4.4 Research methodology
4.4.6 Phase 2: Qualitative techniques
Qualitative data was collected to complement Quantitative data, after the implementation of the property owner questionnaire survey providing rich detailed data. Thus, qualitative techniques (four focus group discussions, 10 key stakeholder interviews, observations and document analysis) were used to explore further the same issues that were addressed by the quantitative technique. Participatory approaches were integrated into focus group discussions to aid in collecting geographical information.
Participatory approach to research is an approach where the local people, as subjects of the research, are recognised as having the knowledge being sought after through their experiences and therefore they are empowered to share that knowledge with the researcher (Bennett and Roberts, 2004; Abdullah et al., 2012). Thus, by acknowledging that people with experiences of the phenomenon under study possess the knowledge, the researcher is able to effectively collect the data which is the ‘reality’ as constructed by the locals. The local people are therefore viewed as the owners of knowledge and so the researcher through facilitation enables them to share it (Abdullah et al., 2012). In addition, the researcher can use PRA techniques such as mapping in trying to understand “boundaries, nature and scope potential research projects” (Krishnaswamy, 2004: 7). PRA is a research method where a researcher facilitates the local community in sharing information and by doing so the community engages with the researcher in collecting, presenting data as well as analysis (Bhandari, 2003; Abdullah et al., 2012). In this study, PRA technique of mental maps was integrated into focus group discussions to understand the changes that have occurred in natural resources (vegetation and animal life) of the GGEP open space for the years between 2010 and 2012. Mental maps are maps printed on paper on which participants in focus group discussions
can write geographical information desired by the researcher (Gaillard et al., 2013). Thus for this study, the researcher printed a map outline of the GGEP on an A3 size paper. Using the A3 map outline, the stakeholders indicated on the map which natural resource areas they thought had changed and the reasons for the changes were captured.
DeWalt and DeWalt (2011: 1) define an observation as a “method where a researcher takes part in the daily activities, rituals, interactions, and events of a group of people as one of the means of learning the explicit and tacit aspects of their life routines and their culture.” An observation can be formal where the researcher uses a guide as an instrument or informal where the researcher becomes the instrument (Petty et al., 2012). In this study, observations were used to elicit data on the current state and uses of natural resources in the GGEP area using the researcher as an instrument. Observations were also carried out to determine some of the natural resource contestations.
According to Petty et al. (2012: 381), document analysis entails the review of “written documents that may take the form of textbooks, articles, notes, minutes of meetings, archives but may also include photographs, drawings, pictures, television programmes.” It is the review of documents with the intention to extract desired facts or information (Owen, 2013). Some documents maybe relevant as part of data needed to answer a research problem and in this study, document analysis was done to collect data used in quantitative and qualitative analyses. Thus, secondary data collected included the aerial photographs, GGEP management activity log-book and the GGEP property owner contact list. The aerial photographs were used in quantitative data analysis in determining changes in the GGEP open space resources. The GGEP management activity log-book was used to extract qualitative data incorporated into analysis of changes in the GGEP open space resources while the GGEP contact list was used in administering the questionnaire to all GGEP property owners.
Determining the impact of the GGEP project on the open space ecosystems was important because it has implications on stakeholder interest in supporting the GGEP project now and in the future. GIS was used together with aerial photographs to calculate the area of the GGEP open space which had undergone changes over the period 2010 to 2012. According to Folger (2009: 1), GIS is a “computer system capable of capturing, storing, analysing, and displaying geographically referenced information. Thus, GIS enables the researcher to create interactive queries, analyse spatial information, edit data, maps and present the results of all these operations in real time” (Schatz et al., 2013: 25). Benedikt et al. (2002: 152) assert that GIS uses “…digital data layers, elevation models, satellite images, expert systems and related open source information for planning, detection, evaluation and decision-making.” Thus, this technique uses digital
maps or images to display large amounts of data in general (such as economic, geographic or political data).
Petty et al. (2012) assert that a focus group discussion involves a group of about six to ten homogenous or heterogeneous people brought together to discuss a particular topic under the facilitation of the researcher.
A focus group can be useful in soliciting various perceptions about a research topic from a given sample (Petty et al., 2012). In this study, focus group discussions were conducted with the Tshelimnyama community to understand natural resource harvest practices used by the traditional healers and non- traditional healers. In addition, a focus group discussion was conducted with the GGEP property owners to solicit more details on issues arising from the questionnaire survey.
Semi structured interview allows the researcher to use open-ended questions for the purpose of soliciting in depth and instinctive responses from the interviewee (Gilbert, 2008; Ryan et al., 2009). According to Galletta (2013: 24), a semi structured interview “is sufficiently structured to address specific topics related to the phenomenon of study, while leaving space for participants to offer new meanings to the study focus.” In this study, semi structured interviews with key informants were conducted to follow up on issues arising from the questionnaire survey, focus group discussions and observations of the state of natural resources in the GGEP open space. The following highlights the issues probed from each group of informants,
The GGEP property owners provided insight into ecosystem changes in the GGEP open space before and after the start of the GGEP project, split-zoning, SRA rates, and natural resource use and contestations;
The eThekwini Municipality personnel provided information on the GGEP open space, land ownership, split-zoning, GGEP project and funding for the GGEP project;
The Real Estate Agents provided background information on property value trends before and after the 2008 global recession, and behaviour of property buyers and sellers in GGEP;
The GGEP project manager provided insight into the ecosystem management practices in the GGEP;
Tshelimnyama traditional healers’ leaders provided insight into the natural resource harvesting practices used by Tshelimnyama traditional healers; and,
Silverglen personnel (education officer) provided information on the education programmes initiated by the eThekwini Municipality in helping to curb unsustainable harvesting of natural resources for medicinal purposes.
Table 4.4 highlights the research methods and techniques employed in this study. It also provides insight into stakeholder groups targeted by each technique and the numbers of stakeholders that participated. The composition of the key informant interviews in this study is also highlighted in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Research techniques, methods, and research areas Instrument Key Research
area
Method Stakeholder group and number targeted
Appendices Questionnaire Changes in
resource abundance, perceptions of stakeholders
Perceptual analysis
150 property owners however only 75 responded
1
Focus group discussion (size eight participants)
current uses of resources
Perceptual analysis, Focus group
discussion guide and Participatory approaches of mental mapping
Three focus group discussions Tshelimnyama community members traditional healers One focus group discussion with Tshelimnyama general community members One focus group discussion with GGEP property owners
2
Key informant interviews
Follow up on issues arising from other instruments
Semi structured interview guide
Three property owners, One eThekwini Municipality personnel,
Two Real Estate Agents, One GGEP project manager Two Tshelimnyama traditional healers’ leaders
One Silverglen personnel (education officer)
3
Observations Current uses of natural resources
Three field resource observations 22 February 2011
18 November 2012
11 December 2012
GGEP open space Not
applicable
Document analysis
Impact of the GGEP project on property value
Proximate premium analysis
GGEP properties Not
applicable GGEP
management activities
Calculating the area of changes within the GGEP open space
GGEP open space