A phased research project

1. Group Feedback analysis

Group Feed-back Analysis operates in three phases. Firstly the collection of data by any appropriate method through quantification or ethnographic field work. Secondly the preparation of the data in a suitable simple form for feedback to people who helped to assemble the original data or are familiar with the area under enquiry. The experience of the group with the subject of enquiry, preferably by having taken some part in the data collection, is essential for GFA.

Unlike traditional research which is interpreted by the investigator acting as "expert", Group Feed-back Analysis is based on the interpretation of the people who produced the evidence in the first place, or are thoroughly familiar with the circumstances described by the evidence. In this process of interpretation and learning, the researcher(s) play a role, but it is adjunctive rather than dominant.

As we saw in section 4 above, the large scale survey and follow up interviews had produced a very considerable amount of data only some of which conforms to the requirements of GFA. The task of the research group, including the co-ordinators for the four countries is to examine the available data for "cognitive dissonance" material from each country report and to assemble this for GFA.

2. Phase I

Phase I consists of separate meetings with each country group to present the initial selection of material, based on cognitive dissonance, for validation, discussion and elaboration. Validation comes first. The group has to accept that the presented material is acceptable and conforms with the experience of the group. There is always some possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpreting data. This type of validation is not available in traditional research. In our project, because several years have elapsed since the original material was collected, the second step is to update experiences and data. Where changes have occurred, they have to be described and incorporated in the feed-back material.

The conceptual framework to guide the interpretation of the data has been divided into four central issues:

• The societal-political context in which the organizational response in a country has occurred (contextual conditions I). The central issue here deals with the question: How can organizations influence policy-making in their country?
• The problem-load of the HIV/Aids epidemic and the work with people affected by HIV/Aids (contextual conditions II). The main question here deals with the current situation of people affected with HIV/Aids (epidemiology, quality of life, access to care and treatment, etc.)
• The organizational response as such in a given country (organizational structure, activities which have developed, services being delivered, etc.)
• The integration and the existing co-operation in the field of HIV/Aids (division of labour, networking, etc.)

3. Phase II

Phase II is the first international meeting of the four country teams. Each group presents the main findings and conclusions from Phase I as a preliminary step to a cross national comparison and assessment. Cognitive dissonances are extracted from the material and presented for discussion and analysis. This provides the stimulus and basis for learning.

4. Phase III

Phase III, during the second year of the project repeats the individual meetings with each country team. The research team have circulated the Interim Report containing the analysis of each country's assessment as well as the outcome of the Phase II cross-national meeting. These reports are discussed and critiqued during the Phase III meetings and again updated. The reports are validated (with appropriate changes) and serve as the basis for tentative policy suggestions. The division of problems into solved and unsolved presents a more favourable picture than in Phase I. Some new issues may come up during the phase III meeting which the country co-ordinator may be able to work on in the run-up to the final cross national meeting.

Some country groups invited selected policy makers to a part (or all) the phase III meeting The objective is to share the learning process with people who might be instrumental in facilitating the introduction of desirable changes. This extension of GFA brings it close to another Action Research method called "Search Conference" (Emery 1981).

The conceptual framework for this workshop has been divided into a number of dissonances. Below the eight dissonances used at the Austrian workshop:

• Dismantling the Welfare State
• Increased Life Expectancy
• Underrepresented Needs Groups
• Innovation versus Tradition
• Leadership versus Power
• Networking versus Autonomy
• Intergration versus Specialization
• Ethical Issues

5. Phase IV

The Phase IV multi-country workshop has two main objectives. One is to achieve a substantial dissonance reduction on as many unsolved issues as possible. The second is to prepare policy suggestions in anticipation of events in the next five years. We expect that these policy suggestions will benefit from the preceding GFA discussions. While some of the forward looking suggestions will be country specific, we expect that others will be part of a broader European canvas.

We see a connection between the two objectives for the final workshop. We expect that the process of organizational learning through dissonance reduction will provide the basis for a realistic choice of policies to reduce the spread of HIV and provide adequate help to those suffering from Aids in the next half decade.