TPC-Journal-V6-Issue1

The Professional Counselor /Volume 6, Issue 1 8 Sampling and Data Collection The sole inclusion criterion for the project was for participants to be MHF stakeholders in Malawi since each stakeholder group could provide a unique perspective. The researchers used purposeful sampling to identify potential participants in two different ways. Prior to leaving the United States, the research team contacted the partnering MHF organization in Malawi to discuss the project and make arrangements for the research visit. During these contacts, the partnering organization agreed to review their records of the MHF master trainers, MHF trainers and MHFs to identify potential participants. Additionally, the partnering organization worked with collaborating schools to solicit potential MHF beneficiary and MHF community member stakeholder participants. Convenience sampling was used based on participant availability at schools (both parents and children) and related organizations. One quarter of the participants ( n = 10) were interviewed individually to encourage open dialogue. Three quarters of the participants ( n = 30) took part in both individual interviews and focus groups. As noted above, the partnering MHF organization solicited participants for this project and scheduled potential participants during the five-day research visit. Potential participants were provided with information about the research and an informed consent or assent and asked if they would participate in an audiotaped interview about their experiences with the MHF program. As part of the signed consent, all participants were informed of the voluntary nature of this research and their right to withdraw from participation at any time. All interviews and focus groups were conducted in person by one or two of the researchers using a semi-structured research protocol. Interviewees were selected by their availability and convenience. Focus groups were conducted at either a convenient administrative building or classrooms at MHF- participating schools. Each of the 10 interviews began with one of the researchers asking the following open, general question: “Can you please describe what it was like to train/provide/receive MHF services?” After this question, the researchers followed up with probes from the semi-structured research guide that consisted of five areas, including the first question, with follow-up questions (probes) for each area. Another example of a question later in the interview was the following: “What has surprised you about MHF services?” If time permitted, the researchers ended the interview with a question that allowed individual interviewees or focus groups to address anything not discussed in the five areas; for example: “Is there anything additional that you thought we would ask that we did not?” There were between six and nine potential probes that could follow each of the five areas. The following is an example of a probe following the initial question: “On a scale of 1 to 10, how satisfied were you with your MHF experience?” Probes also were open-ended, such as, “What might have made your experience with MHF implementation better?” Consistent with the institutional review board-approved research protocol, researchers tried to use probes from all five areas outlined, but consistent with qualitative research design, not all questions were asked of all participants in the same order. This flexible interview style has been used in past research, permitting researchers to probe and follow topics introduced by participants (see Goodrich et al., 2014). Focus groups were used as a culturally responsive strategy to facilitate the sharing of multiple perspectives and to promote conversations about a topic which, given customs and cultural practices, might be more challenging to discuss in an individual interview (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). Focus groups were scheduled based on the participants’ availability and generally delineated by stakeholder group (i.e., other MHF trainers, MHFs, MHF beneficiaries, and community stakeholders). The number of participants in each of 10 focus groups ranged from three to 12 participants, with an average of five per focus group. The total number of focus groups was dependent on the combined schedules of participants and the need to balance the overall schedule with the necessity of researcher travel to conduct interviews in locations most convenient and appropriate for the participants. The