their full participation in indigenous water management projects. Qualitative research methods can lead to context-specific strategies for individuals and collective change, and they can also improve the research process (Kemmis and McTaggart 2008). Qualitative research also allowed me to empathise with the thoughts and emotions of women regarding their participation and involvement in indigenous water management in their community. Maruja (2001) further argued that qualitative research methods bring to bear new topics which are not initially considered by creating openness in the qualitative design which allows for an expansion of responses. In the social world, qualitative research highlights the benefits of interpretation and observation (Kemmis and McTaggart 2008) by bringing researchers into the inner and secret experiences of the participants and by determining how meanings are formed through and in culture. Also they enable a researcher to discover rather than test variables (Creswell 2009). When attempting to probe the underlying motivator for human behaviour, Lewandowski (2000) therefore states that qualitative research is definitely important in this type of investigation. Qualitative research methods allowed for an in-depth and comparative understanding with the quantitative method about the perspectives of the study population and the context of their livelihood with respect to indigenous water management. The research paradigm can be broken down into three major dimensional research processes, which are ontology, epistemology and methodology (Terreblanche and Durrheim 1998). Terreblanche and Durrheim (1998) noted that these processes enabed analytical strategising for integration of structure with process. According to Olson et al.
(1993), these paradigms can be described as patterns, structures and frameworks or as systems of scientific and academic ideas, values and assumptions.
Feminist principles and a gender-based ‘participatory paradigm’ of research methodologies have also been used throughout this study (Prokopy 2004). McCormick (2013, 22-23) argues that feminist studies’ methodologies and approaches have been able to advocate that feminist research
objectivity’ and by sustaining their claims that feminist research cannot be ‘value-free’. More importantly, as argued by McCormick (2013), establishing female culture and experience in feminist research would create a better awareness of the potential and possibilities of researchers becoming oppressive. Feminist research methodology, therefore, by the establishment of non- hierarchical ‘researcher-researched relations’, expresses an obligation to challenge ‘power differentials’ (Msimang, 2002). The practices and approaches in the indigenous water management investigation of this study demonstrated that women are hardly allowed to be a part of men-dominated rural community water management. Therefore, the use of feminist research, which is probing the experiences of women, and the ‘gender-based participatory paradigm (GBPP) is very appropriate for this study as it “would help to understand the new institutional structures introduced under gender-equity and whose models are based on participatory models of local governance by seeking to balance out the inequalities and by presenting a platform where women can be organised alongside men and be allowed to express their opinions as well as contribute effectively in decision-making processes” (Elmhirst and Resurreccion 2008, 3-22).
Furthermore, feminist research and GBPP are suitable in researching rural and indigenous water management practice because although GBPP, according to Blackburn et al. (2000), emphasises that participation is conceptualised as representative of partnership and ownership which is a
‘bottom–up’ approach, unlike the “feminist research … having no single set of fixed research guiding principle or methods nor have feminists fixed definition of feminist research” (Madriz 2000, 835-850). “Empirical feminist research is guided by feminist theory” (Reinharz and Davidman 1992, 249). Brayton, in her essay (1997, 3) in an attempt to provide a shape for feminist research, states that: “It has become obvious that what makes feminist research different and stand out is that, feminist are the motives, concerns and knowledge brought to the research process, which was observed after reading through a wide range of feminist research papers as well as feminist articles on methods and methodology.”
Brayton (1997) highlights that specific themes are always seen when authors attempt to define feminist research. She therefore argues that, although there is no globally accepted standard over what makes feminist research, “as defining features to feminist research, many writers seem to draw upon certain elements” (Brayton 1997, 2). She therefore deduces that research that studies women and research that attends to gender can be distinguished from each other in using the features of feminist research, which is different from traditional social sciences research.
3.4.1 Interviews
Interviews augmented the FGDs and survey questionnaires. The in-depth interviews assisted in obtaining detailed information about the effect of the interviewees’ perceptions and behaviours with respect to gendered indigenous water management in the delivery of potable water in Ondo rural communities. Unstructured interviews were used during the research procedure. Individual in-depth interviews were held with five males and five female participants from each of the three rural communities, totalling 30 participants including the key informants across the research sites.
The individual in-depth interviews, which lasted between 40-50 minutes (per interviewee), were conducted across the research sites some at interviewees’ homes (mostly women), on farms (especially for the men) and a few at the village centres (depending on participant preference).
Interviews were recorded; however, when an interviewee appeared uneasy with this, the researcher resorted to taking field notes. The key informants were drawn from key government officials in the ministry of local governance, the ministry of water and natural resources, from extension workers, chiefs and the village heads (Poggie 1972, 23-30); this was useful in substantiating data gathered using the main data collection techniques. Gatekeeper permission was solicited here. During an interview, a researcher questions the research participant on a certain subject. An interview can take various forms (e.g. informal conversations, general
telephone interviews). Limitations to this kind of data collection are firstly that participants may be taken out of their natural spheres which can provide indirect information (participant observation). Also, there may be bias in the response due to the researcher’s presence (Creswell, 2003).
These limitations in this research were minimised by undertaking all the interviews in the individual villages or home-settings of the interviewees, and in using the interviews in combination with data collected from the questionnaire. Interviewing has been successfully used in a number of water-related areas, including ‘water usage’ studies (Katsi et al. 2007),
‘management of water’ (Machingambi and Manzungu 2003), ‘gender and water’ (O'Reilly 2006, Laurie, 2005), ‘water availability’ (Hersch-Martinez, Gonzalez-Chevez and Alvarez 2004;
O’Hara, Hannan and Genina 2008), ‘water and sanitation needs’ (Bapat and Agarwal 2003), and
‘water improvement projects’ (Laurie and Marvin 1999). In this study, interviews were used to add in-depth and detailed information to the questionnaire data (completeness) and to answer queries that arose from this data (explanation). Specific interviews were undertaken with farmers and with the head of each village to add context to specific areas, such as that determining the level of gender awareness and participation in the indigenous water management available in the community. The interviews were semi-structured and took place at the interviewee’s farms and homes. Unstructured interviews and informal conversations were undertaken with the gatekeeper, a local woman, a local man, or the local government official at the water treatment plant. The data from these interviews were used to develop the questionnaire (method development), build on the context of the study gained from other methods (completeness), and to explain the findings generated through other means, such as passive observation and the questionnaire (triangulation).
See Table 3.2 for a summary of the justification for using mixed methodology (adapted from Bryman 2008).
3.4.2 Focus Group Discussions
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) dealt with the major limitations of the surveys and unstructured interviews, by providing an opportunity to encourage respondents to talk and interact with one another. A Focus Group Discussion a formal way of getting groups of people to discuss selected issues. The FGDs in this research comprised eight males and eight female dwellers most of whom were drawn from the participants of the in-depth interviews or the surveys. In each of the three communities, there were two FGDs, one of eight males and one of eight females held at village centres. FGDs between the males and females were conducted separately in all the study communities to gather experiences around the gender sensitivity of the community in indigenous water management as this affected practices and sustainability.