Research Design - field work and baggage

1. Research Design- field work and baggage Research design -> Baggage: i) Research Question ii) Conceptual Framework iii) Data Collection Techniques iiii) Access to Empirical Data iv) Role in the Field v) Data Analysis process ofstabilizingthe research design

2. Things that appeared to be certain • Case study • Qualitative data • Issues of power and emancipation Something to do with health management information systems (HMIS) strenghtening using mobile phones at pheripheral health units in low-resource contexts - and data quality

3. 1st field visit “the leap”: Punjab, India RQ: How do different degrees of HMIS transparency affect data quality and health worker job satisfaction in low resource settings? (from research proposal) Theory: “Critical Social Theory” Emancipation, stakeholders Techniques: Observation, improvised unstructured interviews (training) Access: Restricted, hard to trace prior decisions Role: “Feedback guy” (unclear role related to Punjab implementation) was not part of early project decisions Data Analysis: Limited Prior Reflections Empirical setting practical problems huge implementation hectic felt alone as researcher emerging concepts: trust/distrust or just cultural shock?

4. Supervisors: “write up the case!” Me: “which one of them?”

5. Reflections Field visit to Punjab reinterpreted as a preliminary study – getting to know the field Concerns about prolonged access to the right data and my role in the field Background /foreground?

6. Research Question and Conceptsrevisited Less normative approach – >move towards descriptive and exploratory study Critical Social Theory out Technological Frames of Reference in (meanings, rationalities) Research Question (15months down the line): How do diverse stakeholders’ interpretations shape the utilization of low-end mobile phones in primary health information systems, and how can mobile phone based interventions be informed so as to facilitate reduced incongruity between stakeholders technological frames? long question..

7. 2nd field visit : Malawi RQ: Highly Unstable Theory: Trust, feedback, rationalities, stakeholder (TFR) Techniques: Interview guides, observation, query forms Access: Access to stakeholders, information transparency Role: Part of DHIS Mobile implementation team; part of early project decisions Data analysis: Still vague, but adopted NVivo for storing, transcribing and “coding” data Empirical setting -people seem to trust each other! -small implementation -broken and unmaintained equipment everywhere emerging concepts: maintenance/transportation & communication challenges, Implementation coverage

8. publichealth Reflections information system implementation mobile technology organization studies Still concerned with different rationalities or logics in relation to HMIS innovation/implementation/intervention process + long term maintainability Each paper idea has a focus, but the PhD process as a whole does not! Still foreground/background issues healthworkers / end users

9. 3rd field visit: Malawi RQ: Paper spesific.. Theory: logics, stakeholders, implementation Techniques: Focus group, observation, query, interview Access: Access through project involvement Role: Implementer/researcher with colleagues Focus on micro level efforts of embedding IS intervention with local socio-technical arrangements and how this process is shaped by a multiplicity of actors involvement Concepts (implementation) deepvswide, grafting

10. In Summary Changes to research design continues, but are becoming less disruptive/dramatic Cycles between field work and reflections stabilizing research design