CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH DESIGN
5.5 DATA ANALYSIS
• Get any additional information;
• See whether nothing had been forgotten;
• Interpret the results from the data as clearly and completely as possible, based on the opinions of the informants, not on the views of the researcher;
• Give an opportunity to the informants, before the publication of the findings, to check whether the researcher had been accurate in the capturing and analysis of the data, and in the interpretation of the results, keeping promises regarding anonymity and the dignity of the respondents.
The method of corroboration was found to be appropriate to the study because it assured the research participants that their opinions were not altered during the process of data analysis, and that the findings of the researcher’s investigation accurately reproduced their perceptions of the situation, regardless of the accuracy of those perceptions. In doing so, the researcher increases the credibility or trustworthiness of the research findings (Stainback and Stainback, 1988 quoted in Key, 1997).
Therefore, it helps in developing questions during the interview. In this regard, data collection and data analysis interact (Erlandson et al., 1993:114). The use of quotes in writing a report about qualitative interviews is possible. The quotes should be clearly indicated, adequately edited, have a close relationship to the text and be expressed clearly. They should be interpreted so as to justify their presence in the report. They should not be too long, not to weaken their meaning. But they could be longer if used in a narrative way (Atkinson, 1992).
These data analysis principles were of great value in the process of analyzing data collected for the current study. In the phase of the interview sessions and at the end of a day of data collection, the researcher would reread the data gathered. It could happen that some data seemed altogether clear or complete. In such cases the researcher had to ask the interviewees for clarification. In this way, new ideas were generated. The willingness to assist and the release of ideas was attributable not only to the respondents’ knowledge of the question-themes, but also to the friendly atmosphere created between them and the researcher. This helped to gather data of quality and to successfully analyze them in the course of data collection.
In this research, respondents were considered as experts because they had more information about the GADP than the researcher. The researcher, as learner, appreciated their opinions as expressed during the data collection, analysis, and the interpretation of results. In this context, at the time of analyzing data into themes, the use of quotes was found to be necessary for some data to show the extent of the researcher’s respect for the respondents and the special attention he gave to their ideas.
5.5.2 Methods
Unlike data from the literature review, the data from the research field were not collected in a structured way. This is because the respondents did not always express their opinions in a logical order. Therefore, the use of systems thinking, along with thematic analysis, helped the researcher to organize the data in an orderly way. This was done to get the meaningful findings about the GADP project.
5.5.2.1 Thematic analysis
Thematic analysis was useful for data analysis because, on the basis of reactions from respondents after they read the recorded data (Wells, 2007:36), the researcher broke the data down into bits of information, assigning them to classes or categories (Merriam, 2009:177). In doing so, the researcher looked for themes and developed summaries, and at the same time the accumulated data were reduced to manageable sizes (Babbie and Mouton, 2003:492).
After collecting data through interviews and observation, the researcher used thematic analysis to organize and structure unstructured data in an orderly way into themes and sub-themes. These were, for instance:
• organizational structure;
• performance indicators;
• Organizational environment;
• Management which involves planning, partnership, time management, participatory development, and evaluation.
In analyzing qualitative data, there have been attempts to quantify statements of open or narrative interviews and analyze observations in terms of their frequency (Wells, 2007:36).
However, the enumerating process which transforms qualitative into quantitative data, was criticized. Flick (2009:29) rigorously criticizes a tendency among qualitative researchers to try and convince their audiences by an argumentation based on a quantitative logic such as “five of seven interviewees have said….”, “the majority of the answers focused…”, instead of looking for a theoretically grounded interpretation and presentation of findings in which the emphasis is not on the frequency of certain responses but on the meaning of the findings. But in Wells’
(2007:36) opinion, transformation of qualitative into quantitative data can be used just to elucidate the relationship between the whole and its parts. That is why numbers of respondents have been introduced in the current thesis where statements by respondents that fit within a specific theme or category are quoted, although the study is not quantitative.
5.5.2.2 Systems thinking
From the environmental perspective, the systems approach helped to view projects as systems bounded by internal and external environments and interacting with various interfaces which include stakeholders and inanimate objects as was seen in Chapter Two (section 2.1.8 Systems
thinking). Stakeholders came from both developed and developing countries, and included farmers, local and multinational business organisations, employees and employers, banks, education and health institutions and government and non-governmental organizations. The uncontrollable external environment of project management involved culture and ethics, partnership, technology, economy, which is characterized by financial resources, FDI, business, agriculture, debt, globalization, exchange rates, inflation, markets of products and services and business contract. That environment included also natural resources in terms of land, water, forests, as well as infrastructures such as roads, communication networks and media.
Governments, non-governmental organizations, education, health, demography (gender) and climate change (weather) were also considered. The internal environment (controllable) comprised elements such as project definition, scheduling and resource allocation, information and communication, project control and risk management and available resources such as human, financial and material resources. The interactions and interconnectedness of these aspects and of stakeholders have a significant impact on project performances, whether in a positive or negative sense.
In the case of the GADP, stakeholders were identified. They operated at local, national and international levels and included notably farmers, research centres and education institutions (NUR and ISAR), sponsors (the Rwandan government and UN agencies), business organizations, contractors, etc. The external environment was basically characterized by political, ecological, demographic and economic factors. The internal environment included the following elements: planning, managing partnership, time management, resources management participatory development and the GADP evaluation. The systems thinking approach helped to form a picture of the complexity of the GADP. This complexity could, for example, be explained by the fact that the project had to carry out too many activities. Some of these were not in line with the project objectives and included non-agricultural aspects such as small business and loans. The project was operating in an unstable environment and dealt with many stakeholders whose intervention appeared at different levels. These stakeholders had different roles, expectations and interests. The project was not able to cope with this situation. As a result, it failed to achieve its objectives.
From a systemic approach, the systems thinking approach presents some benefits. Like the thematic analysis, it assisted the researcher to gain a better understanding of the problematic situation that the GADP was confronted with. It intervened during the process of data collection and data analysis. The technical tools (diagrams) that were used in this regard included multi- cause diagrams. These diagrams and thematic analysis combined together were an important input for data analysis.
The multi-cause diagram indicates the causal relationships, or the interaction, between different elements which include people and things in a situation (Lane, 1999:30). For example, the political unrest due to the civil war and the genocide affected the demography in that it resulted in the death of thousands of people, the exile of others, and the internal displacement of people towards the southern region of Rwanda, where the GADP was located. The refugees needed to eat and as they could not find fire wood they attacked the forests, including those planted by the GADP. In consequence – at least partly – of the destruction of forests, there were unexpected changes in weather patterns with both floods and droughts. Heavy rains led to worsening erosion, which in turn made the farmland more infertile. Production and crop income diminished, the market prices increased, and the living conditions of people deteriorated.
Furthermore, the GADP project that was supposed to contribute to improve the livelihoods of people (food security, employment and income) and the economic conditions (increase of market crops, reduction of market prices) was overwhelmed by the tragic events. The overall situation worsened the living conditions of people and increased poverty, particularly in the rural areas.
It was difficult for the GADP to identify and establish close and strong relationships between its stakeholders without using systems thinking. As a result, it was not able to collaborate with its key stakeholders, who would interact with each other and with the project. Therefore, the project lacked:
• Adequate planning and implementation because some key stakeholders (farmers) were not effectively involved from the beginning to the end of the project.
• Communication skills and transparency, for instance, concerning the use of the findings from surveys. The information was kept confidential and for internal usage by only two departments, the accounting division and the head office of the GADP.
• The culture of learning which requires the use of action research. The focus of this learning process is on involving people in an action plan to deal with problems through solutions which they can implement cooperatively (Michael Armstrong, 2000:155). But the fact is that the GADP was not able to manage partnership relationships with its key stakeholders and did not allow active participation of stakeholders.