In the present study, primary data was collected using semi-structured interviews, in-depth interviews techniques and focus group discussion. Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion were held with farmers while in-depth interviews were held with agricultural officers and the programme manager.
4.11.1 Semi-Structured and In-depth Interviews
In contrast to structured interviews, semi-structured interviews have a set of basic questions and procedures, but greater freedom is given to the interviewer on how to treat his/her respondents and in modifying the order of questions (Ractliffe 2002: 21; Robson 2002:270).
Semi-structured interviews are mostly used in qualitative analysis (de Zeeuw and Wilbers 2004:8; Gray 2004:215). The preference for semi-structured interviews in qualitative studies
115
is that they are useful in obtaining information on a specific or general topic, to analyse problems and opportunities or to discuss plans, as well as to elicit perceptions (de Zeeuw and Wilbers 2004:8). They are flexible and they are thus likely to yield information that the researcher had not planned to ask for (Marshall and Rossman 1999:108; Bryman 2004:321;
Gray 2004; Leedy and Ormrod 2005:137).
Data from trained and untrained farmers was collected, using researcher-administered semi- structured interviews. The research instrument was researcher-administered, as most of the people in rural areas are illiterate and cannot read or write. The study interviewed 50 trained and 34 untrained farmers from Maluga and Chibelela villages out of 76 trained and 45 untrained farmers who were initially targeted. The untrained farmers from Maluga and Chibelela villages were interviewed until saturation was reached. This decision is supported by the fact that in qualitative studies it is imperative to have a sample size consisting of information-rich cases (Holloway 1997:142). In supporting this view, Leedy and Ormrod (2005:96) indicated that in qualitative research researchers tend to identify and select a few participants who will best enlighten them on the phenomenon under investigation.
Patton (1990:185) explains that in qualitative studies the trustworthiness and importance of data generated depend largely on the information richness of selected cases and the analytical capabilities of the researcher, rather than on sample size. An interview schedule for trained farmers was used to record, the type of information and knowledge farmers received, how the information was packaged, how they accessed and used information and the methods they applied to mitigate the effects of climate change and variability. Another interview schedule was researcher-administered to untrained farmers, to solicit information on the level of adoption of information on climate change and variability and how information/knowledge on climate change and variability was packaged and disseminated to them and by whom. The rationale for involving untrained farmers was to compare their adoption practices in relation to information on climate change and variability with those of the trained farmers, as well as their attitudes to accessing and using information on climate change and variability.
In-depth interviews were employed with the agricultural extension officers and CCAA programme manager. An in-depth interview with the agricultural extension officer sought to solicit information on the types of information on climate change and variability disseminated to farmers, how farmers sought information for adaptation to climate change and variability,
116
how information was packaged and disseminated to farmers, what methods farmers applied to mitigate the effects of climate change and variability and how farmers accessed and used information on climate change and variability. The information gathered from the programme manager encompassed how training was delivered, the progress and challenges which emerged with regard to the information packaging and dissemination process. Others were the perception of the programme manager on the level of adoption by farmers and barriers to access and use of information on climate change and variability in the selected villages.
4.11.2 Focus Group Discussions
The focus group discussion (FGD) method is described as a means of obtaining information from people in a group on a specific topic raised by a researcher (Bryman 2004:345; Bryman 2008:473; Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2011:436). A group is typically made up of people who share a similar type of experience, but is not ‘naturally’ constituted as an existing social group (Terre Blanche, Durrheim and Painter 2006:304). The group composition of participants is six to eight interviewees (Creswell 2003:186; Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009), six to twelve (Krueger 1994:78), six to ten (Litoselliti 2003:6) and at least four (Bryman 2008:473).
One advantage of the focus groups is that the accuracy of the information and the rate at which it is generated is higher in groups than in individual interviews (Grenier 1998; Babbie 2004; Bryman 2008:475). Another advantage is gaining access to understanding the differences between people whom we might previously have thought as a homogeneous group sharing a common experience (Terre Blanche, Durrheim and Painter 2006:304). Focus groups are flexible and produce validated data and speedy results (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2011:436). They also capture real-life data in a social environment (Krueger 1988:47; Marshall and Rossman 1999: 115; Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2011:165). They are important because the group develops its own conversation, raising issues and ideas that might not emerge in a discussion with the interviewer alone (Cohen, Manion and Morrison 2000:288; Bryman 2008:475; Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2011:164).
In this study FGDs were carried out in each village under study. The FGDs were made up of village elderly people, village government leaders, influential people in the village and farmers. This was done in order to gain understanding of how they perceived climate change and variability and the effectiveness of adaptation practices. The focus groups also helped the
117
researcher to obtain information on trends in climate change and variability over the past years. The focus group, through group discussion and brain-storming, is expected to provide clarification and understanding of factors affecting access and use of information on adaptation to climate change and variability and knowledge generation, use and sharing of climate change and variability knowledge among farmers. The FGD is one of the best methods for seeking clarification on issues perceived by people.