JCPSLP November 2016

Table 1. Summary of participatory research cycles in 2014

Cycles of research 2014

Meetings

Data sources

Present

Members of the PRG Primary researcher Experienced interpreter

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

1. July 2014 Face-to-face meetings in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

2. July–October 2014 Skype meetings

x5 Skype meetings of the PRG

x2 meetings of the PRG

3. October–November 2014 Face-to-face meetings in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

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

Figure 2. The inaugural meeting of the participatory research group

(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).

110

JCPSLP Volume 18, Number 3 2016

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology