Evolution of the Research Design

As the previous chapter has shown, there is surprisingly little literature on the role of ICTs in the context of women living specifically in Muslim countries. Furthermore, the impact of ICTs on Muslim women has not yet been sufficiently researched or evaluated. Therefore, it was difficult to draw upon any previous literature or established methodological approaches in carrying out this study (O’Leary, 2004; Orum et al., 1991; Sarantakos, 1998). The basic process underlying the methodological design enabled a far-reaching, reflexive and iterative research process, which is detailed in this chapter (see O’Leary, 2004; Smith, 2001;Miles and Huberman, 1994; Creswell, 1994).This section discusses the challenges of designing and selecting the research methodology and techniques for examining and investigating the three themes of this research: 1. the extent to which women are referenced in ICT policies of Muslim countries; 2. women’s engagement with ICTs and subsequent impact; and 3. the cultural and social barriers that women face when engaging with ICTs (Hall, 2007; O’Leary, 2004).

As Kallet (2004:122) has stated, a research methodology “should describe what was done to answer the research question, describe how it was done, justify the experimental design and explain how the results were analyzed”. However, Parfitt (1997:79) has suggested that researchers should “think through the research process from back to front: start with a sketch of the final analysis and work backwards to the original research objectives”, writing down the main dependent variables that are central to the research, and identifying the independent variables along the way. This approach seemed very logical to me, as it allowed me to visualise my research goal and the potential path I was aiming to take. I began by making a series of diagrams that mapped out my various goals, aims, objectives and possible discoveries on large graph paper, and drawing circles around those words that resonated with my thoughts (Rea and Parker, 2005; Miles and Huberman, 1994).

My mind was continuously exploring, asking ‘what?’, ‘why?’ and ‘how?’ It was an exciting but also confusing time because in some cases I felt I was going round in circles and not really getting anywhere or being able to make any sense of what I thought I was going to do. I ended up with piles of folded, messy graph paper. Nonetheless, this approach helped me eventually to develop some structure in my research thinking. This resulted in the development of a conceptual framework identifying the initial four key themes that I was going to explore; to what degree do ICT policies refer to women?, engagement with ICTs, impact of ICTs, cultural and social barriers (Figure 3.1).

89 Figure 3.1

Conceptual Framework of Questioning (Source: Author)

90

This was a pivotal point for me as an engineer, since it was extremely helpful to be able to visualise the specific questions that needed to be investigated, as I had been very uncomfortable with having to deal with the ‘abstract and the unknown’. I needed to have some idea of where I was trying to go and how I was planning to get there.

As argued by O’ Leary (2004), since the research primarily focused on developing a scientific understanding of how women interacted with ICT tools, coupled with exploring and interpreting their social world, I positioned myself within interpretivist thinking. This resulted in the adoption of a blended research methodological approach which incorporated in varying degrees, ethnography and ethnomethodology and action research which allowed me to create a multi-faceted research framework (Bennett, 2005; O’ Leary, 2004; Creswell, 1994). Moreover the research addressed both the cultural context and ICT policies; I selected qualitative methodologies to be the essential part of my research for examining the cultural social context of women’s experiences with ICTs: preferences, uses, impact and barriers. However, I used quantitative methodologies to examine the ICT policies to provide specific empirical data to clearly highlight the content analysis of ICT documents (Mason, 2006; O’ Leary, 2004; Smith, 2001; Braden, 1999; Graham, 1997). This blended research methodology allowed me to investigate and understand the research elements from different perspectives in a progressive and reflexive manner (O’ Leary, 2004; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Creswell, 1994). The rationale of the specific methodologies selected is discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.6.

The framework of the entire research process (see Figure 3.2) was designed to allow me the opportunity for continuous reflexivity and reflection from the initial document review process, in parallel with my exploratory field research. This enabled me to explore, examine and make informed decisions about modifications and any changes necessary to the methodology’s design. The diagram also indicates the three feedback loops (A, B and C) utilised, from the very onset of my research which assisted me to organise, synthesise and make sense of the data, throughout my research (see also Hall, 2007; O’Leary, 2004).Nevertheless, it is important to note that nothing worked out the way I planned, however, I was able to adapt by staying flexible and allowing things to change, as had been emphasised by O’Leary (2004) and Miles and Huberman (1994), whose books were my constant companions over the past five years. To provide an alternative perspective to my research, I have also incorporated comments from elite women (EIW) and elite men (EIM) interviewed throughout my thesis, who have kindly given me permission to quote them, which are cited in italics and identified with single quotes (see Section 1.3 and 3.6.1.4).

91 Figure 3.2

Reflexive and Iterative Process (Source: Author)

92