5.2.5 Project Ethos and Fieldwork Logistics
Core par principles (see section 4.3, p80) guided implementation and informed
decisions on unexpected issues. The appropriate attitudes and behaviour were emphasised during ongoing fieldworker training sessions, based on my fieldwork observations and fieldworkers’ own reflections with respect to principles of par which were covered during initial fieldworker training. A variety of events and incidences from a total of 46 field trips (most of which lasted more than one day), illustrate how social, methodological, logistical, economic, political and personal aspects of implementing par impacted on the process and outcomes of CLIQ. I have discussed a few of these examples below, where the impact of an event adds insight into the practical implementation of par principles and depth of
understanding to research findings.
Sharing lunch: On all fieldwork days, CLIQ provided lunch for the CLIQ team and participants using local caterers where possible, to contribute to the local economy.
Fieldworkers (and participants) complained about the quality of the lunch regularly, however the practice was defended and maintained because it avoided a situation whereby either group may think that fieldworkers were somehow better than participants, if different food was provided for (or purchased by) the visiting fieldworkers.
Gender biases and baby-sitting allowances: Participants, who were responsible for the daily care of young children, were given a babysitting allowance to pay for the time of another person to care for the child, thereby freeing their time to attend CLIQ activities. This created extra work in field for the CLIQ team, and sometimes tension around the validity of the baby sitting claim (both in field and in office). During fieldworker training, this situation was used to explore the issue of difference and the impact that gendered domestic roles could have on fieldwork attendance. With fieldworkers’ increased awareness of their own beliefs about gender, they were better equipped to keep their views from influencing the way they interacted with participants, when the focus was eliciting participants’ views and values.
Time, energy and boredom: Participants sometimes experienced tiredness during longer exercises or requested to leave early due to waning interest in the research activities.
This conflict was usually resolved in favour of the participant’s choice regarding time-use,
considering that they also had their regular activities to attend to. Fieldworkers generally managed to negotiate a time when the participant could complete certain key exercises, which drew on the good rapport that had been built up. When this meant an extra day in field, it motivated fieldworkers to make the exercises more interesting or to heed signs of boredom and adapt the exercise accordingly, which overall promoted better quality field results.
Transparency and accountability: Honesty and clarity with regard to the scope and limitations of CLIQ was an important part of engagement with all stakeholders. When challenged to provide additional resources (such as the regular requests for more computer training or a cooked lunch), we explained our responsibility to spend money according to an approved budget and plan, so that we could offer participants needs-based computer training; a contribution to travel costs; and a very basic lunch. At times I was pushed so had to stress that we would be held accountable for all money disbursed in-field and for
delivering adequate field results, illustrating that we did not have decision making authority over how CLIQ’s money was spent. This seemed to convey a sense of common humanity to participants.68
These examples illustrating the project ethos also reveal some of the challenges faced during fieldwork. Chapter 6 discusses further fieldwork challenges, after identifying how and why implementation deviated from the research design and differed between areas.
68 In response to a request for computer training in Durban from eMpumalanga participants, I explained how in general, funding of academic research worked with respect to the hierarchy of accountability from fieldworkers to project managers, principle investigators, university codes of ethics, and funders. This led to an interesting discussion about community members’ rights with respect to their collaboration with researchers, in general.
Across the four areas, a total of 227 people attended CLIQs initial field-day to find out what the project was about and to decide whether or not they were
interested in taking part (referred to as the interested sample). Each person completed a questionnaire which focussed on socio-economic and ICT issues. During participant selection, we aimed for about 35 participants from each area, over-sampling to account for expected attrition.
Based on completed questionnaires, 148 were selected (post-field) to take part in CLIQ. With the late selection of another 14 participants, the total selected sample was 162 participants.69
People from eMpumalanga were the most
enthusiastic about the CLIQ project, with Mpumalanga participants (pictured in Plate 5-9) accounting for two fifths (88 out of 227) of all interested participants.
In each area except for eNyakatho, more women than men showed an interest in CLIQ, resulting in an overall ratio of seven women for every three men. The selected sample was skewed towards eNtshonalanga participants (53) when compared to other areas (between 34 and 38). I was able to analyse changes in QoL for participants who attended at least two QLAs, as well as those who only attended the final assessment, because each QLA collected data on current perceptions of QoL and changes in QoL since mid 2008. From initial post-field analysis, QoL change data was available for 113 participants (the impact sample).
69 Higher levels of expected attrition at eNyakatho and political advice from the telecentre manager at eNtshonalanga, led to the late acceptance of 14 participants in these areas.