‘When you are a data collector you must expect anything’. Barriers,boundaries and breakthroughs: insights from the South African data-collection experience
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2020
‘When you are a data collector you must expect anything’. Barriers,boundaries and breakthroughs: insights from the South African data-collection experience
The impact of the research process on the researcher is an emerging topic of interest. Data collection in most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is often the responsibility of community members who are identified and trained specifically for data collection. When research involves data on mental health and social well-being, data collectors may have specific competency needs and the task of data gathering may impact data collectors. This study aims to explore the experiences and needs of data collectors within South Africa using qualitative methods to examine the impact of data collection on data collectors. Nineteen data collectors, involved in face-to-face data collection, completed semi-structured interviews exploring their insights, attitudes and experiences. Thematic analysis revealed barriers and challenges associated with research, complexities regarding boundaries within the participant-data collector relationship and the benefits of being involved with research for the individual and the community. Numerous challenges and opportunities are outlined. Findings expose the beneficial and often overlooked contribution of data collectors and warrants key considerations in the planning and implementation of future research to ensure adequate support and standardization of practice.
MertensDMGinsbergPE.Deep in ethical waters: transformative perspectives for qualitative social work research. Qual Soc Work. 2008; 7: 484–503.
2.
OrbAEisenhauerLWynadenD.Ethics in qualitative research. J Nursing Scholarship. 2001; 33: 93–96.
3.
BloorMFinchamBSampsonH.Qualiti NCRM Commissioned Inquiry into the Risk to Well-Being of Researchers in Qualitative Research. Project Report. Cardiff University;2008.
4.
BloorMFinchamBSampsonH.Unprepared for the worst: risks of harm for qualitative researchers. Method Innov Online. 2010; 5: 45–55.
5.
CorbinJMorseJM.The unstructured interactive interview: issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qual Inq. 2003; 9: 335–354.
6.
LalorJGBegleyCMDevaneD.Exploring painful experiences: impact of emotional narratives on members of a qualitative research team. J Advanced Nursing. 2006; 56: 607–616.
7.
MalacridaC. Reflexive journaling on emotional research topics: ethical issues for team researchers. Qual Health Res. 2007; 17: 1329–1339.
8.
KamuyaDMMarshVNjugunaPMunywokiPParkerMMolyneuxS.‘When they see us, it’s like they have seen the benefits!’: experiences of study benefits negotiations in community-based studies on the Kenyan Coast. BMC Med Ethics. 2014; 15: 90.
9.
MosavelMAhmedRDanielsDSimonC.Community researchers conducting health disparities research: ethical and other insights from fieldwork journaling. Soc Sci Med. 2011; 73: 145–152.
10.
NewellCJSouthJ.Participating in community research: exploring the experiences of lay researchers in Bradford. Commun Work Family. 2009; 12: 75–89.
11.
CasaleMLaneTSelloLKuoCCluverL.Conducting health survey research in a deep rural South African community: challenges and adaptive strategies. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013; 11: 14.
12.
CasaleMAFlickerSNixonSA.Fieldwork challenges: lessons learned from a North–South public health research partnership. Health Promot Pract. 2011; 12: 734–743.
13.
Van den BroeckJMackayMMpontshaneNKany Kany LuabeyaAChhaganMBennishML. Maintaining data integrity in a rural clinical trial. Clin Trials. 2007; 4: 572–582.
14.
SerekoaneMSharpCSkinnerDMaraisL.Untold stories of fieldworkers working amid adverse conditions. J Ethnograph Qual Res. 2014; 8.
15.
BeresfordP. User involvement in research and evaluation: liberation or regulation?Soc Policy Soc. 2002; 1: 95–105.
16.
MinklerMGarciaAPWilliamsJLoPrestiTLillyJ.Si se puede: using participatory research to promote environmental justice in a Latino community in San Diego, California. J Urban Health. 2010; 87: 796–812.
17.
MosavelMSandersKD.Community-engaged research: cancer survivors as community researchers. J Emp Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014; 9: 74–78.
18.
MinklerM.Using participatory action research to build healthy communities. Public Health Rep. 2000; 115: 191.
19.
BahnSWeatherillP.Qualitative social research: a risky business when it comes to collecting ‘sensitive’ data. Qual Res. 2013; 13: 19–35.
20.
GokahT.The naïve researcher: doing social research in Africa. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2006; 9: 61–73.
21.
JohnsonBClarkeJM.Collecting sensitive data: the impact on researchers. Qual Health Res. 2003; 13: 421–434.
22.
MatheeAHarphamTNaickerNBarnesBPlagersonSFeitM, et al. Overcoming fieldwork challenges in urban health research in developing countries: a research note. Int J Soc Res Method. 2010; 13: 171–178.
23.
PhashaTN.Researching child sexual abuse in South Africa: complexities in the field. J Psyc Africa. 2006; 16: 243–251.
24.
SchatzEAngottiNMadhavanSSennottC.Working with teams of ‘insiders’: qualitative approaches to data collection in the Global South. Dem Res. 2015; 32: 369.
25.
KingoriP.Experiencing everyday ethics in context: frontline data collectors’ perspectives and practices of bioethics. Soc Sci Med. 2013; 98: 361–370.
26.
NamaNSwartzL.Ethical and social dilemmas in community-based controlled trials in situations of poverty: a view from a South African project. J Comm App Soc Psyc. 2002; 12: 286–297.
27.
CriggerNJHolcombLWeissJ.Fundamentalism, multiculturalism and problems of conducting research with populations in developing nations. Nursing Ethics. 2001; 8: 459–468.
28.
Banks-WallaceJ.Eureka! I finally get IT: journaling as a tool for promoting praxis in research. ABNF J. 2008; 19: 24–27.
29.
RichmanKAAlexanderLBTrueG.Proximity, ethical dilemmas, and community research workers. AJOB Prim Res. 2012; 3: 19–29.
30.
EllsbergMHeiseLPenaRAgurtoSWinkvistA.Researching domestic violence against women: methodological and ethical considerations. Stud Fam Plan. 2001; 32: 1–16.
31.
SmallSA.Action-oriented research: models and methods. J Marr Fam. 1995; 941–955.
32.
LindseyEMcGuinnessL.Significant elements of community involvement in participatory action research: evidence from a community project. J Advanced Nursing. 1998; 28: 1106–1114.
33.
MinklerM.Ethical challenges for the ‘outside’ researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Edu Behav. 2004; 31: 684–697.
34.
SealeCSilvermanD.Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. Eur J Public Health. 1997; 7: 379–384.
35.
BraunVClarkeV.Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3: 77–101.
36.
ATLAS.Ti.7.0.Corvallis, OR: ATLAS.Ti. 2012.
37.
KaiJHedgesC.Minority ethnic community participation in needs assessment and service development in primary care: perceptions of Pakistani and Bangladeshi people about psychological distress. Health Expect. 1999; 2: 7–20.
38.
RoweA.The effect of involvement in participatory research on parent researchers in a Sure Start pro-gramme. Health Soc Care Comm. 2006; 14: 465–473.
39.
EmanuelEJWendlerDKillenJGradyC.What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J Infectious Diseases. 2004; 189: 930–937.
40.
WhiteF.Capacity-building for health research in developing countries: a manager’s approach. Revista Panamericana Salud Pública. 2002; 12: 165–172.
41.
CollinsS.Statutory social workers: stress, job satisfaction, coping, social support and individual differences. British J Social Work. 2007; 38: 1173–1193.
42.
NöstlingerCLoosJ.Involving lay community researchers in epidemiological research: experiences from a seroprevalence study among sub-Saharan African migrants. AIDS Care. 2016; 28(Suppl 1): 119–123.
