Children affected by HIV&AIDS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 Research Design and Methodology

Introduction

The aim of this study was to explore and describe how children negotiated pathways to well-being while affected by HIV&AIDS. In Chapter 2, I provided a conceptual lens to this study that was derived from an exploration of the literature that was relevant to the focus of my study.
In Chapter 3, I explain and elaborate on my methodological choices as they informed the study. I justify my choice of research design and the primary data generation methods and instruments that were used to aid in the children’s self-expression in order to answer critical questions in this study. I also explain the role of the secondary data generation methods that guided me. Furthermore, I set out the ethical issues that I considered significant to this study, expound the challenges, dilemmas and limitations that accompanied me throughout this study and explore my role as a researcher. I conclude the chapter with a discussion of the steps that I took to ensure the quality of the study. Figure 3.1 illustrates this process.

My research paradigms

Methodological paradigm

When I initially conceptualised this study, I understood that my decision to explore the experiences of a vulnerable group of children would require a multifaceted approach to establishing relationships, interactions, data generation, data analysis, understandings and interpretations in a complex and dynamic setting. Initially, I considered adopting a quantitative approach to this study. I could have designed a questionnaire and administered it to the child participants to elicit their views about their life experiences. Thereafter I could then have quantified these experiences. I could also have employed a mixed method approach where I would have incorporated both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Onwuegbuzie, 2006; Creswell, 2003). However, I felt uncomfortable about these approaches as I questioned the trustworthiness of adopting a positivist approach to conduct a study in an intensely emotive field (Power, 1998).
I chose a qualitative approach for various reasons. Firstly, it related to the focus of the study, which aimed to explore and understand at a deep level the lived experiences of a group of children who are affected by HIV&AIDS. Next, I believed that the inductive and descriptive nature of a qualitative approach (Power, 1998) could be a suitable way to explore different views, experiences, feelings, perceptions and understandings of individual children in this study. I posit that such an approach could allow me access to inductive nuances that could possibly be missed in a questionnaire approach. In choosing a qualitative paradigm, I ascribed to the words of Denzin and Lincoln (2005:3), who claim: “qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense, or interpret phenomena in terms of meanings people bring to them.”
Furthermore, I was influenced by Merriam’s (1998) view that the data that emerge from a qualitative study are reported in words (primarily the participant’s words) or pictures, rather than in numbers. These qualities resonated with my stance as a qualitative researcher who recognises the unique contributions that children can make to research processes and outcomes. I was therefore comfortable in choosing a qualitative research paradigm that reflected my way of thinking about the phenomenon that I was researching. At all times, I took cognisance that it was impossible to separate the phenomenon being researched from other variables in the context (Merriam, 1998). As HIV&AIDS is highly stigmatised in many communities, research conducted with children within this field necessitates sensitivity to the social constraints that could affect the child.
In my qualitative approach, I entered the field carefully and with much respect for my partners. I spent time during the initial sessions on establishing rapport and trust with the children in the study. My prolonged engagement with the children (approximately 7 months) (see Addendum 6:6.1) meant that I was afforded in-depth insights that could have been overlooked had my engagement with the children been limited or brief (Charmaz, 2000). This intense qualitative engagement also meant that I became fully immersed and involved (Patton, 2002). As such, I as researcher became the primary research instrument (Patton, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I abided by Power’s (1998:698) view that “the non-intrusive and subtle nature of qualitative research has been particularly appropriate in examining HIV-related issues.” Thus, my decision to employ a qualitative approach to my study rested in the reasons that I have discussed.

Meta-theoretical paradigm

As the focus of my study related to understanding, interpreting and describing the lived experiences of a particular group of highly vulnerable children, an interpretivist paradigm guided my inquiry into this process. I grounded my study in a qualitative-interpretive paradigm, as my concern was to understand the perceptions of the children regarding their well-being (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:2).
The interpretivist paradigm reflects my personal view of the world, namely that people socially construct meanings via their interaction with the world around them. Considering that the main aim of my study was to understand and make sense of children’s experiences, I regarded the children as being the experts in their lives and as such co-creators of knowledge. Knowledge is created through a process of personal interactions based on the understanding and interpretation of experiences within the particular context (Terre Blanche Durrheim, 2002). Schwandt (2000) refers to the process of understanding as empathic identification, where understanding the meaning of human action and interaction requires of the researcher to understand or grasp the subjective intent of the participant.
Throughout this study, I defined the nature of the social context as being multiple, personal and internal (my ontological assumptions). In my writings, I consistently aimed to portray the subjective experiences of children in their reality by including various direct quotations and extracts of my reflections from my research journal. At various stages of the process, I reflected on the role of values in this study (my axiological assumptions) and acknowledged that in my attempts to authenticate my understandings of children’s experiences of well-being from an interpretivist stance, my findings might be regarded as subjective and biased.
I also understand that this study was an interactive process shaped by my own personal history, gender, social class, race and ethnicity, and by the children in my research setting (Terre Blanche & Kelly, 2002; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:6; Cohen et al., 2000).
I adopted an insider perspective (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) while I listened to the children for an understanding of how they construed their life world. Imbued in my writings are my perceptions derived from a mutual process of knowledge creation and interpretation. All interpretations would therefore be their interpretations and all understandings generated would be that which the children wanted or needed me to understand. However, how could I represent these voices in my writing without subsuming my personal values and judgements? To do this effectively, I needed to be one with the children: to interact, listen and understand (Terre Blanche & Durrheim, 1999:123). Denzin and Lincoln (2000:16) call this dilemma a crisis of representation and concede that in the final product there was no distinction between the writing and the fieldwork.

Adopting participatory principles

Children’s place in society may be viewed through the lenses adults use to conceive childhood. In line with the sociology of childhood, I sought to view children in my study not as objects of concern but to engage with them as active participants (James & Prout, 1990). According to article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, (1989) children and young people have a right to be involved in decisions which affect them; this includes acknowledging them as social actors in their own lives. Increasingly, children are being recognised not as adults in waiting but as a diverse group of valuable contributors to society and competent in voicing their experiences (Noble-Carr, 2006).
In the particular context of my study, which required the exploration of sensitive subjects with children, I adopted participatory techniques for their power of communication and their suitability to the study. Their advantages seemed to lie in the active representation of ideas and thoughts based on the power of visual impressions (O’Kane, 2000) that did not depend heavily on reading or writing skills. By incorporating participatory techniques in this study, I posit that spaces had been created for children in this study to be listened to and heard. According to Clarke (2005), listening is understood to be an active process of communication, involving hearing, interpreting and constructing meanings, and is not limited to the spoken word.

Research design

In this section I discuss the case study design that I utilized. I also describe my research setting and the children who participated in the study.

A case study design

I intentionally chose an instrumental case study design within the qualitative approach to explore and provide a detailed description of the life world of a group of children who are affected by HIV&AIDS. My choice was informed by the highly emotional and sensitive nature of the study, together with the critical questions that guided the inquiry. I found that my case, a residential care setting for orphaned and vulnerable children, was bounded by time and activity, and was an appropriate system within which I could gather detailed information using a variety of data collection strategies over a sustained period of time (Creswell, 2003:14; Creswell, 1998:61).
While a case study is both a process of inquiry about the case and the product of that inquiry (Stake, 2005:444), a case study design is one of the most appropriate designs when one is examining a social issue in a real life context, as its particular strength lies in its attention to the subtlety and complexity of the case in its own right and the embeddedness of social truths. Although the nature of my study lent itself to an instrumental case study as its purpose was mainly to provide insight into a phenomenon (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:437), I lean towards Stake’s view (2005: 445), that there is no hard-and-fast line dividing instrumental case studies from intrinsic case studies; rather, there seems to be a zone of combined purpose. Furthermore, as I discovered and reported on a complex, dynamic and unfolding interaction of events, relationships and contexts in this unique instance, I found a resonance between my research design (case study) and my interpretivist epistemology (Cohen et al., 2000).
Within this design, I could have selected only specific children with whom to conduct my investigation. However, from an ethical stance, I chose to include all nine children who lived at the children’s home as they met my inclusion criteria. By employing an instrumental case study design, I was able to focus on the aim of gaining a better understanding of the children in this unit of analysis, which was a unique and dynamic children’s home (Creswell, 1998:61). The purpose was therefore not to obtain a broad understanding of HIV&AIDS in this home, but to explore, understand and describe in depth the phenomenon of the well-being experiences of children who were affected by HIV&AIDS. I sought to uncover the case’s own issues, contexts and interpretations by means of thick, detailed and intense descriptions (Stake, 2005:445; Stake, 1995) (see Addendum 6).
From the outset the trust and rapport between the children and myself (as researcher) seemed to facilitate comprehensive interactions leading to profound insights (Mouton, 2001:150). The emphatic researcher-child relationship that ensued gave the impression that the children were encouraged in their expression of experiences and perceptions of negotiating well-being. I suggest that in the process, theory (such as coping, resilience, well-being related to children affected by HIV&AIDS) might be refined or created. In this manner, children’s experiences may be constructed as knowledge.
As a researcher, I was obliged to take personal decisions during the course of the research activities, which might have influenced my results and findings in this study and which, in this light, might be regarded as one of the limitations of using a case study design in this study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:439). Further, when one considers Mouton’s (2001:149-150) views, case studies are low in control and lack generalisability of results. Within the context of my study, I did not intend to generalise my findings. As with other qualitative research designs, the main sources of error may lie in researcher bias and lack of rigour in the analysis of data¹. I engaged with my peers to reflect critically on my research practices throughout the process (see Addendum 6). Although it was not my intention to generalise the findings of this study, I do submit that by providing detailed descriptions of the processes and the setting (see Addenda 6 & 8) a possibility exists of certain characteristics of this study being transferable (Stake, 2005; Seale, 1999).

Chapter 1 Introducing the study
1.1 Introduction
1.2 The focus of the inquiry
1.3 The rationale for this study
1.4 Research design and methodology
1.4.1 Paradigmatic choices
1.4.2 My research setting
1.4.3 Getting to know the children in the study
1.4.4 Data generation: strategies, documentation and analysis
1.5 Ethical considerations
1.6 Ensuring the quality
1.7 Clarification of core concepts and terminologies
1.7.1 HIV&AIDS
1.7.2 Children
1.7.3 Children affected by HIV&AIDS
1.7.4 Orphaned child
1.7.5 Residential care and children’s home (institution)
1.7.6 Well-being
1.7.7 To negotiate obstacles to create pathways
1.7.8 Psychosocial
1.7.9 Positive psychology
1.8 Summary of findings
1.9 Potential limitations of the study
1.10 Outline of chapters
Chapter 2 Situating the study within a conceptual framework by reviewing pertinent literature
2.1 Introduction
2.2 A conceptual framework
2.2.1 Adopting a positive approach to supporting children affected  by HIV&AIDS
2.2.1.1 Resilient adaptation
2.2.1.2 Coping efforts as they relate to resilient adaptation
2.2.1.3 Pillars of support from a positive psychological perspective
2.2.2 The context of HIV&AIDS
2.2.2.1 The magnitude of the HIV&AIDS pandemic
2.2.2.2 The stressors and challenges that could increase the risks and  vulnerabilities facing children
2.2.3 Well-being and adversity
2.2.3.1 Resilience and coping
2.2.3.2 Well-being
2.3 Towards a positive psychological approach
2.4 Conclusion
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 My research paradigms
3.3 Research design
3.4 Research methodology: data generation and documentation
3.5 Data analysis and interpretation
3.6 Ethical considerations
3.7 What challenged me and how I worked through the issues
3.8 Ensuring the rigour and quality of the study
3.9 Summary of the chapter
Chapter 4 Reporting the results of the study
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Presenting the results of this study
4.3 Conclusion
Chapter 5 ituating and relating children’s experiences to existing literature
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Findings of the study
5.3 An overview
Chapter 6 Recommendations and conclusion
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Addressing my research questions
6.3 The potential contributions of my study 9
6.4 The potential strengths of my study
6.5 Recommendations
6.6 Final reflections
6.7 Conclusion: Finding roses amongst thorns
References 
Addenda
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT