2017
Chapter 1
Introduction.1
Background.2
Statement of the Problem3
Purpose of the Research.4
Primary Research Questions5
Research Sub Questions6
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework.7
Nature of Study..8
Significance of the Study9
Definition of Key Terms10
Summary11
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
References
Feasibility of the Study
Introduction
Central to the case study into the impact of mining and quarrying activities in the Akamkpa mining region located in Nigeria is a feasibility assessment; an essential component of a doctorial research dissertation (Creswell, 2013). Problematic issues are investigated such as program time management, data and participant availability, site permissions availability, and considerations in terms of ethical conduct within the area of human research (Creswell, 2013; Bowen et al., 2009). For an applied degree program many of the feasibility requirements are defined and stipulated in the institutional review board (IRB) which is a form of committee utilized within the body of research in the United States and other countries to approve, measure and monitor, and also provide feedback on various types of research using human participants (Slade, 2016).
The IRB can be constructed as any board or group which has been specifically tasked by an institution to conduct periodic reviews of the proposed research using humans; such also includes the authority to approve the commencement of research which will require human participation (Slade, 2016). In terms of this case study, research may not be conducted via an empirical design involving human participants but may be directed at the availability of qualitative data from existing research studies (Creswell, 2013). It is important to ascertain if the case study is feasible prior to conducting the identification and collection of available data (Arain, Campbell, Cooper & Lancaster, 2010). The decision be taken to conduct empirical research with samples of research participants all IRB regulations will need to be followed and all necessary consent be obtained prior to conducting research with research participants (Slade, 2016).
Availability of Participants or Data
This case study is designed to qualitatively collect data from sourced peer reviewed literature and also to research human participants, so for the purposes of establishing the feasibility of the sourced data a brief examination is conducted into how the research will be conducted with those who will be researched; this in terms of IRB regulations (Slade, 2016). According to Slade (2016) the participation of humans pertains to any living individual who a researcher is using in order to conduct research so as to collect data. According to Tickle-Degnen (2013), and Hudson, Christensen, Kellogg and Erickson (2002) such data collection is facilitated via both interaction with the human participant and all documentation relating to this type of research. Fernandez (2009) maintained that such should be absent of any identifiable data or information which is considered private such as the participant’s personal identification details. This type of interaction is defined as inter-personal communication conducted both offline physically and also online (Slade, 2016). Data collection pertains to any data which is collected either directly from the human participant or from public or authorized private records and databases; such is inclusive of data derived from existing qualitatively designed research studies (Slade, 2016).
Slade (2016) claimed that a population group which is targeted as a possibility to be investigated for research purposes should be ascertained regarding if it is likely that the researched data is representative of the population group. Therefore, it is important that the sourced existing research was conducted into areas of concern which was defined in the research statement (Creswell, 2013). Moreover, in terms of the availability of data it will be important to ascertain if the sourced research conducted research with population groups who may be considered vulnerable such as with minors, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally challenged or disabled people, and also people who may be regarded as impoverished and possessing little or no education and therefore cognitively impaired (Slade, 2016). It is essential that effort is directed to ensure that the sourced data is relevant to the research problem (Creswell, 2013).
Regarding population groups who may be viewed as impoverished and lacking education, this case study acknowledges that it is conducting research into a region within Nigeria which has been challenged by these adverse issues (Mukherjee, 2002). Therefore, it may be necessary to seek further clarification about specific IRB regulations and from the designated IRB board regarding the possible use of vulnerable population groups by existing researchers for the purposes of research (Slade, 2016). One of the issues reflected by the topic under investigation regards how miners, their families and local communities were/are impacted by mining and quarrying activities in the Akamkpa region; as such they may be viewed as challenged by health issues and poverty caused by mining activities and therefore a population group protected under IRB regulations (Mukherjee, 2002; Slade, 2016).
Another issue which is subject to IRB regulations concerns the involvement of multiple sites in order to identify and collect data (Slade, 2016). It is proposed that university facilities and online research tools such as Google Scholar are primarily used to source reliable peer reviewed literature (Creswell, 2013). However, it may be necessary to identify and access corporate websites in order to collect data which pertains to the research problem and are capacitated to answer the research questions therefore permission may be required from the IRB board in order to ensure that this case study is feasible (Creswell, 2013; Slade, 2016). Furthermore, as the study is conducted into a region outside of the United States effort will be needed to ascertain if the research into the sourced literature compromises or is in violation with other IRB boards in Nigeria (Slade, 2016). As far as can be estimated, all the required data is already in English and therefore will not be required to be translated (Slade, 2016).
Barrett (2007) suggested that available data can be sourced via two methods. The first was to find a standard abstracting source such as the Rand Corporation or Sage Publications Ltd which offer online publications of peer reviewed journals and other literature formats; such can be used to find appropriate data via key words which are designed to access data which relates to the research problem (Barrett, 2007).
Another method is to utilize Google Scholar to access peer reviewed literature which specifically addresses issues under investigation and then access the references which were used to cite data in the literature. This allows the expertise of previous researchers in terms of data collection to guide the search for appropriate available data (Barrett, 2007). By viewing the topics of the referenced studies the researcher can select sources of data which may best suit the study objective such as the collection of recent empirical data, and also the reference lists of those selected sources can be evaluated in terms of suitability and availability (Barrett, 2007). Fogarty, Lai and Christensen (2004) maintained that the access and collection of available data should consider if the data is freely available and not subject to any copyright laws or any other legal restrictions.
According to Harrell and Bradley (2009) the availability of data should be guided by the following considerations. First concerns the question if research has already been conducted into the research problem and if there is value in re-investigating existing literature. Moreover, issues concerning logistical factors such as accessibility and cost will need to be considered in order to ascertain if sufficient data is available which possesses the capacity to address the research problem and answer the research questions (Harrell and Bradley (2009). Based on initial review it would seem likely that there is sufficient available data which can serve to inform this case study (Creswell, 2013; Harrell & Bradley, 2009).
The available researched data will need to include researched population groups which are connected or associated with the Akamkpa region, other regions in which mining and quarrying is conducted and also data available from corporate organizations which may offer insight into the research problem (Harrell & Bradley, 2009). In terms of the number of sources containing researched data, discussion will need to be enacted with the IRB board in order to establish how many sources may be feasible (Harrell & Bradley, 2009; Mukherjee, 2002; Slade, 2016).
Availability of Site Permissions
In terms of conforming to IRB regulations permission is needed to perform research in any location; such includes physical interactions such as interviews, observations or the collection of documented data (NCU, 2016; Slade, 2016; London, 2002). Permissions to use a site for research purposes requires that the researcher needs NCU IRB’s permission as well as the IRB approval from the site should this location have their own IRB (NCU, 2016). One of the factors which assists in the IRB approval process is the element of specific details regarding the research procedures so that the IRB personnel can accurately determine exactly what steps will be utilized in the research including what roles which are allocated to any research participants (Kitzinger, 1995).
The researcher will need to ascertain if help is required from any people located within or near the site in addition to those whose task is to participate as research samples and gain IRB permission for all assistance (London, 2002; NCU, 2016). This assistance also is inclusive of any marketing or advertising mechanisms which are designed to elicit participation (research samples) or general assistance (NCU, 2016). IRB permission is also required should there be a risk of disruption to normal routines or changes which may affect site operations (NCU, 2016).
Time to Program Completion
It is challenging to accurately forecast the time needed to complete this program as there are so many unknowns which still need to be determined. First, it is difficult to determine how long it will take for 10 sample research miner participants to be found who will be willing to take part in this program. Furthermore, consent and permission will need to be granted by the IRB board so that contact and online interviews can be conducted (Barrett, 2007; Slade, 2016). Moreover, in order to construct a triangular approach the interviews will need to be conducted with potential experts located in companies who possess expertise and knowledge concerning the issues offered in the problem statement. It is possible that there qualitatively constructed insight may be valuable as a means to inform this case study. It is proposed that a timeline be constructed within the next 4 to 8 weeks (up to mid March, 2017) by means of dialogue between the researcher and the university. The proposed period to finalize a realistic timeline is considered reasonable and practically achievable.
Other factors which need to considered for the purposes of establishing a timeline framework pertains to the expected characteristics of the research participants (Barrett, 2007). These characteristics may be in the form of if they would be willing to engage in online interviews without physically meeting or knowing the researcher and also how many participants are needed so as to provide credible representation of the practical environment (Barrett, 2007). Furthermore, questions will need to be asked concerning if the participants are available in the time period allocated to the empirical qualitative research (Barrett, 2007). In addition, ethical considerations should factor in whether benefits in terms of payment to the participants should be considered and if so, how much financial resources are required (Barrett, 2007). Another factor pertains to the possibility of participant attrition due to the possibility of the participant dropping out of the program or not complying with the interview requirements (Barrett, 2007).
Ethical Considerations
The inclusion of ethical consideration when conducting research via a case study falls under the jurisdiction of IRB regulations especially if empirical research is conducted using research sample participants (Slade, 2016; London, 2002; Harrell & Bradley, 2009). This is because the rights of all research participants should be identified and upheld so that the research participant’s privacy, confidentiality and safety is protected and that all material sourced from humans should be protected in terms of the rights of all past and new potential research participants (London, 2002).
These ethical considerations should factor in the potential risks posed when participants are asked to contribute to the research and such risks should be minimized and considered as reasonable when compared to the potential risks (London, 2002). Moreover, according to Frankel and Siang (1999) the selection of potential research participants should be based on criteria which accept that all samples should be considered absent of any discrimination and that the selection is equitable and fair. Data storage especially that relating to data containing personal or private information should be protected via passwords or other methods by the researcher so that the participants privacy is upheld and that permission be sought from those authorized to provide oversight to population groups considered as vulnerable (Frankel & Siang, 1999).
Both Barrett (2007) and, Benfield and Szlemko (2006) found that when conducting research using human subjects the principles relating to beneficence, justice and autonomy should underpin the collection of data. This includes vulnerable population groups and those perceived as incorporating diminished autonomy; such should be offered special protective measures in which the families or those tasked with care of these groups are provided all the data pertaining to the potential risks and benefits offered by the proposed research (Frankel & Siang, 1999).
Beneficence should be applied in such a way so as to minimize potential risks and harm to the research participants while ensuring that the possible benefits are maximized so that the participant is adequately protected in terms of IRB guidelines (Frankel & Siang, 1999). The principle of justice is designed to ensure that all the participants are treated equitably so that the potential risks, burdens and benefits are equitably distributed without any unfair discrimination or bias against any population group (Frankel & Siang, 1999; Harrell & Bradley, 2009; London, 2002).
In terms of benefits to the research participants, Frankel and Siang (1999) conducted research into the differences between physical interviews and online interviews. Their research indicated that interviews conducted online or even by email facilitated greater levels of clarification in terms of concepts and personal participation as the research participants were more likely to divulge more information and personal insight should they not be required to participate in a face to face interview construct (Frankel & Siang, 1999). This may be especially relevant should the participants belong to a population group such as the mentally challenged or disabled who may be reticent or unwilling appear in a physical or public format (Frankel & Siang, 1999).
Their research also found that interviews via online communication such as Skype pose less risk of physical or mental harm than may be possible in the physical environment; such may serve to promote a more ethical approach due to the reduced risk of harm to the research participant (Frankel & Siang, 1999; Benfield & Szlemko, 2006). Whether face to face or online, the benefits offered by interviews can be in the form of increase knowledge or understanding of the issues defined within the problem statement both to the participant, society, advancement of science and also to the public domain (Frankel & Siang, 1999; Benfield & Szlemko, 2006). Should the findings from this case study be used to improve the living and working conditions of the Akamkpa miners, their families and local communities such potential benefits can further justify the participation of research samples (Frankel & Siang, 1999). Potential risks are more likely to be psychological rather than physical due to the potential compromise of the participant’s privacy and the loss of full confidentiality or any other non-compliance with IRB regulations (Frankel & Siang, 1999).
Barrett (2007) noted that the ethical principle of informed consent should be a primary consideration throughout the proposed feasibility of the case study. This means that the participants and in the case of vulnerable population groups, those authorized to provide oversight, should be provided with clear and simple explanation regarding all aspects of the research which may influence their willingness to participate in the case study (Barrett, 2007). Moreover, the participants and any other immediate responsible parties should be invited to ask any questions so that participation is processed without any misrepresentation or confusion (Barrett, 2007).
Such informed consent must be formally signed into documentation by either or both the research participants and/or those designated with the responsibility of care. Both the participants and/or those designated with the burden of care should be invited to seek counsel outside of the researcher’s jurisdiction such as external social and government bodies which are constructed as a supportive mechanism to those who may be unable to understand the implication of the proposed research case study (Barrett, 2007).
Conclusion
In order to ensure that this case study is feasible the above noted steps and procedures will be needed so that the outcome of the case study is considered valid and reliable (Barrett, 2007). Therefore, the availability of participants and data, the availability of site permissions, the timeline required and all ethical considerations will need to be considered prior to conducting this case study into the mining and quarrying activities in the Akamkpa region and the impact on those working and living in close proximity (Barrett, 2007; Mukherjee, 2002). This means that both physical and psychological factors will need to be included into the feasibility of the case study (Barrett, 2007). Moreover, other research instruments such as online surveys may need to be considered as alternative options should interviews not prove to be feasible.
References
Arain, M., Campbell, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Lancaster, G. A. (2010). What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy. BMC medical research methodology, 10(1), 67.
Barrett, M. (2007). Practical and ethical issues in planning research. Research methods in psychology, 24-48.
Benfield, J. A., & Szlemko, W. J. (2006). Internet-based data collection: Promises and realities. Journal of Research Practice, 2(2), 1.
Bowen, D. J., Kreuter, M., Spring, B., Cofta-Woerpel, L., Linnan, L., Weiner, D., & Fernandez, M. (2009). How we design feasibility studies. American journal of preventive medicine, 36(5), 452-457.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fernandez, M. (2009). How we design feasibility studies. American journal of preventive medicine, 36(5), 452-457.
Fogarty, J., Lai, J., & Christensen, J. (2004). Presence versus availability: the design and evaluation of a context-aware communication client. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(3), 299-317.
Frankel, M. S., & Siang, S. (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on the Internet.
Harrell, M. C., & Bradley, M. A. (2009). Data collection methods. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. RAND NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INST SANTA MONICA CA.
Hudson, J. M., Christensen, J., Kellogg, W. A., & Erickson, T. (2002). I'd be overwhelmed, but it's just one more thing to do: Availability and interruption in research management. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 97-104). ACM.
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ: British medical journal, 311(7000), 299.
London, L. (2002). Ethical oversight of public health research: can rules and IRBs make a difference in developing countries?. American Journal of Public Health, 92(7), 1079-1084.
Slade, C. P. (2016). Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Mukherjee, S. (2002). Modern Economic Theory. Mumbai: New Age International.
Tickle-Degnen, L. (2013). Nuts and bolts of conducting feasibility studies. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(2), 171-176.
