CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.1.4 Qualitative research methodology
A qualitative approach to research is used in this study. I considered the qualitative data most suited for the following reasons:
1. It tells the story behind the numbers and brings out the meanings depicted by the numbers which may be left untold when using quantitative methodology.
2. It allows for in-depth and detailed understanding of the presented issues through probing.
According to Patton (2005), qualitative research analyses data direct from the field work observations, in-depth open-ended interviews, case studies, context analysis and written documents. It is often regarded as “soft science”, unscientific and rather more exploratory and subjective (Denzin, 1997). Qualitative research is not only useful as the first stage of quantitative research, but can also play a key role in ‘validating’ it or in providing a different viewpoint on the same social phenomena (Pope and Mays, 2008). Though positivists argue that qualitative research is fictional, a soft science and subjective (Hammersley, 2005) and there is no way of verifying the truth as it is based on lived experiences, it remains the most suited for research that seeks to explore issues of power relations and these have a bearing on gender.
The merits of qualitative research in understanding household gender dynamics outweigh the shortfalls. Qualitative research is a field in its own right and cuts across disciplines and subject matter. It locates the observer in the world, and consists of a set of interpretive naturalistic approach to the world (Flick, 2002). It builds on life stories, introspection, experiences and interactional discussions that are engaging. It also uses interpretive practises to get a better understanding of the subject at hand. The method uses triangulation which Flick, (2002) describes “not as a tool or a strategy of validation but an alternate to validation” (p.227).
Qualitative research allows participants to express their own opinions freely thus enabling researchers to better understand the way women and men reason differently. Qualitative
91 research is often conflated with participatory research, but the defining aspect of participatory research is that participants are active and involved all the way (Chambers, 2004). The analysis in qualitative research takes different forms which are deemed relevant for exploring complexities. This can be by theme or issues. In this study I chose to present the findings by themes which emerged during the discussion (i.e. access to resources-land, finance, extension;
household decision making). I was also guided by the emic perspective which Merriam (2009, p.10) describes as a perspective “that typically represents the internal language and meanings of a defined culture.” In this instance, culture is regarded broadly. Regardless of how a culture's scope is defined, "an emic perspective attempts to capture participants' indigenous meanings of real-world events" (Yin, 2010, p.11) and "looks at things through the eyes of members of the culture being studied" (Willis, 2007, p.100). The thematic focus and protracted engagement enabled me to interrogate specific issues related to the cultural background influencing the language and responses provided by the participants.
The defining aspect of qualitative data is that it is subjective (Sarakatos, 2009). It is concerned with the perspective of the researcher and brings the researcher close to the subjects, it is flexible and can be adapted according to the context, mutually constructed between researcher and subject. It sets the researcher close to reality, studies reality from the inside, employs open- ended questions and flexible research designs, captures the world in action, employs naturalistic methods, and analyses data during and after collection. Qualitative research is characterised by an interpretative paradigm, which emphasizes subjective experiences and the meanings of these for individuals (Sarakatos, 2009).
Quantitative research, on the other hand, grounded in the positivist approach, emphasises the importance of widespread generalisability of data; it provides information that can be more readily compared across regions, socio-economic categories or over time. It claims objectivity and attempts to remove the researcher’s views, and values from the subject, it emphasises cause and effect linkages and is based on a model of the physical sciences and on strict, inflexible rules, and distances itself from subjects. It uses closed questions and more closed research designs, captures still pictures of the world, employs scientific statistical methods, analyses data only after collection is completed, and chooses pre-determined methods before the study commences.
92 Oakley (2009) argues that quantitative research tends to deliver statistics cheaply and quickly though she argues, it has been important in “the very charting of women’s oppression” which she argues required quantification” (p.19). She argues statistics are important for understanding for example, women’s participation in education against that of men, women’s unpaid work and participation in labour markets. That can only be obtained through quantitative research.
The goal with quantitative research, she argues is for ‘democratisation of ways of knowing and also synthesis of these so that the focus is on choosing the right method for the research question”. In this regard the quantitative studies achieved a specific purpose and were able to be used to agitate for women’s inclusion in development. Quantitative research assumes that social reality is external to the researcher. Its gold standard is the experiment which entails controlling the environment so that intervening variables do not contaminate the research. This is criticised by constructivists who, according to Humphries (2008), argue that research based on the physical sciences are not appropriate for the study of human beings and the meanings and interpretations that people attach to events. Methods to capture this must be naturalistic e.g. observation. A constructivist paradigm recognises the existence of multiple perceptions and plurality of world views. Constructivists believe that people being researched know their situations and the task of the researcher is to find ways of making that knowledge available.
Going beyond the quantitative data gathering, qualitative research then becomes relevant for understanding the realities that women and men farmers face. From this perspective, there does not have to be a competition as to what is empirically acceptable but rather a recognition that quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method research are separate research methodologies suited for different contexts. In this context, the most suitable study methodology for the study was the qualitative one.
Quantitative and qualitative should not be considered a substitute for the other but should augment each other (Humphries, 2008). Gendron (2001) even suggests the possibility of complementary methods with a note that approaches that may be fundamentally different and even antagonistic may interact to contribute to innovative research and these should be supported. According to Sagadin (2004) qualitative and quantitative results should complement each other to create a meaningful whole according to the object and purpose of the
93 investigation. Despite the emerging views of the complementarity of quantitative and qualitative research, in addressing issues of gender, the more suited and preferred research method remains the qualitative, constructivist model which is hinged on critical research theory.