Data Collection Process. After receiving ethical approval from the Graduate School of Education Ethics Committee at Nazarbayev University, I contacted the school Principal and shared the letter of invitation (Appendix 1) to the school principal with the brief description of the research. The principal confirmed his/her agreement to conduct the research in the school. Next, I disseminated information sheets (Appendix 2) within the two departments in order to recruit volunteers to participate in the study. The participants were given the information sheet and consent form (Appendix 2) where key information about the research was provided in three languages (Kazakh, Russian, English) to assist their decision about whether to participate or not. If the participant was prepared to volunteer, they were asked to sign the consent form which was provided. By signing the consent form participants agreed to their responses being recorded. Overall nine teachers demonstrated their willingness to participate in the research study. Data collection procedures took place from December to January 2019-2020. I contacted each participant in advance to agree on a time and a day to conduct the interview. I had no more than two interviews a day since it is crucial to think and reflect on the response of each participant (Xxxxxx, 2011). The one hour, face-to-face interviews were audio-recorded. Glesne (2011) emphasises that one hour of steady talk is generally an appropriate time scale for the interview. The interviews took place in the research site. The researcher looked for a quiet and comfortable place in advance and agreed to it with the interview, because the location can affect the quality of answers from the participants (Glesne, 2011). Moreover, I selected the most convenient time for interview for both interviewer and interviewee since this is crucial in a busy teacher schedule. It is important to have an interview protocol during the interview (Xxxxxxxx, 2012). The researcher used an interview protocol (Appendix 4) in order to make notes on emotions of the respondents during the interview in order to not to forget the feelings the interviewee expressed while answering a particular question. I used the interview protocols to recall participants’ emotions, feelings or even intonations.
Data Collection Process. All interviews and group discussion followed semi-structured guides developed by the researcher. During the planning phase, all interview and group discussion guides were reviewed by Mil Solidarios staff, research assistants, as well as by the researcher’s advisor to ensure that questions being asked were culturally appropriate. All participants in the study were informed about the purposes of the study and what topic areas the questions would cover prior to beginning any interview or group discussions. The in-depth interviews were designed to elicit fathers’ own personal experiences with their children, while the group discussion and focus group rather sought to understand these issues at a community level.
Data Collection Process. All members of the field team staff were trained in one of three waves of training. Training was accomplished jointly by CARE India and a hired contractor, GfK MODE Pvt Ltd. Training consisted of classroom training in interviewing techniques and survey procedures in the field, detailed review of each item in the questionnaire, lectures, demonstrations and mock interviews between participants of the training. Those interviewers responsible for interacting with children were given specialized training on measuring height and weight. The final component of the training included on-site practice, where the trainees were sent to the field to practice completing one or two full interviews. Trainers accompanied the trainees and provided feedback on gaps they observed. Length of the training varied depending on the number of participants. 57 investigators and 15 supervisors were recruited as part of the field team and all participated in the described process. Four of the 72 recruited members of the field team were dropped due to their poor performance during the training. 8 teams were formed out of the remaining 68 field investigators. Each team consisted of 1 supervisor, 3 investigators and 1 editor, responsible for note-taking, who interviewed caregivers and 3 investigators who interacted with eligible children. Supervisors also conducted interviews in addition to their other responsibilities. Finally, a separate team of 4 investigators revisited all eligible respondents who could not be interviewed during the first wave of interviews for any reason. The field team was managed by one field executive and deputy manager of operations. Training of field teams was done from 1/16/12 through 2/27/12. Field teams were deployed, interviews were conducted and data were collected from 2/9/12 through 3/20/12. As previously mentioned, the training was done in three waves, and hence, those trained in the first wave were able to be deployed to begin data collection before those who participated in waves 2 and 3 of the training.
Data Collection Process
