CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH DESIGN
5.4 DATA COLLECTION
5.4.1 Restructuring of the GADP performance and impact indicators
Performance indicators were identified with reference to the objectives and components of the GADP. The process of evaluation was based on summative evaluation. Therefore, indicators were divided into two groups: performance indicators and impact indicators.
The performance indicators were used to assess the implementation (progress) of the GADP whereas impact indicators were used to evaluate the effect that the GADP had made on the project zone. These indicators, together with the literature review, were of great value for the process of data collection, particularly when the researcher prepared the interview instrument.
The evaluation planning done, the next concern was the field research. Thereafter, appropriate approaches to the study were selected, which included ethnography, phenomenology and field research.
5.4.2 Methods
5.4.2.1 Case study
As the researcher had little information on the GADP and wanted to understand the complex situation faced by the project, the case study method was found justified because it helps to investigate complex social units, consisting of many variables that have potential value for the understanding of a phenomenon, and it results in a holistic and rich account of the phenomenon concerned (Merriam, 2009:50-52). In the process of data collection, the case study involves the use of various methods such as documentation review, interviews, surveys and observation, in order to answer research questions (Soy, 1996). Welman and Kruger (2001:183) highlight that the case study method leads to a comprehensive study of the units of study (individuals, groups, institutions or other social entities).
The GADP was not chosen in a vacuum. A number of reasons were considered. The GADP was a very large project as it covered a geographical area of 83,508 ha with 250,000 inhabitants and included 7 out of the 13 districts in Gikongoro Province (Bguyonb and GADP, 1993). Moreover, before the GADP was created, there had been other agricultural projects operating in Gikongoro
province. The GADP benefited from these projects’ economic infrastructures and from the organizational structures they had established to meet needs of the local community.
The GADP also received considerable financial support from big international organizations.
However, it faced serious problems in the following areas: complexity of the project due to too many activities; inability of identifying key stakeholders and adapting farming techniques to the needs of stakeholders; unstable environment; decline of the market for commercial crops; lack of bank loans, and deterioration of roads due to the lack of maintenance.
The selection of the project was based on its potential economic and social importance, the amount of financial support it received, and the involvement of powerful and varied stakeholders. Using the case study and data collection methods such as observation, interviews and documentary review, the researcher increased his knowledge of project management and evaluation and achieved a better understanding of the causes of the failure of the GADP in spite of its financial opportunities. This also led to ideas for potential problem areas that ought to be watched by other projects in order to protect their sustainability.
5.4.2.2 Documentary review
Much of the information that the participants could not provide was found in various written sources which provided input for the development of the literature review on project management, project evaluation and research design. Besides the documentary review through books, articles in journals and other published papers, and electronic resources, the internal reports from the GADP archives were also used. The GADP reports provided information on how the project was managed and evaluated, on problems of management and evaluation, and on unforeseen events that were obstacles to the achievement of the project objectives. These documents were in French and had to be translated into English.
The documentary review method was of great value for the study because it informs the researcher about what has already been done in his research field (Coldwell and Herbst 2004:31, Merriam, 2009:72), it leads to ideas for the justification of objectives, and for the formulation of the research problem, and lines of thought are found that may help to answer specific research questions or that indicate the importance, necessity or urgency of undertaking a study (Saunders, Lewis and Tharnhill, 2000:45; Merriam, 2009:72).
5.4.2.3 Interviews
The conducted interviews included individual pilot interviews, individual interviews and focus group interviews.
1. Pilot interview
The pilot interview offers the researcher the opportunity to pre-test his first interview questions and check whether the interviewees understand the research problem and the interview questions before the actual interview sessions start (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2002: 103). The main concern of a pilot survey is to assess the relevance of questions to the research problem and objectives.
The researcher may decide to exclude a question if it does not clearly serve the study objectives, or else revise it. (Hackley, 2003:89).
After the researcher obtained the ethical clearance on the 14th March 2007, he started field research. Simultaneously, he approached some members of academic staff and students to check the content of the interview instruments. Their comments made him reformulate questions for a better understanding during interview sessions and in order to further enhance the quality of data to be collected. Some ambiguous questions were removed and others were clarified. The order of questions was also rectified.
2. Individual interviews (first round and second round)
In conducting interviews, a semi-structured interview was found to be a suitable method for the current research. It implies that the interviewer prepares a set of questions, which is further developed and aligned with the researcher’s interests, as the conversation progresses (Rogers and Bouey, 1996:52).
Using this method, the researcher was able to develop questions related to the areas of his interest. During the interview sessions, the researcher played the role of a learner while the participants were considered as the experts and as better informed in their sphere of life.
Individual semi-structured interviews were held with farmers, subcontractors of the GADP, managers and staff of the GADP and local authorities. These interviews were aimed at gathering data from individual participants with reference to their own experience and knowledge of the project. The researcher thus became a facilitator as he took notes from the discussions, which later were recorded on the computer. Individual semi-structured interviews also served to
counteract two drawbacks. Firstly, the researcher found it difficult to get people together at the same hour and willing to devote the same amount of time to the interviews. Secondly, some participants did not, for reasons of their own, feel free to express their opinions in the presence of other participants. In both cases, the slightly informal structure of the interviews was helpful.
The individual interviews were conducted in two phases. The first phase (March to May 2007) involved 33 persons, grouped into 5 categories: farmers (cooperatives and individual farmers), subcontractors, GADP managers and staff, and government authorities (regional and local authorities). The data collected needed to cover the whole study. Together with documentary analysis, these data provided the partial conclusion on what went wrong with the GADP.
The second phase of interviews (June and July 2007) involved 9 informants. They were grouped into four categories: farmers, subcontractors, GADP managers and staff, and government authorities (regional and local). These interviews were intended to offer the respondents an opportunity to check whether the researcher had kept his promises in the following areas: respect for their dignity, and anonymity as regards their identities and opinions during data analysis and in the publication of findings.
In this regard, the researcher had prepared a 16 page document with a synthesis of partial results from data collected in the first phase. These were presented to the informants for discussion. It took two weeks to gather data. The objective was to reassure them that their opinions had not been distorted in the process of data analysis. At the same time the informants were given a chance to provide additional or forgotten information that might enhance the quality of the final results of the study. It was on the basis of these final results that interpretation took place with a view to publishing the findings. At the end of the second phase of interviews, clarifications and new ideas were provided to give the big picture of the GADP. As an example, some respondents suggested that the project should be designed and implemented from their perspective.
3. Focus group interviews
From the 2nd to the 3rd July 2007, the focus group sessions were organized with 6 persons willing to attend the sessions which were, according to participants’ availability, held at different times.
The interview instrument, which had been used for the individual interviews, was also used for the focus group interviews. At the first session, the group consisted of 4 participants: 1 employee
of the GADP and 3 farmers from the cooperative UNICOOPAGI. At the second time, 2 employees of the GADP were involved.
The focus group interview was judged a suitable method for the study because it is usually conducted with a small group (six to eight people) focusing on a particular topic (Flick, 2009:195). The purpose is to analyze common processes of problem solving in the group in order to discover the best strategy for solving it through a discussion of alternatives (Flick, 2009:197). The participants discuss the area of investigation openly with each other, in a friendly way (Andrew, 2008). The method is particularly interesting when the researcher is not aware of all the issues that are associated with his topic of research (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2006:196).
5.4.2.4 Direct observation
During the period of field work, the researcher took notes of observations in the field journal.
The observations consisted of looking at the physical environment such as hills, forests, valleys, farm land, pasture land, and crop fields. It furthermore involved looking at people’s livelihoods such as cooperatives, their attitudes towards their work, their resources, main crops and livestock, shelter and clothing. These elements indicate the level of lifestyle and development of the community. It was in such circumstances that photos were taken. Observation gave the researcher an opportunity to check whether the documentary information from the GADP reports, the opinions of people expressed in interviews and the photos coincided in confirming the same reality. For example, the opinions of interviewees and the field work photos confirmed and indicated the role played by people in the degradation of soil and in erosion, factors that contribute to increasing poverty in Gikongoro.
Participant observation was judged appropriate for the study because the researcher, in his neutral position, organizes and keeps systematic records of data from the perspective of people.
He has to check his observations regularly and readjust his data accordingly (Welman and Kruger, 2001: 84). The focus of the method is on finding the true meaning of people’s actions (Saunders, Lewis and Tharnhill, 2000:383).
5.4.2.5 Triangulation
As the aim of the research was to understand the problem situation faced by the GADP, the research used various methods to collect the primary and secondary data. For primary data, the methods used included interviews, pilot interview, field notes, focus group, direct observation, diaries and systems thinking. The secondary data required the usage of documentation review that included books, journals, articles published by the World Bank and UN agencies and other researchers, reports of the GADP and electronic resources. These data sources helped to shape the thesis. For answers to research questions, credible findings are needed. That is why multiple methods were used to collect data and get findings from perspectives of various participants, and in addition to discover if the GADP could have made positive impacts particularly on the life of small farmers.
The triangulation method was of particular interest for the current study. As Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2006:318-319) state, triangulation gives researchers an opportunity to mix methods while looking for convergence and credibility of the research findings and for answers to their research questions. It also helps to build a comprehensive understanding of the research problem and to clarify research results.
5.4.2.6 Corroboration
The data collected came from various sources and were divided into two main parts:
• Documentary analysis which included the GADP reports and Internet resources, books and journals.
• Field research: interviews and direct observation, which included taking notes and photos.
Interviews were done in two phases, the first phase following on the documentary research.
Data collected from interviews, GADP reports, and other sources such as journals, electronic resources and textbook as well as direct observation in the field provided the first partial results, synthesized into a document of 16 pages. It was presented to the respondents involved in the research for comments before the interpretation of the results. They were satisfied that the researcher did not alter their opinions and had kept the promises of confidentiality and anonymity. A second phase of interviews followed of which the objectives were specifically the following:
• 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).