Data collection was conducted using qualitative methods. The key benefit of qualitative methodology is that it ‘takes its departure point from the insider perspective on social actions.”222 It entails in-depth studies of small groups of people, and results obtained are descriptive. These methods allow the researchers to get close to ‘social actors’ meanings and the interpretations they are involved in.223
I chose these qualitative research approaches because I was interested in understanding how people in farming households “affected and/or infected”224 by HIV/AIDS, experience the impact of HIV/AIDS, and the issues and concerns this raises for them. I was also interested in exploring Policy makers and service providers working in the District and their perspectives and interpretations of the impact of HIV/AIDS on farming households and the social problems this was raising for members of these households and what could be done, in terms of policies and support to address these.
222Babbie and Mouton, (2001)
223Blaikie, N. (2009) :234
224Muller, T R. (2005):18
54
In order to pursue these research questions my main methodological approach was to conduct semi-structured individual interviews (14) with people (men and women) living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHAs) in farming households, and (9) with relevant Policy makers and service providers in the District, and (1) focus group discussion with PLWHAs who were willing to discuss their issues in a group.
This meant developing methodological approaches which prioritized the interpretations and meanings which my research participants attached to the social and economic problems for farming households generated by HIV/AIDS, but also engaged with participants, to some extent, as experts and authorities on this topic, and encouraged them to set the agenda in the interviews and focus group discussions by making them conversational, putting open ended questions to them and picking up on issues which they raised and posing new questions in response to these.
As interviewer I was free to formulate other questions (not included in my initial interview schedule, “as judged appropriate for a given situation”225 and “respondents were free to choose their own definitions, to describe a situation or to express their own views on the issues under investigation.”226
While there were certain themes I wanted to cover in the “semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions”227 I conducted with them, I was keen to encourage my research participants to raise and elaborate on concerns and issues which I had not necessarily anticipated. In this sense I tried to engage with my research participants as active agents, and to encourage them to influence the pace and direction the interviews and focus group discussions took by asking
225Bless, C. et al. (2006):116
226Bless, C. et al. (2006):116
227Bless, C. et al. (2006):116
55
questions I had not necessarily anticipated in response to issues they raised. (For an outline of these semi-structured methodological approaches, using interviews and focus group discussions, see Frosh et al.228
One of my concerns when conducting the research interviews was to engage with my participants as authorities about issues which affected farming households with adult members and breadwinners who were HIV positive, and to give them time to develop their contributions.
Another was to develop a relationship with my research participants in which they felt free and able to talk about being HIV positive in a context in which HIV may be highly stigmatized.229For both these reasons I chose to conduct semi-structured individual interviews (appendix 1 and 7) as well as focus group discussions (appendix 2), with those that were willing to participate in the group discussion. With regard to PLWHAs in particular, I assumed that they might find it easier to speak about their experiences and the impact of HIV/AIDS on their households and their relations with household members if they were interviewed individually.
Not only would they have more time to do this, but also they might feel less restricted to do so than in a group. It is unlikely, I argue, that they would have been able to reflect upon their experiences in such engaged ways if they had been interviewed in a group, so I decided to do a blend of both individual as well as group interviews with PLWHAs.
Interviews with PLWHAs, and Policy makers/service providers were in-depth and lasted for roughly 90 and 60 minutes, respectively. Summary notes were made immediately after each data collection process in order to outline some of the key themes that emerged during these processes and also reflected on the group dynamics230 and diary keeping of daily research activities throughout the data collection process. Interviews were tape recorded, transcribed
228Frosh, et al (2002)
229Pattman & Chege, (2003)
230Pattman, R. and Chege, F. (2003):21
56
and recurring themes were again identified and these are discussed in depth in the results and discussion chapters. Respondents were given pseudonyms and their opinions were summarized and placed under the relevant themes in the research in line with the theories.
4.4.2 Data analysis
This was done using thematic analysis231 by identifying key themes which emerge in the interviews which are raised by the interviewees in response to the kinds of questions asked.
4.5 Themes and questions in the semi-structured interview schedules and focus