Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  8 / 156 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 8 / 156 Next Page
Page Background

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