CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.4 Data collection
5.4.2 Research Instruments
The research instruments used were in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and case study. These are discussed below.
5.4.2.1 In depth semi- structured interview guide
Various types of interviews have been developed and employed by researchers in different disciplines. However, the basic building block of all forms of interviewing in general is the question-answer sequence (Roulston, 2010). Taking this into consideration and based on literature that I had reviewed, I developed and pre-tested a semi-structured open ended guide (attached as an annex 2) which I administered to the participants. This decision was also informed by Dörnyei (2007) who recommended that open-ended questions be piloted in advance. After the pre-test, I adjusted the interview guide to include the cooperative aspects of household chores. This was because men were of the view that their roles within the households needed to be amplified to show the cooperative nature of the distribution of chores.
An in-depth semi structured interview was used to guide the discussions with the women and men farmers. I was of the view that the use of a structured form would, as Bryman (2008) argued, hinder the depth and richness of the responses. I conducted three in-depth interviews with each participant. For the participants that I identified for case studies, I added two additional interview meetings each. As Francis, Johnston and Robertson (2010) have observed, in interview studies, sample size is often justified by interviewing participants until reaching 'data saturation'. Through the interviews, I was satisfied I had managed to reach a level of data saturation when the interviews no longer yielded new information. This was in recognition of the principles proposed by Francis et al (2010) in which each interview no longer yielded new ideas and information.
I sought to ensure the interviews flowed naturally, were rich in detail (Dörnyei (200, p.140) by adhering to his advice of keeping interruptions to the minimum and giving the participants as much time as necessary to elaborate and explain any particular issue. Robson (2011, p.282) also advised on the importance of “putting questions in a straightforward, clear and non-
105 threatening way” which is crucial for the interviewee’s accurate answers. I took time to apply this and listened to the responses without interrupting the flow of the participants’ responses to my questions. I was also careful not to provide any cues which would lead participants to respond in a particular way and this is a caution from Robson (2011. p.282).
Basing on Wildschut (2011) who implores interviewers to be critical, knowledgeable, sensitive, and open, I was also very cognisant of the circumstances of the participants. For instance, on a number of occasions, I had to sit and wait for them to finish off household chores as I did not want to disrupt their routines. I also watched for non-verbal cues. These are of merit as according to Robson (2011) they may help the interviewer to understand the message being given. This was common when I was talking to a woman and the husband entered the interview room (round kitchen). This usually signified he wanted something from his wife and in such instances, I would suggest we took a break. In summary, the interview is “…a narrative device which allows persons who are so inclined to tell stories about themselves” (Denzin, 2001, p.25). Moreover, it is a tool that brings contextual meaningful information to the real world (Denzin, 2001). The interview provided me with the time and opportunity to engage with the participants in order to, as Rubin and Rubin (2005, p.134) say, “unravel the complexity of other people’s worlds”. Bryman (2008) states that interviews are more flexible than any other qualitative method. This merit makes interviews striking to be employed. Interviews are an excellent way to obtain insight into social issues by exploring the individuals’ experience regarding these issues (Seidman, 2012).
I obtained written permission to record the interviews after which these were transcribed verbatim to ensure the trustworthiness of the data. Interviews were conducted in ChiShona and then transcribed and translated into English. Quality of the translation was assured by the iterative engagement where I confirmed with the participants that I had effectively translated.
They were all literate and understood English but preferred that the interviews be conducted in their mother tongue. Nikander (2008) noted that transcribing discussions from various interactional contexts such as interviews into a written form is an integral part of qualitative research practice. Transcripts are produced for particular analytic purposes and therefore range in detail. Chambers (2004) noted that the validity and importance of audio-recording allows for re-play of the discussion in cases where there are doubts as to what was said. The
106 experiences of participants were the central entry point for the data analysis. As Alsaawi (2014) implored, I was ready and prepared by having my recorder at hand. In addition to the recording, I also took detailed field notes. There was no manipulation of their environment; rather they were able to tell their story from a safe space of their homes with which they were familiar.
Some criticism of interviews has been radical, objecting to any reliance on people’s accounts in interviews “as a window on to the social worlds in which they live and/or as a window into their minds” (Allen and Unwin, 1969, p. 53). According to Hofisi, and Mago (2014), weaknesses of in-depth interviews are that their “flexibility may imply that they are not reliable and they also need highly skilled interviewers apart from the fact that they consume both time and financial resources. Their subjectivity may mean that participants may “say” what the interviewer wants to hear, therefore, the validity and reliability of the interview data may be questionable” (p.62).
Interviews are also influenced by personal understandings and knowledge. Here, there is rejection of the idea that what people say somehow represents, or derives from, what goes on inside their heads. Interviews have also been questioned based on whether information generated represents ‘external’ reality or ‘internal’ subjective reality. Here, even accounts of what happened in some publicly observable situations are treated not as true or false, but rather as constitutive - as producing one of many possible versions of reality. Ethnographic interviews are aimed to examine descriptions and meanings that participants ascribe to events in their cultural world (Roulston, 2010). Phenomenological interviews explore participants’
experience, in particular, their meaning-making process of the lived experience (Seidman, 2013). These arguments do not generally lead to rejection of the use of interview data in standard ways, but amount simply to warnings about the limits to what could be inferred from such data. The usual implication is that interviews must be combined with other methods.
Because of these reservations, in addition to interviews, other data gathering techniques, discussed below were used.
5.4.2.2. Focus group discussion (FGD) Guide
Focus group discussion involves a brainstorming focus group of usually six to twelve participants (Dörnyei, 2007). It can generate “high quality data” which is useful for the interviewer. Participants can challenge, argue and debate with each other, and this technique
107 usually leads to the emergence of in-depth and rich data (p.144). Carey (1994) stated that focus groups are the best approach for sensitive topics. It is an enjoyable experience for the participants, and applicable for illiterate people (Robson, 2011). As suggested by Dörnyei (2007), I set up the FGC in advance. A guide, separate from the in-depth interview guide was developed and used for the focus group discussions. I identified a female and male lead farmer with whom I communicated on the times and meeting points for the discussions. The number of questions tends to be fewer than those in the other types of interviews. Also, confidentiality is an issue with this approach (Robson, 2011). Focus group discussion were structured so there were two for women only farmers, two for men only farmers and 1 for mixed group of women and men farmers. Women tend to be reserved in groups that are combined with men which is why a separate group for them was specifically created. FGDs provided the participants with an opportunity to validate each other’s responses. Robson (2011) argued some may not open up for fear of being victimised and there may be a tendency for conformity. I was cognisant of this and made efforts to ensure that in all the discussions, all the members had an opportunity to participate. I also took into consideration non-verbal cues during interviews and group discussions. Participants in the FGD were those that had already been identified for the in- depth interviews.
5.4.2.3 Observation
I also used of the observation method, as all interviews were conducted via home visits and the farming plots. Observation was used to consider food availability through the presence of farm produce, food in storage and general household status. This was possible because I had gained entry, and established rapport with the participants. The intention was to verify responses given around issues to do with the food they had available in the household, any inputs available and assets they had. Based on the rapport established, I anticipated the participants would also have other off farm activities which they might wish to share. All observations were based on the principles of “no harm and risk”, honesty, trust, privacy and confidentiality. Dewalt and Dewalt (2002) noted that observation adds validity to a study as it allows for deeper understanding of unspoken messages.
5.4.2.4 Literature review
Literature review of existing literature on gender and agriculture was conducted. This was drawn mainly from the KwaZulu Natal University library, the internet and field experience.
This provided me with rich information that also assisted in the refinement of the research questions and objectives.
108 5.4.2.5 Case study
To document case studies, I identified a lead farmer household and a widowed woman. In the initial plan for data gathering, I had not included a case study. However, as I interacted with the participants, I decided it would be interesting to get an in-depth story of two farmers. I identified these farmers after a number of home visits with them and found they had deep interesting stories to share.
Case study involves a series of semi-structured interviews and in some instances, having household discussions with family members. I decided to do a case study to allow for a more in depth anlysis and understanding of two households. The case study approach has particular salience for social work. As Fook (2002) asserted, awareness of the social context and its importance in understanding individual experience and informing practice is one of the earliest principles which holds critical potential for social work. As Stake (2005) underlines: “Case study is not a methodological choice but a choice of what is to be studied” (p. 443), distinguished from other forms of qualitative research by its analytic focus on one or a small number of bounded cases, each of which is studied within its distinct context. Moreover, the data one collects to learn about each case often take varying forms including observations, interviews, and documents. Mesec (1998) offers a definition of a case study within the field of social work. A case study “is a description and analysis of an individual matter or case with the purpose to identify variables, structures, forms and orders of interaction between the participants in the situation (theoretical purpose), or, in order to assess the performance of work or progress in development (practical purpose)” pg. 383).
The case study methodology was chose in order to triangulate my findings. According to Johansson (2003), triangulation provides an important way of ensuring the validity of case study research. I chose to undertake a case study approach as it provided for rich, critical and unique information. The findings from the case study were not intended for generalisation of the findings but to enrich the triangulation process in the data analysis. Selection of the case studies was based on the desire for an understanding of participants who had different backgrounds. I chose Rufaro for the relationships she had with her in-law; Lucas for his role within the community as a leader and Gift for how he managed his role as an absentee husband.
109