Cluster III. Good governance: where the strategy aims at developing structures and systems of democratic governance that are participatory, representative, accountable and inclusive and
4.7 Methods of data collection
Data for this study was collected using structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and observation techniques. The application of more than one instrument in data collection was vital to provide checks and balances with regard to shortfalls characterised by each of the data-gathering instruments. The section below provides information on data collection methods used in the study and the category of population the methods were applied to.
4.7.1 Interviews
A research interview involves verbal administration of the interview guide. Interviews are defined as face-to-face encounters between the researcher and the respondents, for the specific purpose of obtaining research-relevant information (Kothari 2004: 97; Mugenda and Mugenda 2003: 83; Neuman 2006: 305). The interview method is considered to be one of the most common and effective way of understanding our fellow human beings (Denzin and Lincoln 2005: 698). The purpose of interviewing has been defined by Patton (2002: 341) as to find out what is on someone‟s mind. People are interviewed to discover things that cannot be directly observed. Interviewing involves the gathering of data through direct verbal interaction between individuals. In this sense it differs from a questionnaire, where the respondents are required to record in some way their responses to set questions (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2000: 269).
The major attractions of the interview method of data collection, when compared to other methods, as pointed out by Burton (2000: 323), Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000: 269), Hannabuss (1996: 22-3) and Robson (2002: 272), are the following:
Interviews have a larger response rate than questionnaires, because respondents become more involved and hence more motivated;
Interviews enable more to be said about the research than is usually stated in a covering letter to a questionnaire;
They are better than questionnaires for handling more difficult and open-ended questions;
In conducting interviews the interviewer is able to answer questions concerning the purpose of the interview and any misunderstandings experienced by the interviewee;
Interviews are much more suitable for people with limited literacy than a questionnaire;
Interviews have the advantage of providing responses in the form in which respondents think and use language;
Interviews have been characterised as the most effective way of enlisting the co- operation of most populations; and
The quality of data obtained through interviews is usually superior to that obtained by other methods.
Interviews are normally flexible and they provide an interviewer with the opportunity to probe and ask follow-up questions. In so doing, more information and a greater depth can be obtained from an interview than from a questionnaire (Kothari 1990: 98). For these reasons interviews were used in this study. However, interviews tend to be more expensive than questionnaires in terms of time and money because, contrary to an interview, a questionnaire can be mailed.
Interviews used for research purposes can be divided into various different types. According to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000: 270), the number of types of interviews given is frequently a function of the source one reads. Kvale (1996: 126-7) cautioned that interviews differ in the openness of their purpose, their degree of structure, the extent to which they are exploratory or hypothesis-testing, whether they seek description or interpretation and whether they are largely cognitive-focused or emotion-focused. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000:
270), Denzin and Lincoln (2005: 698), Leedy and Ormrod (2005: 146), Robson (2002: 268) explained that the major difference between interviews lies in the degree of structure in the interview which, to some extent, links to the „depth‟ of response sought.
On the basis of the degree of the structure, interviews can be categorised as being structured (where questions are pre-set) or unstructured, where there are no set questions and where the participant, rather than the interviewer, may even set the agenda. Interviews can be semi- structured, which provides a half-way house between the highly rigorous and inflexible fully structured interview and the open-ended and more subjective unstructured interview (Denzin and Lincoln 2005: 698; Ratcliffe 2002: 21).
According to Hannabuss (1996: 23), each of these approaches to interviewing has strengths and weaknesses and each may be more or less suitable for particular types and areas of research. For instance, the highly-structured approach may be good for eliciting information about large numbers of people using a particular service, or for determining people‟s choice of a consumer product, while unstructured interviews tend to be preferable when complex, personal or sensitive issues are being probed. Unstructured interviews provide more breadth than do the other types due to their qualitative nature. These interviews are also known as the qualitative, open-ended, or in-depth (ethnographic) interviews (Denzin and Lincoln 2005:
705; Robson 2002: 270).
A non-structured interview is an open situation, with greater flexibility and freedom.
Although the research purpose governs the questions to be asked, their content, sequence, and wording, they are entirely in the hands of the interviewer (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2000:
273; Leedy and Ormrod 2005: 146; Robson 2002: 270). In this kind of interview, the interviewer has a general area of interest and concern, but lets the conversation develop within this area. The types of interviews that were used to collect data for this study included structured interviews and semi-structured interviews.
4.7.1.1 Structured interviews
In structured interviews, the interviewer asks all the respondents the same series of pre- established questions, with a limited set of response categories (Denzin and Lincoln 2005:
702; Robson 2002: 270). Structured interviews involve asking the same questions in the same way to a large number of respondents. It is the kind of interview in which the content and procedures are organised in advance. In this case, the sequence and wording of the questions
are determined by means of a schedule and the interviewer is left with little freedom to make modifications (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2000: 273; Ratcliffe 2002: 20). A standard set of guidelines is normally employed (Denzin and Lincoln 2005: 702; Hannabuss 1996: 23). The aim of the structured interview is to capture precise data of a codable nature, to explain conduct and performance within the pre-established categories.
For the purpose of this study, structured interviews were conducted with users and non-users of the telecentres. Interviews with users and non-users of the telecentres aimed at answering the following questions:
To what extent do people in the selected rural areas have access to ICTs?
What type of information do people need for their day-to-day livelihoods?
To what extent are ICTs used to facilitate the availability of such information?
For what purposes are the ICTs used by people in these areas?
How important are the ICTs during emergencies, natural disasters or seasonal variations in prices of their agricultural products and food supply?
4.7.1.1.1 The structured interview protocol for users and non-users of the telecentres A structured interview protocol with both closed and open-ended questions was developed to be used for interviewing users and non-users of the telecentres. The interview protocol was structured to solicit information at the household and at the individual level (see Appendix 4.1).
The same interview protocol was designed to solicit data from users and non-users of the telecentres. Users were defined as those who benefited directly from the telecentre, such as those who have a direct contact with the telecentre and those who had visited the telecentre in search of a particular service or information. Non-users were defined as those people who had never visited the telecentre or used any services offered by the telecentre. It includes those who had no direct contact with the telecentre. This category includes the indirect beneficiary of telecentre services, such as those who are community radio listeners only.
In the case of the telephone, users were defined as those who had access of some kind to a telephone, either through ownership, borrowing or sharing with family and friends, or through call centres. The non-users were defined as those who are not using and have never used any kind of phone. This category included those people who have no access of any kind to a phone.
The design of the interview protocol was based on the specific objectives of the study, which brought about the research questions for the study. The interview protocol for users and non- users of ICT services in these areas was structured in the following order:
Sections 1 - 3
Sections 1-3 of the interview protocol allowed the researcher to gather background information of the respondents. The study sought to describe the characteristics of the respondents in three categories, namely personal information, household data and economic status. The personal information consisted of variables such as age, gender, level of education and occupation. Household data includes the relationship of the respondents to the head of the household, the number of people living in the household and the extent to which the household depends on support from family members living elsewhere. The economic status concerned the individual or the household. It consisted of issues such as the principal source of income for the household, housing quality and characteristics and ownership of land, livestock and other things.
The background information was important because it provided data on the basic characteristics of the respondents, such as age, literacy level and occupation. It provided information on the level of wealth or prosperity of the respondents and their access to various capital assets. This information is important for the sustainable livelihoods assessments. The information shed light on access and use pattern of ICTs by the respondents.
Section 4
This section allowed the researcher to gather information on access to ICTs by the respondents. Since the study was conducted in areas where physical access to ICTs was
available in the form of telecentres (and most likely coverage of mobile phones/GSM networks), other criteria for accessibility that is „real access‟ to ICTs criteria (refer to Section 3.13 of Chapter Three) were used. This section provided information that answers research question number three (see Appendix 4.8).
Section 5
This section sought information on use patterns of various ICTs by the people in these areas and on the type of information people needed for their day-to-day livelihoods and the extent to which ICTs are used to facilitate the availability of such information. Section 5 sought information on commonly used means of obtaining and sharing information. It provided answers to research question number four (see Appendix 4.8).