4. METHODOLOGY
4.2 General approach to the research design ................................................................... 1 04
The research favoured a qualitative approach, where an intensive approach was used in order to corroborate the findings of the research. Methodological approaches that were used in this study, comprised of both deductive and inductive reasoning. Furthermore, the research encompassed aspects of evaluation research, which will be explained in detail in this section.
Prior to the commencement of the research, Lafarge Mining South Africa furnished the researcher with a letter confirming and approving the proposed research (see Appendix C, showing approval letter by Lafarge Mining South Africa). Thereafter, a proposal for the
research was submitted to the Unive~sity of KwaZulu-Natal, where the research was approved for ethical clearance (see Appendix D, showing ethical clearance approval letter).
Upon commencement of the research the Minerals manager, from Lafarge Mining South Africa, provided the researcher with information regarding the discussion forum in order to investigate the nature of public participation with regard to Ridgeview Quarry. In addition, the Minerals manager presented the researcher with two social upliftment programmes, namely, education-related and skills-related social upliftment programmes to be examined.
Before a discussion of the approaches used in this research, an explanation of why positivistic methods were not applicable to the research is presented below.
Positivism is a modernist approach that was developed by Comte as a reaction against 'negative philosophy', where scientists sought to replace description with explanation and individual understanding with laws (Caldwell, 1982; Smith et aI., 1996; Kitchen and Tate, 2000). As a result, positivism is primarily concerned with quantitative techniques and in tum favours physical sciences more than human sciences. Kitchen and Tate (2000) argue that positivism is empirical in nature and this creates problems for social research, as positivism underestimates the complex relationship between theory and observations and in particular this presents difficulty in separating the effects of phenomena that are interrelated. Positivism has also been criticised for its exclusivity as it fails to acknowledge that spatial patterns are included in economic, political and social structures (Caldwell, 1982; Smith et al., '1996; Kitchen and Tate, 2000). Positivism can be further criticised for its autonomy as it creates a false sense of objectivity that separates the observer from the observed, which is problematic as it disregards subjective thought (Caldwell, 1982; Smith et al., 1996; Kitchen and Tate, 2000). Thus, positivism is a useful approach with regards to analytical and scientific explanations, but not all social and environmental problems can be resolved using scientific solutions. The research attempted to examine the deeper meaning and understanding provided from the collection of data, therefore favouring a qualitative research (Griggs, 2000). Thus this research moved away from a positivistic approach towards a deductive and analytical inductive approach.
The key intention was to use multiple methods (using secondary and primary sources) to evaluate the social upliftment programmes adopted by Lafarge Mining South Africa and its Ridgeview Quarry. Thus a case study approach was adopted with the focus on one specific company (Cook and Reichardt, 1979; Bennett, 2003; Gray, 2004). The case study approach
105
helped to confirm whether the initiatives that were assessed were being properly evaluated (Cook and Reichardt, 1979; Bennett, 2003; Gray, 2004).
Furthennore, methodological approaches adopted in this study, informed both components of deductive and inductive reasoning. More specifically the research was driven largely by multi-conceptual theoretical grounding. A deductive approach was used, since the theory occurred before the research and where the theory was verified or disproved by the research (Shaffir and Stebbins, 1991; Robinson, 1998; Kitchin and Tate, 2000; Silverman, 2005). Thus theories were used so as to validate and interpret the data collected during the research process (Kitchen and Tate, 2000). This approach allowed for relevant theories to be used in the research, thus providing a framework for the structure of the research. To develop theory that is empirically grounded, an inductive methodology was appropriate for this research (Shaffir and Stebbins, 1991; Robinson, 1998; Kitchin and Tate, 2000;
Silverman, 2005). Analytic induction was preferred because it explicitly accommodates existing theories (Robinson, 1998; Kitchin and Tate, 2000; Silverman, 2005). Using this approach, the researcher went back and forth between data collection and theory generation. With analytic induction, researchers collect data intended to challenge their emerging hypotheses, in an effort to develop theory (Robinson, 1998; Kitchin and Tate, 2000; Silverman, 2005). Discrepancies between existing theory and the data were reconciled in the subsequent iteration. A key focus of this research was based on public participation and the evaluation of the social upliftment programmes undertaken by Lafarge Mining South Africa and its Ridgeview Quarry. To this end, the study was biased heavily towards community perceptions and concerns. However, it was important to note that the theoretical framework/understanding that guides the study was complimented by the collection of primary data, albeit reliant on qualitative methods rather that survey instruments which provides statistically instrument finding. This was deemed to be sufficient for this study and in keeping with the body of research that advocated the use of a qualitative approach (Cook and Reichardt, 1979).
This research further encompassed aspects of evaluation research. Bennett (2003: 14) defined evaluation research as, "to gather information to judge the value and merit of a specific innovation and to inform decisions". Evaluation research is methodical and systematic, as it takes into account different stakeholders (Struening and Guttentag, 1975;
Cook and Reichardt, 1979; Weilenmann, 1980; Daponte, 2008). Evaluation can be defined as a methodical assessment of the merit of a certain project (Cook and Reichardt, 1979,
Rowland, 2000; Wilkinson, 2000; Daponte, 2008). Evaluation research is very valuable as it provides useful information pertaining to a certain project and further provides useful feedback to a variety of stakeholders. There are different types of evaluation, namely formative and summative evaluation (Cook and Reichardt, 1979, Rowland, 2000;
Wilkinson, 2000; Daponte, 2008; Smith and Brandon, 2008). Formative evaluations aim at improving a certain project, whereas summative evaluations, in contrast, summarise information from a project and attempt to examine the outcomes of a project (Cook and Reichardt, 1979, Rowland, 2000; Wilkinson, 2000; Daponte, 2008; Smith and Brandon, 2008). This research adopted summative evaluation and more specifically, focused on impact evaluation. hnpact evaluation addresses the overall effect of a project, be it intended or unintended (Cook and Reichardt, 1979, Rowland, 2000; Wilkinson, 2000;
Daponte, 2008; Smith and Brandon, 2008). This research evaluated social upliftment programmes initiated by Lafarge Mining South Africa and its Ridgeview Quarry in order to determine the overall effect these programmes had on the livelihoods of individuals.
In collecting data for this study, the researcher sought to obtain information deep enough to
ensure a rich accumulation of data from which to draw inferences. To this end information was collected from a variety of sources and an intensive approach was favoured. An intensive approach is based on qualitative analysis and allowed for a small sample to be selected (Cloke et at., 1991; Cloke et at., 1999; Cloke et at., 2004). The research was restricted to 17 in-depth interviews, thereby favouring an intensive approach. A restricted sample size is not disadvantageous, as each interview was thoroughly studied in their environment with all their relevant properties and relationships, thus achieving a deep and meaningful understanding of their position and meaning within a social context (Sayer, 1984; Cloke et at., 1991; Cloke et at., 1999; Cloke et at., 2004). Intensive research provides a detailed study, since although few individuals were interviewed for the purpose of the research, a vast amount of crucial and in-depth information was gained (Sayer, 1984;
Cloke et at., 1991; Cloke et ai., 1999; Cloke et at., 2004). Intensive data allows the researcher to break down the data into many parts and each part is analysed in order to obtain a greater understanding (Sayer, 1984; Cloke et at., 1991; Cloke et ai., 1999; Cloke et ai., 2004). Thus using an intensive approach allowed the researcher to conduct a thorough analysis (Sayer, 1984; Cloke et at., 1991; Cloke et ai., 1999; Cloke et ai., 2004).
This assisted in framing the structure and process of the research and further contributed to a holistic study. An explanation of the relevance of how qualitative research assisted the study is presented below.
107
4.3 Qualitative research
Qualitative research methodology was used in order to address the objectives of the study.
Information was gathered from interviews held with individuals participating within the discussion forum, social upliftment programmes and through observations made during site visits.
A qualitative approach assumes that processes in society affect the way individuals respond to a change and that these social processes are not constant and are continually changing, thus individuals attitudes and beliefs are always affected by societal interactions (Shaffir and Stebbins, 1991; Robinson, 1998; Silverman, 2005). Qualitative research therefore involves understanding the behaviour of individuals with respect to the meanings they associate or attach to their social environment (Robinson, 1998). Critics of qualitative research explain that this type of research is far too subjective and biased (Wellington, 2000; Dwyer and Limb, 2001). However, defenders of qualitative research explain that meaning is assembled through the interaction between the researcher and researched (Dowling, 2005).
Qualitative data is explained as 'interpretative data', whereby acknowledgement is given to many interpretations, meanings and understanding, whilst quantitative data is explained as providing scientific and numerical analysis (Shaffir and Stebbins, 1991; Robinson, 1998;
Wellington, 2000; Silverman, 2005; Winchester, 2005). The research favoured a more qualitative approach, as it was based on interviewees' understandings of the discussion forum and the social responsibility programmes. Furthermore, another reason, a qualitative approach was adopted in this study was that, it allowed the researcher to engage in the data collecting process and discourage any form of isolation, thereby allowing the researcher to interact and form a relationship of trust with the interviewees (Shaffir and Stebbins, 1991;
Winchester, 2005). Qualitative data allowed for various understandings and views to emerge so that a holistic explanation could be determined within the research. Robinson (1998) explains that one of the benefits of undertaking a qualitative research is that it allows for data not to be controlled and ordered,' thereby reducing any biases, which is exemplified in this research.
The use of a qualitative approach proved to be beneficial in this research, since qualitative analysis allowed for multiple interpretations and meanings (Winchester, 2005). It allowed the researcher to explore different theories that were relevant to the study, therefore aiding
the research process. This type of approach, further allowed the researcher to critically analyse data that were collected and therefore allowed the researcher to arrive at concrete conclusions and recommendations. The following section presents the types of data sources used within the study, namely secondary data and primary data.