Pilot Study

A pilot study (Van Teijlingen, Rennie et al. 2001) was undertaken prior to the main study in order to test the efficacy of the proposed semi-structured questions. The same questions were used in the pilot and the main study as a heuristic in interrogating the information by the respondents. However, given the distance and travel logistics to Zimbabwe and the small size of Scotland, the pilot study was done in England. The other reason for the choice of England was also informed by the fact that during the early stages of the epidemic, prior to the 1999 Scottish devolution, all health policy matters (UK-wide) were directed from London (Berridge 1996). England has also been a destination of many African migrants emanating from countries of high HIV/AIDS prevalence (of which Zimbabwe is also one). Since devolution, health and indeed HIV/AIDS policy is one of the areas that are controlled within Scotland’s own jurisdiction.

The semi-structured interviews in this research were initially tested in a pilot study and they were found to generate useful information regarding the study.

Both in the pilot and the main study, the questions provided a basis for follow-up questions thereby providing rich data for later analysis.

5.4.3 Sample

In this study, a total of 9 key informants were identified in Scotland and 16 in Zimbabwe. Although in the planning stage a larger sample had been identified,

the 9 and 16 were the ones who actually agreed to participate in the semi-structured interviews. I have also indicated in the section on Scotland that although one other key informant had initially agreed to participate, they turned down the offer at the last minute and referred me to their publications instead.

This issue is discussed more fully in the section on some of the challenges of the key informant method. Key informants are a range of experts within a particular field of investigation with whom one can conduct in-depth qualitative interviews.

The purpose of key informant interviews is to collect information from a wide range of people—including community leaders, professionals, or residents—who have first-hand knowledge about the community. These community experts, with their particular knowledge and understanding, can provide insight on the nature of problems and give recommendations for solutions.⁸³

Although key informants have been used in a range of research settings the technique has also been proven to be ideal within a health context around the world (Marshall 1996). I chose key informants because they were best suited to give the kind of information I needed for my particular research because of their unique expertise and experience. Some of the main advantages of the key informant approach are that one relies on a relatively small but efficient body of people with expert knowledge on the subject. Secondly, the key informant technique has been used in different contexts within anthropological field work because of its efficacy of providing rich data in a short period of time (Flick 2014).

Key informants are also useful in that they recognise me as someone with the necessary credentials to interrogate them on the issues. Given that key informants are experts in their own right, they would be less likely to accommodate a request from a researcher they deemed less knowledgeable or less competent in the field under investigation (Flick 2014). Part of the process involved in key informants agreeing to be interviewed had to do with the fact

83 healthpolicy.ucla.edu/programs/health-data/trainings/.../tw_cba23.pdf- no date ( accessed 01.06.2014)

that they understood the invitation to share professional trust. They felt confident that I would understand the complexity of the issues and therefore not misrepresent their responses. As a result, the power balance between me as a researcher and that of the key informants is consciously kept under check. Not only did I have access to the key informants, the key informants themselves accepted me as an expert in the area (Mikecz 2012).

In terms of the key informants, I used the purposive sampling technique (Tongco 2007) because it is ‘fundamental to the quality of the data gathered; thus the reliability and competence of the informant..’⁸⁴. The key informants were identified in terms of their professional expertise regarding the HIV/AIDS policy, clinical care and education. I deliberately targeted a broad range of key informants as can be seen in the sections on the profiles and categories of informants in this chapter. An attempt was also made to balance the gender ratio of the key informants although this was not always possible given the male-dominated professionals in the senior policy and clinical care settings. I also considered the range of the organisations where the key informants came from in terms of public, private and voluntary sectors (Marshall 1996, Tongco 2007).

Key informants are important in that they are central, although not exclusive to the process of creating the policy documents using a range of instruments that communicate particular messages around HIV/AIDS. My research explored the nature of the relationship between the key informants as actors and also how far their views reflected the position of the contributors in the respective key policy documents.

In terms of selected key policy documents, I specifically prioritised official HIV/AIDS policy and related documents and other documents within the public domain. I also looked at faith-based materials and Sex Education within the school systems because they contained information on HIV/AIDS. In terms of the academic perspectives on the HIV/AIDS discourse in both locations, I have used published books and articles which I have referred to throughout this thesis.

84 http://hdl.handle.net/10125/227