The research samples

The purpose of this research was to understand the factors affecting, and how they affected, the adoption and use of ICT in scientific research communication among scholars and researchers in Kenya. Consequently, the researcher employed the purposive sampling technique in selecting the research sites and research participants. Bradley (1993) argues, “In purposeful sampling, members of the sample are deliberately chosen based on criteria that have relevance to the research question rather than criteria of randomness of selection” (p.

440).

4.4.1.1 Research Sites

The researcher purposively sampled research sites that were relevant to the goal of the research study before going to the field. These included research institutions in Kenya that are undertaking research in some of the government’s key priority areas in the economic recovery as outlined in the ERSWEC 2003-2007 and current Kenya Vision 2030 (Government of Kenya, 2007d). The areas encompassed applied sciences and technology, specifically the fields of agriculture, biology/biotechnology, environmental science and health sciences.

Altogether eight (8) research institutions whose composition included three (3) research national institutes, two (2) national universities and three (3) international research institutes were chosen. Owing to confidentiality required by the Victoria Human Ethics Committees when dealing with human subjects, the institutions are referred to in this thesis by letters of

the alphabet. For example, the two national universities are allotted the synonyms A and B while the three national research institutes are C, D and F. The international research institutes are referred to as E, G and H. Only those research institutes and universities dealing with agriculture, biology/biotechnology, environmental science and health sciences were selected. Although there are other universities undertaking research in the specified disciplines, A and B were chosen because of their long-standing history in applied science and technology research in Kenya.

Sampled and selected also were five (5) ministries/departments under which the research institutions were affiliated. For sake of anonymity, these ministries/ departments are referred to as M and numbered using the alphabet.

4.4.1.2 Sample population

In deciding on the sample size, the researcher was guided by the quality of the data sources in terms of depth, complexity, and “richness”, as Powell and Connaway (2004) put it: “No single formula provides the “correct” sample size for a qualitative study. (p.189) (See also (Bradley, 1993; Bryman, 2004; Creswell, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Gorman & Clayton, 1997, 2005). Also guiding the researcher were the three factors common in many qualitative studies:

• the standard of saturation where one continues gathering data until critical elements of the study have become “saturated” or until further exemplars fail to add new nuances or to contradict what is understood;

• the nature of the research question being asked; and

• the purpose of the first sample, used to gather initial data based on which “the first sample may be adjusted, augmented, enlarged, or otherwise modified to meet the new parameters” (Powell & Connaway, 2004, p. 190). In this study, the researcher used in the first sample to gauge the kind and depth of information/data the interview guidelines were likely to elicit from the research participants, following which she accordingly revised the research guidelines.

The sample population of research participants depended on the size of the research institutions and areas of focus. However, by applying stratified purposive sampling, the researcher included representatives from within the population being studied (researchers, senior administrators, science editors and librarians) who had a range of characteristics relevant to the research project (Gorman & Clayton, 2005). As mentioned earlier in chapter 1 (see 1.4), these groups of participants are central in the research communication process in Kenya:

• Researchers and scholars undertake the research that produces the content that editors edit in preparation for dissemination through journals. In selecting the researchers to participate in the study, care was taken to include the perspectives of both older, experienced researchers and younger, less experienced ones. Twenty-four (24) researchers, three (3) of whom doubled as science editors, were interviewed.

• Science editors edit scholars and researchers’ work before it is communicated using available channels. The researcher focused on science editors cum communicators in the specific institutions. Five (5) science editors, of who three (3) doubled as researchers, were interviewed.

• Senior administrators formulate and implement policies and make important decisions on budget allocations that affect the research process and introduction of any new innovation. Hence, they were sampled to explore their views on communication of research and issues regarding policy on funding allocation for ICT-enabled research communication. This sample comprised the following:

- Permanent Secretaries and directors from ministries/departments relevant to the focus of the study, which were also the parent ministries of the research institutions under investigation (6), and one unplanned focus group of eight (8) officers from Ministry1;

- Directors/ Heads of departments of research institutes and relevant faculty deans in the two universities (8).

Altogether, 21 administrators were interviewed (including the focus group of 8).

• Research librarians support researchers in their efforts to create content and at the same time serve to disseminate the research results to those who seek to use them. Under this category, the researcher sampled head librarians in the two selected universities, two government and two international research institutes (six (6) in number). This position participates in policy and planning issues and, therefore, the group is likely to bear the responsibility for negotiating ICT-related issues, as regards the acquisition, communication and dissemination of research information materials.

For confidentiality reasons, government officers are referred to as GO and numbered using numerals; both the directors and researchers and scholars are referred to as RS (research scientist) followed by a numeral if working in a research institute or LR (lecturer researcher) followed by a numeral if working in a university. The science editors are referred to as SE and the librarians as L, each respectively followed by a numeral (see table 4.1 below for a summary of the sample population by category).

Table 4.1: Sample population Institution Heads of Dept. Scholars (LR)/

Researchers (RS)

Librarians (L)

Science editors

(SE)

TOTAL no. of interviews per

institution

D 1 4 1 - 6

C 1 4 1 - 6

H 1 2 1 - 4

E 1 2 1 - 4

G 1 2 - - 3

F 1 2 - - 3

B 1 4 1 - 6

A 1 4 1 - 6

Science editors - - - 6 (3 RS) 6

Ministries/

departments 1-6 (GO)

13 (including one unplanned focus group of 8)

- -

6

Total per category of participants

21 24 (3 SE) 6 6(3 RS) -

GRAND TOTAL

54

Sampling and interviewing people in different organisational positions and related organisations helped in gaining a variety of perspectives regarding barriers to and enablers of ICT-enabled research communication. It also served to triangulate the information gathered.

The researcher used two general approaches to purposive sampling:

1) Snowball sampling was used to lead the researcher to individual researchers and science editors with shared experiences and perspectives in the same population about barriers and enablers to ICT-enabled research communication;

2) Theoretical sampling – entails sampling interviewees until your categories achieve theoretical saturation, then selecting further interviewees on the basis of your emerging theoretical focus. The approach is iterative – one in which there is a movement backwards and forwards between sampling and theoretical reflection. The chief virtue of theoretical sampling is that it emphasises using theoretical reflection on data as a guide to whether more data are needed. It, therefore, places a premium on theorising rather than the statistical adequacy of a sample, which may be a limited guide to sample selection in many instances (Bryman, 2004). Here, the issues addressed by the research questions and elements of the preliminary research framework guided the researcher in judging the adequacy of the data gathered. To achieve this, the researcher continuously analysed the data to establish how well they were answering the research questions and the theoretical models guiding the study and continued sampling until there was a feeling saturation had been reached.