CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.5 Data analysis
109
110 to feminists by not citing their work. This however is a very subjective view which has been refuted by Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) who argued that it has been discussed by a diversity of feminist women in a wide range of geographical locations, not all of whom are white and heterosexual and of which some include black feminists such as Hooks (2000).
Blommaert (2005) also argued that much of the work on CDA to date pays attention to texts of relevance in the West since, as a rule, CDA is not applied to societies other than the First World.
With regards to this, I take note of work that has been done by authors like Dominelli (2003) on decolonising social work and Dominelli (1999) on feminist social work which I believe have been key in addressing some of these early concerns, and the research of Osthus and Sewpaul (2014) and Gilbert and Sewpaul (2015) in South Africa, whose data analyses were informed by CDA. Having presented the criticism, I concur with the conclusion by Widdowson (2004:8) who argued that CDA is critical in the sense that it has “moral appeal, socio-political justification and liberal ideological positioning”. I also took note of the contribution that feminism has made to the gender discourse especially with regards to CDA. Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis aims to analyse the relationship between gender and language, which mostly means examining enactments of power by men and women in the public domain (Lazar 2005). Coates (2012) argued that many studies in CDA with a gender focus adopt a critical feminist view of gender relations. They are motivated by the need to change substantively the existing conditions of these relations. I draw on the arguments propounded by feminist theory which I found useful in the discussion of the study findings. Coates (2012) further argued that it is important to be guided by feminist principles in theorising about the oppressive nature of gender. Lazar (2005) argued the ambition that CDA can help raise awareness about the unequal social conditions of minorities makes it a worthy enterprise.
Data analysis is probably the aspect of qualitative research that most clearly distinguishes it from experimental and survey research and the one that is least familiar. It is concerned with questions of how and why, which implies that explanations are sought in order to effectively make deductions from questions or interviews (Humphries, 2008). Though I had semi- structured interviews and sought to discuss specific themes, there were instances when I allowed the participants to bring in their themes of interest. I was however careful as well not to be side-lined or to have the discussions derailed and losing focus.
111 In this research qualitative data was analysed thematically using the open code method. This is a standard analytic technique characterised by a process of iteratively coding and categorising data to uncover thematic categories. Codes broadly correspond to questions as grouped in the scope of enquiry (Humphries, 2008). Once broad coding had been established, thematic categories were refined, with sub-categories being formed and relationships between these elucidated. These themes formed basis for the written analysis. Because the theoretical framework underpinning this research was the critical theory, the qualitative research was also influenced and augmented by the critical research methodology. This allowed participants to construct their realities based on their lived experience. According to Humphries (2008p. 117) critical research recognises that:
1. Social structures are oppressive and maintained through political and economic power 2. These legitimacies should be made more visible for examination and to identify the
oppressive and exploitative practises
3. Taken for granted understandings are examined for their relationship to wider social and historical structures
4. Seeks to combat oppressive structures
5. Critical researcher is reflexive and flexible to engage with power dynamics.
Critical research acknowledges the problems of interpreting meaning in social life. At the same time it does not deny the existence of objective facts and insists on examining the institutional structures that constrain and control relatively powerless people (Humphries, 2008). Giddens, (1982p.-13) notes that we create society at the same time as we are created by it. Critical research analysis also identifies with people who are oppressed. My interaction with the participants sought to interrogate the family and community structures in as far as they contributed to the gender dynamics around the utilisation of agricultural inputs. Part of this also included questioning the cultural beliefs that perpetuated gender inequality and male supremacy.
In the analysis of the data, empowerment was analysed and determined in relation to criteria such as access to and ownership of means of production, resources, income, leadership and time use linked to indices developed by USAID (2012) and Longwe (1999). I was cognisant
112 of identified shortcomings of the empowerment models, and I sought to factor these identified shortcomings in the overall analysis. The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index measures the empowerment, agency, and inclusion of women in the agriculture sector to identify ways to overcome obstacles and constraints that hinder women’s engagement and equality. The Index is a significant innovation in its field, and aims to increase understanding of the connections between women’s empowerment, food security, and agricultural growth. It measures the roles and extent of women’s engagement in the agriculture sector in five domains:
(1) decisions about agricultural production, (2) access to and decision-making power over productive resources, (3) control over use of income, (4) leadership in the community, (5) time use.
Longwe’s (1999) model presents empowerment in various levels. March et al. (2005) note that Longwe’s model is considered to be useful in that it may assist organisations in developing more explicit programmatic strategies that aim to fundamentally shift the bases of gender inequality. They note that the gendered assumptions of equality are made explicit which provides an excellent opportunity highlighting the political dimensions of gender inequality.
On the other hand, the weaknesses are that it is not designed to explain how or why a program works. The model does not explore the contributing or causal factors that led to the progression from one level of impact to the next. The focus is only placed on three levels of equality, e.g., positive, neutral, or negative impact, which limits important qualitative assessments of
“success” that provide valuable information critical for program improvement. The assumption is that there is a hierarchy of gender equality levels suggesting a somewhat more linear change trajectory than is often found in practice. From this caution, much emphasis was based on qualitative discussions with the participants in order to mitigate against the shortfalls in explaining participants’ responses.