The research study aimed to capture the experiences of the GMP PDP Group as they implement the PDP system, and use the tools to work through the PDP processes. While the exploratory and inductive nature of the study lends itself to an interpretive, naturalistic approach, and is indeed conducted within a predominantly qualitative paradigm, it also draws on perspectives and methodologies from the quantitative paradigm. Walji (2009) sees the choice of paradigm or research framework as being informed by contextual realities; and that it is the research quest which informs paradigmatic choice, and in turn determines research
methodologies. While it could be argued that in certain research inquiry the use of quantitative or qualitative methods on their own might be sufficient to explain the results of the phenomenon being investigated, the benefits of drawing insights from both traditions is seen by many (Shah
15
and Corley, 2006; Ivankova et al., 2006; Denscombe, 2007; Black, 2002; Patton, 1990).
Several reasons and benefits are cited for the use of a methodological mix in research studies. Patton (1990) sees it as a means of triangulation, in order to strengthen the research design, while Ivankova et al., (2006, pg.3) see “neither quantitative nor qualitative methods as being sufficient, by themselves, to capture the trends and details of the situation” and Black (2002, pg.3) proposes that “it often takes both to answer a good question comprehensively”.
However, the rationale for using a mixed-method approach in this study is to use the combined strengths from both approaches to gain a more rounded and deeper understanding of the value of using PDP for this specific group, and within their specific context.
The study is organised around the project management cycle of planning, developing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating; and to frame its methodologies, draws on key features from the approaches of Action Research. Some of the features borrowed include: actively engaging participants in the research process; using the cyclical process to continuously make improvements as the study moves through the evaluation phases; and integrating practice with the construction of
research knowledge – that is, using the constructed knowledge to feed back into practice, in the form of decision making and improvements to the system and processes (Somekh, 2005; Whitehead, 2005, McNiff et al., 1996).
16
An adapted version of an evaluation framework devised by Kirkpatrick (2005) was used to undertake both formative evaluations, to inform the cycles of improvement, and summative evaluations, to inform the overall study. The “Four Levels of Evaluation” structure of the framework is worked through systematically to promote a holistic approach to the evaluation of using PDP, the system, tools and process.
The participants in this study are a self-selecting group from a cohort of thirty-three research scientists based in eight developing countries in Sub- Saharan Africa. Eligibility for inclusion to the study was that the
individual had to be returning to work in a malaria-endemic country in Sub-Saharan Africa. Three members of the group were excluded from the study (and the PDP programme) on the grounds of not meeting this criterion. Of the thirty remaining group members, six chose not to participate in the PDP programme; thus reducing the sample size to twenty four.
Ethical approval was obtained from the researcher‟s institution and signed informed consent (Appendix 1) was obtained from each of the participants in the study.
A variety of data collection methods and instruments were used to collect data during this research study; and these were collected from both primary and secondary sources. These included: questionnaires
(Appendix 2 and Appendix 3); an interview schedule (Appendix 4); PDP monitoring schedules; Nominal Group Technique (NGT); an online Focus Group Discussion (FGD); and documentary evidence – which
17
included all the documentary evidence from the completed PDP documentation, communication (email, telephone and text messaging) and field notes, which were recorded during the annual monitoring and support visits to the participants‟ home countries.
With no previous research conducted with such a specific group, and in such a specific context, there were no “off-the-shelf” validated data collection tools available for use – so all the data collection tools for this research study were adapted specifically from validated evaluation tools. During the study, the evaluation tools underwent a process of piloting, testing and refining, in order to improve their validity and reliability and ensure their fitness-for-purpose. The research study generated a
substantial amount of data, which was managed using both qualitative management software (NVIVO) and quantitative management software Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
One of the approaches to analysis, that this research study used is what Sarantakos (2005, pg. 346) identifies as “iterative qualitative analysis” – which includes grounded theory and analytical induction. The process of grounded theory, as introduced by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is particularly looked at as an approach to analysis, in order to help build theory through a “research-then-theory” approach to analysis. Shah and Corley (2006) suggest that it is the “soft” qualitative data that is needed for theory building, and in this study, it is this “soft” qualitative data with its rich description that is used to help explain and help build theory.
18
Context played a major role in the analysis of the data – particularly of the qualitative data in relation to perspectives from both the researcher, in terms of reflexivity, and the participants in terms of their differing social and cultural settings.