TPC-Journal-V6-Issue1

The Professional Counselor /Volume 6, Issue 1 9 use of a semi-structured focus group research guide also allowed researchers to ask specific questions that focused on predetermined key topics related to the study, while also maintaining flexibility to follow up on topics that emerged from participants. Similarly, the 10 focus groups all began with the question, “As you reflect on your own experiences as MHF stakeholders, what is significant?” and then proceeded with probes based on the semi-structured research guide. Both interviews and focus groups were audiotaped in their entirety and conducted in English. Individual interviews averaged 35 minutes, ranging from approximately 20–60 minutes in length. Focus groups averaged 50 minutes, with a range of approximately 30–75 minutes. All individual interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim by a team of transcriptionists associated with the study. Data Analysis Data analysis began on site in Malawi during the data collection process, with the on-site researchers debriefing about patterns and themes as well as their reflections at the end of each day of data collection. After interviews and focus groups were transcribed, the outside researcher created a consensus coding procedure (Hays & Singh, 2012) similar to that used in past studies (Goodrich et al., 2014; Luke & Goodrich, 2013) in which she and two advanced doctoral students trained in ethnographic research each performed the initial coding independently. The process began with each coding team member reading and rereading the data to become familiar with the content and then conducting initial coding using constant comparative methods (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). Therefore, throughout the initial stage of the analysis, all three coders used line-by-line open coding (e.g., Fassinger, 2005) and compared codes within and across transcripts. This process ensured triangulation, as three different individuals viewed all data. Although the coding team moved back and forth between the coding stages, the second stage of coding involved the coding team meeting weekly during the coding process. Consensus meetings were conducted using a modified Miles and Huberman (1994) approach to discuss the emergent codes, clarify questions and identify key quotes and reflections on the data, as well as refine the next steps in the research process. Once all transcripts were coded and discussed, the third coding stage began. During the third stage, axial coding was utilized to group and collapse the initial codes, and to form larger categories or themes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). The final step of analysis involved developing operational definitions for each theme (Hays & Singh, 2012) and soliciting feedback through peer debriefing and member checking. The feedback received through both peer debriefing and member checking was considered and incorporated into the findings. Results In general, the results revealed that the 40 MHF participants in Malawi all agreed that the MHF program was valuable. Participants unanimously noted appreciation for the MHF program and the vital educational role it served in their communities. For example, one adult participant noted, “I am very satisfied with [the] MHF program: It’s a 10 [on a scale of 1–10, with 10 being the best].” Participants also described what made the MHF program implementation successful, with one adult participant stating, “MHF is contributing positively, not only to the access of education, but [to] the quality of education.” Additionally, participants reported that there would be negative consequences should the MHF program discontinue. Illustrating the significance of the MHF program and his appreciation for it, another adult participant stated, “It is our prayer that this program should continue. I know sometimes resources are limited, but I know God is going to help us.”