Chapter 6 Chapter 6
1. THE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND METHODS OF RESEARCH
1.3.3. The Asking of Unstructured Questions
Agar (1980: 90ff) proposed that one uses what he calls 'Whyte's typology of informality'. This is a way of asking questions which allows the interlocutor to talk. This allows for questions from the interviewee plus the narrative of the interlocutor's life history. This method is ethnographical in the sense that it allows spontaneity and the meaningful participation by the researcher as well as
the interviewee. "The life-history approach encourages the informant (sic) ~~/
interviewee to talk about his or her own life in a chronologically ordered way';' .) (Agar 1980: 90-91, 106).
As the person speaks, some areas of the research theme come up spontaneously.
Those facts are noted and are tape-recorded. I was able to extract a lot of the information needed out of the narratives of the interlocutors. What I needed to do was to:
... encourage the informant (sic) to keep talking, by word or gesture. Next comes a simple reflection back of the informant's last statement.
[They](the interlocutors) say something, and you simply repeat it as an invitation to elaborate. Then there is a 'probe' on the last remark. You ask some specific questions about the last statement, inviting elaboration in a specific direction. And so it continues, through probes on earlier material up to an interviewer-requested change in the topic of interview (Agar 1980: 91).
At. times the continuation of the story was encouraged by a short moment of silence. This gave the interlocutor a chance to catch his breath and then to continue where he has stopped. This was also a moment when the story could be redirected naturally to the topic of research. What was also helpful in such moments was to turn to a different, unrelated, topic which would reconnect back to the main narrative. At the same time the researcher has an opportunity to relate their part of the stories. This creates an atmosphere in which the interlocutor is not interrogated but is involved in a natural, mutual, conversation. As the interlocutor tell the story along the themes of the research, the researcher also tell the story along the same lines. The interview is conducted like a natural conversation.
The main difference between the way in which ethnographers and survey interviewers ask questions is not, as is sometimes suggested, that one form of interviewing is 'structured' and the other is 'unstructured'. All
interviews, like any other kind of social interaction, are structured by both researcher and informant. The important distinction to be made is between standardized and reflective interviewing (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 112-3)
Together with my field assistants, all we did was this reflective questioning and mutual sharing of stories. Not forgetting that we also had an idea of the areas we wanted to cover, or thought must be covered, and these were introduced when our turn came to tell our stories. In our spontaneous reflective interaction with interlocutors, we were conscious that at times our unstructured questions reflected and related to those relevant to the areas of research.
Ethnographers do not decide, beforehand, the questions they want to ask, though they may enter the interview with a list of issues to be covered.
Nor do ethnographers restrict themselves to a single mode of questioning. On different occasions, or at different points in the same interview, the approach may be non-directive or directive, depending on the function that the questioning is intended to serve (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 112 -113).
I discovered that, in a comfortable and suitable occasion and situation during these lengthy ethnographic talks, all sorts of issues would
pe
commented upon.Uninterrupted by the interviewer, the interlocutors spoke for time on end. Old people derive pleasure from a well-conducted interview, which does not permit the making of value judgements during the proceedings. The knowledge of the interlocutor is not challenged there and then. The interlocutor gains confidence and talks more when researcher shows respect and appreciation for the information they receive.
As proposed by Hammersley and Atkinson (1983: 116 - 121), we interviewed the people in their own territory, in their homes and gardens and at friendly social gatherings. In so doing they were much more relaxed than they would have been in some other place. In asking questions and reflecting with interlocutors in
group discussions, and in the group reporting sessions of the research teams we formed, such as the GaPhaahla Teachers Research Team, we also observed that group interviewing made the interview situation less intimidating. We were thus able to overcome the problem of the 'silent' or monosyllabic response interview.
In this way we had access to inside information, and experienced the world and the thoughts of the [interviewees], with their ideas and answers being given and collected in a refreshing and insightful manner. When we came to the comparison between the ideas of MODI MO and the Christian God, most participants moved from mere description to analysis and critique of how the Christian God was introduced to their regions by missionaries. Tape recorders were used to collect information from individuals and group discussions. Cameras were also employed to gather information in pictorial form. The following discussion is about the description of the apparatus used. I shall end by raising the main questions concerning the research in the form of assumptions.
1.3.4. The Participant Observation Research Method
F or this part I have drawn from the method proposed by Agnew and Pyke (1984). They suggest that the participant observers are researchers who are directly involved in the socio-culturallife and activities of the group or community within '-, which investigation is undertaken. Whilst social activities are happening, and researchers take part, the researchers gain first-hand experience of participating.
Simultaneously, the researchers strive in their observation to be as objective as possible, In other words the researchers try not to make value judgements like 'good' or 'bad', 'wrong' or 'right', 'beautiful' or 'ugly'. The researchers prevent their own biases, opinions, values, and beliefs from coloring their observation (1984: 49).
Agnew and Pyke warn that the possible distortions a researcher may cause are brought about by his past experience. The mood ofthe time when the observation
IS done also adds to the possible distortion of the observation. One's interpretation of observation adds to the potential for distortion. Human fallibility makes the possibilities for distortion even greater. Researchers must be conscious of any misleading opinions, beliefs or attitudes they harbor (1988: 48).
The ethnographer participates, overtly, in people's daily lives for an extended period of time, watching what happens, listening to what is said, asking questions; in fact collecting whatever data are available to throw light on the issues with which he or she is concerned (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 2).
This happens most naturally when the investigator lives with the people. Time has been made in this investigation to make sure that the ethnography is done accordingly. We tried to make findings factual and valid. In order to minimize the problems of reactivity and suspicion, we were complete participants.
A complete participant gets access to the inside information and experiences the world in ways that may be quite close to the ways other participants experience it. In this way greater access to participant perspectives may be achieved (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 97 -98).
The method of participant observation as proposed by Hinsley (1983: 56) and Hammersley and Atkinson (1983: 97 - 98) is also supported by Lewis (1976: 24 " \ - 26). According to Lewis the participant observers must immerse themselves in the community, and must know their language. In my own case Northern Sotho (Sepedi) is my first language and my mother-tongue. The same applied to all my fellow participant observers. I made time to visit the communities of GaPhaahla (my own rural village) and GaMashabela (an adjacent village) for a total of 12 weeks each year from 1996 to 1999. Besides that, I go to visit my parents there over many holidays.
.,
Lewis advises that researchers must follow what is going on around them, and must record with accuracy and subtlety. The recording must not disturb the flow and volunteering of information from willing interlocutors. As researchers we had to learn to use both electronic and manual research implements and facilities in a way that no one in the community should feel threatened or suspicious. I did most of the writing in my private time, as Dziva (1997:235) would advise, and used the tape recorder during discussions, as Lewis (1976: 24) advises.
Dziva (1997: 224) is also concerned about the depth of intrusion that researchers make in the communities they are investigating. He is also concerned about keeping a critical distance and acting together with the communities in all that they do. In the words ofLewis, ethnographers must 'mix' with the local people;
become the 'life and soul of the party' and seize the essence of the life around them. Ethnographers must identify with the community; must go to places, homes and functions; which I personally did. Lewis also advised that researchers ....
should choose a community whose present circumstances render them acutely interesting for theoretical reasons (Lewis: 1976: 25 - 26).