The study set out to interrogate the role of women in Liberia’s peacebuilding architecture in the context of (post-) conflict developments. Findings generated through field research engagement (as presented in chapters five to seven) proved quite relevant in addressing the research questions, filling the research gaps, substantiating the research hypothesis, and meeting the objectives of the study. This notwithstanding, the study was also limited by certain concerns. The first limitation pertains to the reality that empirical and qualitative data could not be collected from all stakeholders, women’s organisations and individuals who were and are still visibly involved in Liberia’s peacebuilding, reconstruction and development processes. This challenge owed to a number of factors, including the fact that I was constricted
109
by finances and time, as well as the unavailability of some sample population (for reasons which are explained in the last paragraph of this section) originally identified during the preliminary proposal development, presentation, and acceptance of this research study. In view of this challenge, I recognized that the sampling of such a small population is often perceived to have potential bearing on the finding of the study. The implication here is that the data collected, most often, do not necessarily represent the views of all the stakeholders.
However, this challenge was dealt with by ensuring that the sampled population finally used for this study was reliable and representative of the wider perspective. This is in the sense that I focused on interviewing the projected target population available, as indicated in section 4.4 of this chapter. Additionally, the challenge relating to limited financial resources was to a large extent obviated through the benevolent award of a Doctoral Scholarship by the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Furthermore, I had some concerns about the fact that much attention had already been paid by other researchers to the women and peacebuilding discourse in Liberia, thereby over researching the target groups identified for this study. The implicit uncertainty in view of this possible limitation was that the responses of the participants or respondents maybe influenced by the many narratives and publications they have heard, read, repeatedly recounted, or conceived as what researchers researching on women and peacebuilding in Liberia maybe interested in. Addressing this, the interview questions were coined to address the gaps in literature and the target population accessed through WONGOSOL an umbrella secretariat organization that works with registered women’s organizations in Liberia and knows their different peacebuilding areas of interests and activities. I also faced the challenge whereby some participants especially in the focus groups almost dominated the discussions. However, I set the pace for the discussion, ensuring that each participant was given room to also express their views.
Taking into consideration that the research derive(d) from a large body of secondary data covering a period of more than 20 years, not all the material and information on women and peacebuilding in Liberia could be sourced or said to be valid. For this reason, the study employed four of Scott’s (1990:6) validity benchmarks, which are authenticity; credibility;
representativeness; and meaning, to assess the quality of the data sources, and establish that
110
the data gathered was relevant, clear, and comprehensible. This is in the sense that I carefully analysed and assessed relevant secondary data and juxtaposed with some of the responses of participants as presented in the analyses chapters of this study. Moreover, since lessons to be drawn from the Liberian experience were envisioned to serve as references for other post- conflict situations, I noted the realism that each post-conflict setting and experience differ from the other. This is to say no one solution fits all, therefore the need to fashion the lessons and policies that maybe drawn from this study to be specific to each post-conflict milieu.
Other challenges for this study included, most notably, the outbreak of the Ebola virus in Liberia in 2014, which delayed the process of my field work for a year. Prior to the Ebola outbreak, I had informed most of the target population that interviews and discussions would be conducted in the months of November and December of 2014. While I constantly communicated via email with WONGOSOL the umbrella organization that provided me with the main gatekeeper’s letter, I only succeeded to initiate the face to face data collection process in July 2015, following news of containment of the virus and cancellation of travel restrictions that had been placed on travels to and from Liberia. Arriving Liberia with initiatives and measures still ongoing to completely contain the Ebola crisis, I realized that data could not be collected from all the participants initially selected because some of them were quite engaged in the process. While, others could not avail for the interviews and discussions because they were directly or indirectly affected by the epidemic. Initially, I had anticipated focus group discussions with Sinoe Women Peace Network (SWPN) and South East Women Development Association (SEWODA), groups based in Sinoe County South- eastern Liberia, a region recorded in history as the most marginalized in the country. But upon arrival in Liberia, I was advised against traveling to this County because of the extremely bad road conditions, coupled with the fact that it was the rainy season and it would take days to travel there and back to Monrovia where I had lodged. Furthermore, I had at the very outset projected to interview more participants from all works of life relevant for the purposes of this study. This however was not realized, as most offices were preparing for the country’s Independence Day celebration on July 26 in Sinoe County. As such, some of the interviews were slated for the month of August, in which case I was scheduled to leave Liberia on the last day of July 2018 and was also financially constrained to extend my stay. Notwithstanding
111
these challenges and limitations, supplementary telephonic and email communications for the purposes of clarifications were conducted in 2016/2017 with some of the research participants and the overall data collection process was effective and critically analysed to arrive at the findings of this study. Therefore, the inference that the limitation did not in any practical way undermine the quality or adversely influence the outcome and findings of this study.