the provision of qualitative data collection … collection report voc ed.pdf · the provision of...

THE PROVISION OF QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION FOR VOCATIONAL AND SKILLS TRAINING ACTIVITY BETWEEN MILLENNIUM

CHALLENGE ACCOUNT NAMIBIA AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH CENTRE (MRC) OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF NAMIBIAQualitativeDataCollectionReport

29 December 2014

i

Table of Contents

Page

List of Abbreviations ii

Introduction 1

Summary of Activities 2

Summary of Quality Control Effort 20

A Summary of Adjustments to the Workplan 20

Lessons Learned 22

ii

List of Abbreviation

COSDEC Community Skills and Development Center

COSDEF Community Skills and Development Fund

ISC Industrial Skills Committee

LCDRS Levy Collection, Disbursement and Reporting System

MCA‐N Millennium Challenge Account Namibia

MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation

MRC Multidisciplinary Research Centre

NAMCOL Namibia College of Open Learning

NIMT Namibia Institute for Mining and Technology

NTA Namibia Training Authority

NTF National Training Fund

RPL Recognition of Prior Learning

SLA Service‐Level Agreement

TOR Terms of References

TP Training Provider

UNAM University of Namibia

VC Vice Chancellor

VTGF Vocational Training Grant Fund

1

Introduction

The current Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact with the Republic of Namibia entered

into force on 28 July 2008 and aims to reduce poverty through economic growth in the Education,

Tourism and Agriculture sectors. In Education, the programme seeks to bring the quality of the work

force closer to the requirements of industry and the labour market at large. More specifically, the

Millennium Challenge Account Namibia (MCA‐N) Education Project aims to improve the competency

and knowledge of young Namibians by supporting new and innovative methods of learning in addition

to the traditional approaches, and improve physical infrastructure for learning and teaching in schools,

Regional Study and Resource Centres, and Community Based Skills Development Centres. As part of its

Compact with the government of Namibia, MCC through MCA‐N is sponsoring a Vocational Skills

Training Activity, composed of three sub‐activities: (1) Community Skills Development Centers

(COSDECs) (2) National Training Fund (NTF), and (3) Vocational Training Grant Fund (VTGF).

MCA‐N has contracted the Multidisciplinary Research Centre (MRC) at the University of Namibia to

implement a qualitative data collection for the Vocational and Skills Training Activity evaluation. As per

the Terms of Reference (TOR) the focus is to conduct an initial round of qualitative data collection across

the three sub‐activities mentioned earlier under the oversight of MCA‐N, MCC, and the Vocational

Training evaluator, Mathematica Policy Research (MPR).

The main objective of the qualitative data collection was to provide up‐to‐date, valid, and

comprehensive data that will be used to describe and evaluate the COSDEC, VTGF and NTF sub‐

activities. The evaluation supports two objectives derived from MCA‐N and MCC’s core principles:

accountability and learning. The evaluation will also contribute to a broader effort to support the

development of a monitoring and evaluation approach and culture at the Namibia Training Authority

(NTA).

The main task for the Qualitative Data Collection for the Vocational and Skills Training Activity was to

gather data that will allow the independent evaluator to make valid conclusions that will inform the

implementation of similar vocational training systems and provide important context for MPR’s analysis

of the quantitative research being conducted. The MRC team collected qualitative data for the

evaluation of each of the three sub activities to answer specific research questions and to add depth of

understanding to quantitative analyses.

2

SummaryofActivities

Inception: Upon successful signing of service agreement between MRC and MCA‐N, a briefing meeting

with MCA‐N’s Kofi Owusu‐Tieku and Kandiwapa Shejavali was held to introduce the UNAM/MRC team

to Mathematica as well as to gain a better understanding of the objectives and intended outcomes of

this activity. The meeting also enabled us to understand MCA‐N set up of how things work as well as

orient ourselves with the MCA‐N Programme, the M&E Plan and the vocational education related

indicators and targets. After the meeting, the VET Evaluation Design Report was shared with the MRC

team to familiarise ourselves with the qualitative evaluation design. Other relevant documents were

also sourced through website. Addresses and contact details at NTA were also shared.

Refresher Training: A refresher training on general procedures and best practices for qualitative data

collection was conducted on 27 August 2014 at the MRC in preparation for the project specific training.

All researchers and research assistants attended the training and deliberated on best practices for

qualitative data collection, transcriptions of recorded interviews as well as coding in Atlas ti. The training

enabled team members to clearly understand what is expected from them in the qualitative data

collection for vocational training and skills sub‐activity study and the role of each team member. At the

end of the training, MRC team members had a good understanding of qualitative data collection study

objectives. One outcome was also for researchers and research assistants to affirm their commitment to

the project. It was also during the refresher training that researchers ensured that they have uploaded

the same version of Atlas ti.

Project specific training: The project specific training was conducted at Safari Hotel in Windhoek for two

days, 28‐29 August 2014. The training was facilitated by Dr. Kristen Velyvis and Mr. Luke Heinkel from

Mathematica. All researchers and research assistants attended the training and were trained in

recruitment of respondents, data collection, transcript preparation, translation (if applicable) and

coding. Procedures for data quality check and security procedures were also explored. The training was

interactive with all participants sharing their experiences in specific subject matters. Participants shared

good practices to conduct interviews. Participants went through a number of data collection tools to

become familiar with the questions and contents. This helped MRC team members to understand the

objectives of each tool and also deliberated on the specify purpose of questions. Various abbreviations

used were also explained to research assistants who were not familiar with some. Several minor

3

changes were proposed for different questions. These were mainly on use of terms such as “income

threshold” which was proposed to “income level”; “what were the keys to meeting those grants” which

was proposed to change to “what were the factors to meeting….”. Some skip questions were also

revised. Mathematica team took note of all proposed changes for finalization of protocols.

Pre‐Testing: Pretesting was conducted in Windhoek on respondents with similar characteristics as

defined for the study (see Pre‐Test Report for more details). These included employers of VTGF trainees,

Recognition of prior learning (RPL) certificate holders, current vocational education and training trainees

under MCA‐N funded programmes, as well as training institutions executing vocational education and

training skills programmes with funding support from MCA‐N. As part of the recruitment process the

MRC team drafted the letters to the institutions and employers. The draft letters were reviewed,

approved and sent by MCA‐N to the relevant head of entities. A list of RPL trainees who had graduated

in hospitality and tour guiding was obtained from NTA. A list of ten qualified vocational education

trainee applicants which was used as the control group was provided by Mathematica. The letter to the

training institutions selected for pretest also explained how focus groups should be constituted. This

was left to the institution to constitute the groups due to the fact that trainees were on recess when

MRC team approached the institution. Researchers conducted the interviews and research assistants

took notes and operated the voice recorder while the Vocational and Skills Training evaluator took part

in the pretesting interviews as observers. Protocols pretested include employer of VTGF trainee, control

group, RPL certificate holders, TP Head and administrative officer and focus group with trainees. The

selected TP for pretest was NAMCOL Windhoek.

Pretest debriefing session: Pretest debriefing session was held with all the researchers and the training

facilitators. Researchers made proposals for changes to be made in the protocols. Furthermore,

facilitators forwarded questions to the researchers for inputs into the pretest debriefing session. This

consultative process ensured the experiences and recommendations of the researchers were captured

and inserted into the protocols.

Transcripts of Pre‐test: All interviews were conducted in English and were tape recorded. Research

assistants transcribed all interviews and typed them into a Microsoft Word template prepared by

Mathematica. Research assistants described transcribing interviews as tedious. It took on average 2 to 3

hours to transcribe an interview. On the other hand, some respondents could not elaborate further on

4

their responses and this did not add much value to transcriptions i.e. some No and Yes answers only.

The transcriptions were verified by researchers and checked by the Team Leader. Ten transcribed files

were produced, bundled and uploaded in Atlas ti for coding. Researchers used the codebook developed

by Mathematica to code the transcribed files.

Coding of pretest transcripts in Atlas ti: Coding of transcripts was done in Atlas ti 7.1.7. Mathematica

forwarded the codebook, with the intention that the researcher would copy the codes correctly, this

posed to be a challenge and most researchers retyped the codes. Coding was done independently by

researchers. Every coded transcript was shared with another researcher and discussed to validate the

coding. It was recommended by interviewers after pre‐test exercise that the code book should be

expanded to include demographic information.

Deliverables and plans for data collection: The pretest implementation document, the methodology

document and the draft data collection report were approved by MCA‐N and MPR. After approval,

arrangements for data collection started. Researchers got in contact with Heads of approved

institutions, i.e. Training Providers (TPs) and COSDECs. List of RPL and their employers were obtained

from NTA. Some lists of trainees trained at TPs and where they are employed were also obtained from

MCA‐N, i.e. ILSA and Wolwedans. These lists were provided upon request from MRC from MCA‐N’s Mr

Martin Wilkinson. The work plan had to be adjusted due to delays in finalizing and approving the

protocols by MCC. MRC researchers divided interviews amongst the four teams. The allocation was

mainly based on location (town) where the interview will be conducted. An arrangement was made that

interviews in Windhoek will be divided amongst all research teams. A period of about 10 days was

allocated to conduct interviews in Windhoek. Interviews in Windhoek were conducted during the

period 2nd to 17 October 2014 with exemption of few which were not completed due to unavailability of

list of employers at the time.

The allocation in other towns was done as follows:

Team Town

Alfons Mosimane & Loide Shaamhula Rundu, Tsumeb & Ondangwa

Gert van Rooy & Ruusa Alumbungu Opuwo, Ongwediva & Ondangwa

Immaculate Mogotsi & Angula Nahas Enkono Gobabis, Otjiwarongo & Okahandja

Selma Lendelvo & Temprance Karamata Arandis & Swakopmund

5

Researchers contacted heads of institutions selected and also made arrangements for focus groups

discussion at selected TPs with the assistance of institutions heads or administrative officers.

Arrangements were also made with selected controls by calling them to confirm their availability. It

should also be noted that some arrangements were only made when the teams were already in those

towns. This was done so because some information especially on employers of COSDEC trainees could

only be provided from COSDEC heads in specific town.

Five vehicles have been booked for field work, one vehicle for each team and a vehicle for team leader

to do quality control during fieldwork. Each team had all necessary equipment (laptops, audio voice

recorder and interview tools). All teams departed from Windhoek to other regions on 19 October 2014

and got back in Windhoek on 30th October 2014.

6

The following table summarizes activities done during data collection

Interview Category Summary of activities Threats to validity Challenges, issues and

problems

Actions taken to address

challenges

Interviews with

MCA‐N staff

Martin Wilkinson was interviewed at

MCA‐N office in Windhoek by three

different interviewers at different

time intervals using three different

protocols.

None Kofi Owusu and Kandiwapa

Shejavali were not eligible

for interview as they were

directly involved in the

study.

They were replaced with

Inga Scheumann at NTA ,

Mao Tjiroze at MCC in

Namibia, and Simeon

Amunkete (ISC member)

Interviews with NTA

staff

Seven names of NTA staff to be interviewed were proposed by Mathematica. Three were interviewed for VTGF evaluation and 4 were interviewed for NTF evaluation. They were proposed as follows: 3 VTGF Joseph Mukendwa NTF General Manager Ian Gicheru NTA TP Quality Assurance Richwell Lukonga NTA Manager Operations 4 NTF Joseph Mukendwa NTF General Manager Veripi Kangumine NTF Manager for Fund Administration Sven von Blottnitz GM Finance and Admin Lawrence Pringle Former Acting NTA CEO

None It was noted that Lawrence

Pringle had already left

NTA and efforts to get in

touch by the interviewer

proved futile, hence he was

replaced with current

acting CEO for NTA Ms

Anna Nghipondoka.

The current acting CEO

was interviewed instead.

7


problems


challenges

Interviews with

technical consultant

staff

GOPA. Kieron Gargan was

interviewed by Kristen and Luke as

part of the VTGF evaluation (focusing

on support for management of SLAs

with training providers and the RPL

and employer‐based training pilots)

and the NTF evaluation (focusing on

support for establishing the LCDRS).

These interviews were conducted

after completion of pretest. Kieron

was interviewed in Windhoek before

departing. Kieron and Erling were

leaving before the start of data

collection and this was addressed by

Luke and Kristen doing the

interviews.

Nelago Indongo scheduled an

interview with William January to

interview him focusing mainly on the

VTGF GOPA protocol subsection on

With Carsten Bronden who

was interviewed

telephonically, it is possible

that he would not fully

express himself like in the

face to face interview. He

may have left out some

valuable information that

he could share if it was face

to face.

There was no problem

transcribing interviews

conducted by others as

they were voice recorded.

The telephone interview

with Carsten Bronden was

transcribed by Nelago

Indongo who conducted it,

and she gave it to Alfons

Mosimane to code it.

None

8


problems


challenges

RPL. She conducted the interview on

the 20th October 2014, which was a

suitable date for him, in Windhoek

because by then all teams had

already departed to other towns.

Transtec: As part of the COSDEC

evaluation, researchers interviewed

two (2) Transtec staff who provided

capacity‐building support to the

COSDEF and COSDECs. One interview

with Erling Petersen, was conducted

in Swakopmund by Kristen. The

second was conducted via phone

with Carsten Bronden, who was in

Europe. Carsten was already in

Europe during the time of data

collection hence a telephone

interview was arranged.

COSDEF Jeremy Muller from COSDEF was

interviewed in Swakopmund to

further understand the

None Nicolas Limbo was in the

field and could not be

interviewed together with

9


problems


challenges

implementation of the sub‐activity

and to explore their interactions with

the technical consultants.

Jeremy Muller

Interviews with RPL

certificate holders

Researchers gathered qualitative

data from 6 RPL certificate holders

for the VTGF evaluation via key

informant interviews. These were

selected randomly from the list

obtained from NTA.

None Researchers had to do

some replacements from

the lists, as some RPL

certificate holders who

were selected either left

the company or were away

with work during data

collection period. Two

selected tour guides who

were interviewed were

freelancers.

They were selected with

the next available person

from the list.

Focus groups with

trainees


data from trainees who are still

enrolled in training or recently

completed training for the VTGF

evaluation and for the COSDEC

evaluation. For the VTGF evaluation

one focus group discussion was

Only male trainees

participate in FG at NIMT

due to lack of female

trainees in those fields.

NIMT experienced high

drop‐out especially among

the female trainees in the

It appeared that some

trainees whose names

appeared on the list

dropped out.

With the help of

instructors some

replacements were

made.

10


problems


challenges

conducted at each of the following

TPs:

NIMT Arandis

Namwater Okahandja

IUM Windhoek

NAMCOL Ongwediva

For the COSDEC evaluation,

researchers conducted five (5) focus

groups with current trainees from at

least three of the seven new and

refurbished COSDECs, at least two

new ones and one refurbished one.

At least two COSDECs chosen have

an SME unit and information on

COSDECs with SME units is obtained

from Jeremy Muller. Selected two

new COSDECs where focus groups

were conducted are COSDEC Gobabis

and COSDEC Swakopmund. One

focus group discussion was

conducted at COSDEC Gobabis while

fields funded under MCA‐N

programme. A few female

trainees (5) who remained

were on attachment and

could not participate.

11


problems


challenges

two were conducted at COSDEC

Swakopmund. The selected

refurbished COSDEC is the one in

Ondangwa and two focus group

discussions were conducted there.

The two COSDECs with SME units are

Ondangwa and Swakopmund.

Interviews with

control group

members


data from control group members for

the VTGF evaluation via key

informant interviews. Six controls

(three males and three females)

were interviewed. Two each from

three selected TPs (Namwater

Okahandja; NAMCOL Ongwediva and

NIMT Arandis.

None Selected controls had to be

found where they currently

live, and not often where

they applied for training.

The selected female

control for NAMCOL

Ongwediva was

interviewed at the village in

Outapi, despite the fact

that she applied to

NAMCOL Ongwediva.

Outapi is about 100km

from Ongwediva but since

she was selected and

Work plan adjusted

12


problems


challenges

willing to participate, the

researcher decided to

interview her. The selected

male control for Arandis

NIMT was based in

Walvisbay where he was

interviewed, while

arrangement was made to

interview the selected

NIMT control in Windhoek

where she had travelled.

Training provider

staff

Researchers interviewed training

provider staff as part of both the

VTGF and COSDEC evaluations. For

the VTGF evaluation, researchers

interviewed heads or other key

administrative staff in 12

participating training providers to

capture their experiences with the

VTGF grants using the VTGF TP

protocol. Only TPs who provide VTGF

Some decisions at

institutions are made at

high level without including

staff or managers at Centre

level and these are just

directed to implement

decisions. This is

particularly the case for

COSDECs, Namcol and

Kayec where the head

None None

13


problems


challenges

training supported through MCA‐N

were considered for selection. The

selected TPs are:

Namcol Ongwediva

ILSA Ongwediva

Ongwediva VTC

Rundu VTC

Kayec Ondangwa

Namwater Okahandja

NIMT Tsumeb

NIMT Arandis

IUM Windhoek

Nath Windhoek

ABTCC Windhoek

Wolwedans Windhoek

For the COSDEC evaluation,

researchers interviewed COSDEC

center heads in all seven of the new

and renovated COSDECs to

understand the implementation of

offices are based in

Swakopmund and

Windhoek. Staff turnover is

also perceived to threaten

validity of information. The

head of COSDEC

Swakopmund resigned and

the acting persons were

interviewed. It is possible

that they were not involved

in all decision making

processes and could not

have all required details.

14


problems


challenges

the sub‐activity, as well as the

operations of the COSDECs and how

they are changing using the COSDEC

TP protocol.

The heads of the following 7 COSDEC

centres were interviewed:

Swakopmund

Gobabis

Otjiwarongo

Tsumeb

Ondangwa

Rundu

Opuwo

Employers Researchers conducted interviews

with a different set of employers for

each of the three sub‐activities. For

the VTGF evaluation, researchers

interviewed 7 employers of VTGF

funded trainees without regard to

Memory recall could also

contribute to validity and

quality of information

especially where

respondents have to

specify numbers of trainees

Because the list of

employers obtained from

NTA was not user‐friendly

enough, researchers had

to make a phone call first

to verify to which category

Researchers had to do

some replacements from

the list until a suitable

employer for the

required category is

found.

15


problems


challenges

whether they are eligible for or paid

the NTA levy. Employers for VTGF

trainees were selected from the

following towns: Ondangwa,

Ongwediva, Rundu, Okahandja,

Arandis and Windhoek. One

interview was conducted with

employer in each town and two

employers were interviewed in

Windhoek. Researchers also

interviewed 3 employers who have

employees with certificates through

the RPL program. MRC obtained a list

of RPL certificate holders from NTA

with their corresponding name of

employers. Two employers were

selected from the list of those who

received the Hospitality certificate a

while one employer was selected

from the list of those who received

the Tour guide certificate. Five (5)

they employed and length

of employment. These

might be based on

estimation as they might

not remember all details

for employees who had left

the company.

of employer the selected

employer belong, whether

they employ any VTGF

graduate or COSDEC

graduate. The list did not

specify which employer

qualified to pay or not to

pay the levy and this was

only during interview.

16


problems


challenges

employers in the area served by the

COSDECs were identified and

interviewed to gather information on

their awareness and perceptions of

the COSDEC. Employers of COSDECs

trainees were identified from the

following towns: Gobabis,

Otjiwarongo, Tsumeb and

Swakopmund. An NCCI member was

selected and interviewed in

Swakopmund. For the NTF

evaluation, 9 employers eligible to

pay the NTF levy based on annual

payroll, were interviewed focusing

on their consultation as part of

setting up the LCDRS and their initial

perceptions of the system.

ISCs Researchers conducted key

informant interviews with 4

chairpersons of ISCs and did one

observation of their meeting to learn

None None None

17


problems


challenges

more about the input that they give

into the funding system and how the

members of the ISC interact.

Other relevant

stakeholders

Researchers conducted key

informant interviews with three (3)

key stakeholders, as part of the NTF

evaluation. Two were donors (USAID

and GIZ) and a Deputy Permanent

Secretary for Higher education and

Vocational Training in the Ministry of

Education.

None None None

18

It is important to note that qualitative data collection for VET in Namibia is completed. All interviews

planned to be conducted by MRC researchers are completed. A number of reports were finalized and

submitted for approval. To date eight interim reports have been submitted to MCA‐N and four biweekly

reports have also been submitted. Reference should also be made to the methodology document and

the pre‐test report. The following protocols were received from MPR to conduct all planned interviews.

They are as follows:

VTGF NTF Cosdecs

VTGF Controls VTGF Employers VTGF GOPA VTGF MCA‐N VTGF NTA VTGF RPL VTGF Trainees VTGF TP VTGF MCC Tjiroze

NTF Meeting Observation NTF ISC NTF MCA‐N NTF NTA NTF Stakeholders NTF Employers NTF GOPA NTF Scheumann NTF Technical Committee Member

COSDEC Trainee FG COSDEC Transtec COSDEC Staff COSDEC COSDEF COSDEC Employer COSDEC MCA‐N

The following table shows the number of interviews conducted in each town/city

Town/City Number of Interviews conducted

Windhoek Ongwediva Ondangwa Opuwo Rundu Otjiwarongo Gobabis Okahandja Tsumeb Arandis Swakopmund

46 8 6 1 4 2 3 6 3 5 8

The total numbers of coded transcripts per researcher are as follows.

Name of researcher Number of coded transcripts

Alfons Mosimane 24

Gert van Rooy 21

Immaculate Mogotsi 21

Selma Lendelvo 26

19

Transcribing interviews

Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed by research assistants. Some of them were transcribed

immediately after interview was completed while some were transcribed some hours or days after the

interview was completed. This mainly happened when some interviews were scheduled close to each

other and the research assistant was unable to start transcribing. Although the plan was to conduct

interviews in the morning and transcribe in the afternoon, this could not work in most cases as the

teams had to adhere to respondents’ availability time. In most cases interview schedule was widespread

(morning and afternoon). Researcher assistant had to work in the evenings to transcribe interviews and

sometimes during the weekends. In the end all interviews conducted were transcribed and typed in the

provided format.

Coding transcripts

After interviews were transcribed they were shared with a responsible researcher who reviewed the

transcriptions and verified the contents. Where the content was not clear, the researcher and research

assistants played the tape recorder together for verification. The researcher used the provided code

book to code the transcripts. Some coded transcripts were shared with team leader who verified and

checked for appropriate codes. Upon satisfaction, coded files were saved as copy bundle and given to

the team leader to upload them in the “file transfer” site. This was a secure site set up to ensure

personally identifiable information remained secure in transit. Every interviewer and a team leader was

given a secured user name and password for the file transfer site. The site was used throughout the

study to keep information secure and only accessible to research partners at MPR.

Uploading coded transcripts

All coded transcripts were successfully uploaded. Although there were problems with some files not

opening after being uploaded, this problem was rectified and solved. It was noticed that some files were

not saved as copy bundle, they were saved as such and re‐uploaded. In the end the MPR evaluation

team confirmed that all 92 coded transcripts could be opened.

Biweekly meetings

The MRC and MPR research teams agreed that that they would be holding biweekly tele‐meetings upon

commencement of data collection. These were arranged in advance and were held at MCA‐N office (for

the Namibia‐based team) via telephone. In some instances, these had to be rescheduled due to

20

unavailability of researchers. The meetings were arranged for teams to give progress reports on data

collection or feedback on submitted reports as well as to clarify some issues of concerns that arose

during data collection.

ASummaryofQualityControlEfforts

Dr Indongo, from MRC who served as a team leader during the execution of the project conducted

quality assurance for the number of interviews with different interviewers to assess whether all

procedures are followed during data collection. It was generally observed that interviewers were

prepared during interviews, correct protocols were used, audio recorders were prepared with back‐up

batteries, some used two recorders or their phones just in case anything happen to the main recorder.

At all times verbal consent to record the interview was obtained. Dr Indongo checked some (about 30%)

of the transcribed interviews and gave them back to researchers for coding. Other quality issues like use

of abbreviations were addressed. Some (about 40%) coded transcripts were also verified. Dr Indongo

focused mainly on ensuring that all applicable questions in transcripts have been completed and if not

fully completed, this was verified or clarified with the interviewer. There were few cases where some

respondents either responded a “yes” or “no” despite probing by interviewers and these are recorded

as such.

It was noted that some respondents had good knowledge of the MCA‐N programme. This was mainly

the case with heads of institutions as well as the NTA staff and MCA‐N staff. Their interviews were

regarded rich in information. This is due to the fact that they were directly involved in the discussion and

decision making process. Most interviewers came across a number of employers who were still not

familiar with the Levy process. The process was worth doing as a number of suggestions and

recommendations have been proposed, and these are outlined in a number of transcripts.

ASummaryofAdjustmentstotheWorkplan

The starting date of data collection was shifted several times due to the fact that the protocols for data

collection were not approved by MCC and the training and pilot were only done during the period 28

August to 5th September 2014. The work plan was then reworked and adjusted. After data collection

21

started, there were no major changes to the work plan as researchers fitted all interviews within the

stated period. What was mainly changing were the scheduled times or dates of interviews, however,

when a respondent rescheduled the time of interview, the interviewer promptly contacted the next

respondent and asked whether he/she is available for interview during the cancelled time, especially if

they were in the same town. This worked in some cases. By the 15 November 2014 all interviews were

completed. The revised workplan was as follows:

Task Responsible Start date Submission date

Draft Methodology document MRC 10 July 2014 16 July 2014

Review Methodology document MCA‐N &

Mathematica 17 July 2014 04 August 2014

Finalise Methodology document MRC 06 August2014 07 August 2014

MCA‐N approves final version of

document

MCA‐N/

Mathematica 07 August 2014 08 August 2014

Submission of interview tools to

MRC Mathematica ‐ 28 August 2014

Recruitment of Research

Assistants MRC 18 August 2014 19 August 2014

Refresher Training for MRC

Researchers and Research

assistants MRC 27 August 2014 27 August 2014

Arrangement for Pretest

interviews MRC 21 August 2014 22 August 2014

Project specific Training Mathematica 28 August 2014 29 August 2014

Pretest Interviews (Pilot)

MRC

01 September

2014 02 September 2014

Draft Pretest implementation

report MRC

04 September


Review and Approve Pretest

Implementation report

MCA‐N/

Mathematica

09 September


Finalise Pretest Implementation

report MRC

16 September


Draft Qualitative data collection MRC 10 September 19 September

22

design report 2014 2014

Review and Approve Qualitative

data collection design report

MCA‐N/

Mathematica

22 September

2014

26 September

2014

Scheduling Interviews MRC 16 September 2014

Ongoing during data collection

Incorporate changes from Review

of Qualitative data collection

design report and submit report

for approval MRC

27 September

2014

29 September

2014

Data collection Windhoek based

interviews MRC 2nd October 2014 17 October 2014

Data collection (other towns) MRC 20 October 2014 30 October 2014

Submission of coded transcripts MRC 17 October 2014 15 November 2014

Submission of interim reports

MRC 2nd October 2014

Ongoing till end of

project

Draft Qualitative data collection

report MRC 2014 4 December 2014

Review and Approve Qualitative

Data Collection Report

MCA‐N/

Mathematica

05 December

2014 12 December 2014

Submit Final Qualitative data

collection report MRC

15 December

2014 19 December 2014

LessonsLearned

Preparedness and good communication were very crucial. Researchers had to cancel some of the

arranged interviews when the protocols were not received from MPR on time. It is important for

institutions to do some tracer studies of their trainees, this will enable them to track them and know

where they are employed. Informing institutions well in advance was necessary as researchers had to

constantly beg them to participate as they were indicating that it came on short notice. This happened

because some could not be identified well in advance as the sources (lists) were received from NTA

when data collection had already started. But, all in all, most respondents showed interest in sharing

their experiences.

the provision of qualitative data collection … collection report voc ed.pdf · the provision of...

Documents