112 / 156
110
JCPSLP
Volume 18, Number 3 2016
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
The inaugural meeting of the PRG provided opportunity
for the primary author and PRG members to meet for the
first time as co-researchers and commence discussions
as to the PRG’s participation in the research. The overall
aims of the research program were described, as were
its stages and timeframe for completion. Initial discussion
also focused upon research methodologies, including how
quantitative and qualitative research differed, and where
collaborative and PAR methodology was situated within the
quantitative–qualitative paradigm. As commented by Mr
Duc:
So usually when you do quantitative research you
collect data, you analyse data, and then you have
recommendations for the next stage. But I haven’t
done any qualitative research like this before, so I want
to know whether it’s the same … like stages. And you
also do it in stages, so when you finish one stage you
have recommendations … and prepare for the next
stage?
The primary author described PAR methodology as
encompassing a range of research methods, from which
focus of the conversation shifted to the legitimacy of
qualitative research: “I don’t know about other professions,
but in the medical field usually people, they might not like to
use it, do not really like to use qualitative … but in public
health qualitative is accepted” (Mr Duc).
The PRG also sought to address a number of “logistical
issues” such as the selection of a leader for the PRG, and
the settings of “ground rules”, including the number of PRG
members required for a quorum, how confidentiality of
group discussions would be maintained, the allocation of
minute taking, and a “participation” rule:
There should be a rule like that, [to avoid a situation in
which] one or two team members will talk about their
opinions and everyone else will sit and quiet listening,
and when the group comes to an agreement it looks
like the ideas are just from one or two members. So
I think we should have like a participation rule that
the members who attend the meeting, all should
participate in discussions.
(Mr An)
At the meeting’s conclusion, a suggestion to progress
the research via a live video calling program (Skype)
was agreed to – PRG members were keen to trial
communication options that would facilitate ongoing audio-
visual interaction and collaboration with the primary author
on her return to Australia.
The opportunity to discuss the research methodology
afforded a number of key insights. The primary author had
(Chen & Boore, 2010). The interviews were important for
several reasons. First, the development of relationships,
trust of the primary researcher, and a sense of safety in the
research process are acknowledged as critical to research
that seeks to be genuinely collaborative (Australian Council
for International Development, 2016; Maiter, Simich,
Jacobson, & Wise, 2008). The interviews provided
opportunity for the researcher and the participants to
re-establish their relationship. Second, preparation for
collaborative research requires co-researchers to develop
an understanding of the proposed research focus,
methodology, anticipated time commitment, and timelines
for the research (Kidd & Kral, 2005). Again, the interviews
provided opportunity for the research participants to
discuss these issues in detail prior to committing to the
research. Third, it was anticipated that analysis of the
interview transcripts would highlight themes characterising
the evolving practice of the participants. The content of
these interviews would also draw attention to the
graduates’ perceptions of opportunities and challenges to
their practice, and their professional priorities for the
following 12 months. This information would inform the
initial discussions of the PRG and provide a focus for the
future research.
The inaugural meeting of the PRG took place in HCMC,
Vietnam on the 4 July 2014. The eight SLP graduates, Ms
Mai (the interpreter) and the primary author were present.
All PRG members consented to be photographed and for
the photograph to be published (Figure 2).
Table 1. Summary of participatory research cycles in 2014
Cycles of research 2014
Meetings
Data sources
Present
1. July 2014
Face-to-face meetings in Ho
Chi Minh City, Vietnam
x8 semi-structured individual
interviews
Inaugural meeting of the PRG
Digital audio-recordings of
interviews and meetings
Transcripts of individual
interviews & meeting minutes
Email communication
Field notes
Reflective diary
Members of the PRG
Primary researcher
Experienced interpreter
2. July–October 2014
Skype meetings
x5 Skype meetings of the PRG
3. October–November 2014
Face-to-face meetings in Ho
Chi Minh City, Vietnam
x2 meetings of the PRG
Figure 2. The inaugural meeting of the participatory research
group