 3.8 Summarised strengths and weaknesses of sources of evidence (after Yin, 2014) CLUSTERED SOURCES OF

EVIDENCE Main strengths (+) Main weaknesses (-)

Documents and Archival

Records Stable and specific; allow

repeated assessment; can cover a broad period of time and several settings.

May be hard to

retrieve/access; can be incomplete or have biased accounts.

Interviews Targeted at specific

cases/questions; insightful in providing personal accounts of phenomena.

Open to biases or bad/poorly articulated questions;

reflectivity – respondents’

answers catered to ‘please’

the interviewer.

117 Observations (Direct and

Participant) Real-time; highly contextual. Time and resource consuming; selective;

reflectivity – people may change their behaviour because there are being observed.

Physical Artefacts Provide rich cultural and

technical insights. Availability; selectivity.

The present research drew from many sources of evidence, in order to facilitate a more robust analysis via a process of triangulation⁴⁰. Table 3.9 summarises the types of field activities of the UTI study, along with what specific data was collected.

Table 3.9 UTI study: Data collected per activity ACTIVITY Data collected

Workshops*

Focus Groups*

Interviews

Meetings w/ ED staff Prioritising Exercises

Other**

Observed behaviours, actions, and interactions.

Activities’ materials completed or produced by participants.

Completed workshop feedback forms.

Observed behaviours, actions, and interactions.

Activities’ materials completed or produced by participants.

Audio-recorded responses; verbatim transcripts.

Notes on participants’ comments, queries and suggestions.

Completed Excel spreadsheets; list of priorities with participants’

votes.

Copy of email exchange with participants.

Copy of message exchange from WhatsApp group.

* Workshop and Focus Groups’ activities were not video recorded. The data related to the observations is in the form of field notes and reflective notes taken by the researcher during and after the sessions.

** These refer to communication channels utilised to manage information flow between researcher and stakeholders.

40 See section 3.5.1 below.

118