4.5 Methodological approaches
4.5.8 Qualitative methods
This style of investigation concentrated on unquantifiable concepts such as life experiences and perceptions. The strength of adopting a qualitative, participatory approach lies in the ability of the researcher to capture people’s experiences in their own terms and to begin to tease out underlying meanings and processes. Veal (2006) states that the qualitative approach to research is not concerned with numbers, it entails gathering a great deal of information about a small number of people rather than a limited amount of information about a large number of people.
Ryan (1995: 28) argues:
Qualitative research can be a source of ideas, insights and new perspectives upon a problem. Hence, inspite of all the doubts that are expressed as to the ability to generalise from its findings, the problems inherent in interpretation of the meanings and comparative importance of respondents’ comments, and the possible invalidation of responses because of the social dynamics that can occur within small groups, techniques such as focus groups, role play and projection techniques are all commonly used within the commercial sector of the tourism industry. Tour operators have intensively used focus groups to assess the reaction to their brochures, to the nature of destinations, and to help in the formulation of television advertising.
According to Weaver and Lawton (2000), in terms of subject matter qualitative methods usually involves a small number of respondents or observations, but is considered in depth and is
suitable for situations where little is known about the subject matter. The focus was on participatory methods.
4.5.8.1 Participatory methods
Jobbins (2004) states that Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) was developed as a deliberate reaction to “flying visit” research which was supported by specialists who were on brief missions. This PRA approach which was used by outside experts was thought to result in biased conclusions owing to a lack of understanding of local knowledge and perspectives (Jobbins, 2004). The core process is to enable participants to share their perceptions of problems, to find common ground and then to engage a range of people in identifying and testing out some possible solutions (Laws et al., 2003). Mitchell (2002) contends that PRA requires local people to undertake their own investigations, to develop solutions and to implement action. PRA has a better chance of developing solutions to problems, for the reason that it actively involves those community members who best understand and have the greatest stake in the issues at hand (Laws et al., 2003). There is a need to be transparent about what the participation process can actually achieve and why it should not unnecessarily raise stakeholders’ expectations of control over the outcome (Milligan et al., 2009).
Participants’ local knowledge such as common sense, wisdom and expertise that is inherent in their traditional, indigenous or popular knowledge is valued and respected (Hill and Birch- Thomsen, 2005). Jobbins (2004) states that by integrating with communities over long periods of time researchers can better deal with problems such as trust, understanding local perspectives on issues, negotiating local micro-politics and power relations.
Mikkelsen (1995) contends that the overruling principle of PRA is to use your own best judgement at all times. Laws et al. (2003) brings up an important point that researchers need to be conscious of the impact of their own attitudes, behaviour and feelings and to have a commitment to hand over power and initiative to others. Chambers (1994: 1254) provided a set of principles that were specific to PRA and these are:
• They do it. The intention is to facilitate investigation, analysis, presentation and overall learning by local people so that they generate and own the results and learn from them.
• Self-critical analysis. Facilitators continuously assess their own behaviour, acknowledging and accepting that they will make mistakes and seek to learn from failures.
• Personal responsibility. Practitioners take personal responsibility for decisions and actions and do not look to the authority of manuals or rules for PRA.
• Sharing. Information and ideas are shared openly among local people, among them and external facilitators and among different PRA practitioners.
Laws et al. (2003) state that the main aim in PRA is empowerment and the key to participatory research is to make links between local communities and the larger policy framework. Milligan et al. (2009) assert that PRA is a tool requiring careful preparation and thoughtful evaluation.
Some consideration needs to be given to the potential costs involved, for example, the time the participatory process may take to function effectively and the costs of allocating staff to the process (Milligan et al., 2009). Mikkelsen (1995) asserts that each PRA situation is unique given that people who participate have unique problems, cultural contexts, ideas and understanding of issues. The personnel at Ezulwini Private Park and Tala Private Park guided the researcher about where to find diverse groups of individuals from within the local community. Various respondents were chosen from diverse social and economic profiles to ensure representativeness of the local communities near to Ezulwini Private Park and Tala Private Park. Kreuger (1988:
18) defines a focus group as a "carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions in a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment". Furthermore, Knodel (1993 cited in Borghi et al., 2007: 531) states that focus groups are a more straight forward approach to explore a broad spectrum of individual views. The focus groups (2 in total one in each rural community under study) followed a schedule of key issues to discuss and specific participatory exercises or activities. Participatory exercises carried out in this study were ranking exercises, mental mapping and venn diagrams. The focus groups were conducted with eight people per group in each community. The focus groups comprised of respondents of diverse gender, age, education levels and disabilities.
4.5.8.1.1 Venn diagrams
Mitchell (2002) suggests that venn diagrams assist in identifying individuals and organisations that are important to the community and their relationships can be depicted diagrammatically.
Bob (1999) refers to venn diagrams as visual models used to represent the role of individuals, institutions and the degree of importance in decision-making. They can also be referred to as
‘chapatti’ diagrams which are visual representations of the diverse power structures that the community perceives to be influencing decisions at the community level. The circles represent each structure and the overlapping of circles displays the relationship between the structures. The larger the circle, the greater the perceived influence. The overlapping of circles is indicative that they overlap in respect of membership and/ or decision-making (Mikkelsen, 1995). This technique assisted the researcher to comprehend the roles of the local and outside organisations and the perceptions that people have about them. Venn diagrams were used by the researcher as an instrument to demonstrate which institutions are the most important and who participates in what and is represented by whom. In terms of ecotourism, venn diagrams visually illustrate the power and decision-making structures.
4.5.8.1.2 Ranking exercise
According to Bob (1999), pair-wise ranking and scoring are tools for recognising issues of concern, their causes and prioritising these problems. Mikkelsen (1995) points out that ranking and scoring have long been used to assess people’s expectations, beliefs, judgements, attitudes, preferences and opinions. Theis and Grady (1991) state that ranking exercises can be used to ensure that the problems of less powerful groups are at least thrashed out and acted upon.
Ranking and scoring is effective in obtaining sensitive information (Mikkelsen, 1995).
In this research context, groups from the local community adjacent to Ezulwini Private Park and Tala Private Park contributed in the problem-ranking exercises using pair-wise ranking and scoring. The focus group in each community compiled a list of all the problems experienced by them. A matrix was used within each of the communities and each problem was weighted against another. The first step entailed identifying and extracting the issues that are facing the communities. Prior to the actual ranking, the problems experienced were discussed fully.
Respondents were aware that different groups within the communities experienced various problems and some are better off than others. The problems were listed and then scored and
ranked in order of their importance to the communities. This exercise made the researcher aware of the problems faced by communities living near private Parks.
4.5.8.1.3 Mental mapping
According to Kong (1998), mapping is commonly conducted among people who belong to the same community and know each other, not simply for convenience of organisation or to enable triangulation of responses, but to facilitate post-exercise action among group members.
Participants work in focus or peer groups, for example, a group of unemployed males, one for female household heads, another for divorced men. These exclusive groupings enable the participants to share experiences and develop ideas independently of those with different competing personalities (Ashby, 1996). Essentially, the respondents are able to see the results of the research immediately provided the researcher or facilitator affords them an opportunity to analyse and discuss the map themselves. Bob (1999) indicates that mental maps are crucial to geography and participatory methodologies since they can focus on different aspects of rural life for example social issues, health, wealth, social stratification, livestock and economic activities.
Khanyile (2002) states that resource mapping, which can illustrate different natural resources, assists the communities and experts to understand how different segments see the communities’
resources and how they differ from outsiders’ perceptions.
Mental mapping exercises were carried out within each of the focus groups in this study to develop an understanding of how the local communities perceive their relationship with Ezulwini Private Park and Tala Private Park. The maps were drawn on the floor using large posters and coloured pens. Spatial methods such as mental mapping aids in team building and can form the basis for conflict resolution and addressing differences of opinions (Khanyile, 2002). An important advantage of mental maps is that it can be made with great ease anywhere, and focus groups within communities can carry on with their tasks. Maps can be drawn on the ground and translated onto paper or photographed. Thus, respondents are able to see the mental map and are able to picture the researcher’s interpretation of the discussions.