As reported in the introduction, the researcher applied a qualitative research design.
According to Moriarty (2011), qualitative research design adopts a range of research approaches whose theoretical origins are rooted in disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, philosophy and psychology, wherein such qualitative research designs aim at providing an in-depth and interpreted understanding of the social world from the views of participants by studying their socio-material circumstances, experiences, perspectives and history. In this kind of design, samples are usually small in scale and are purposively selected on the basis of salient judgemental criteria. Data is collected using techniques that usually involve close contact between the researcher and the participants (interviews). As such, the data yielded is normally detailed, information rich and extensive. Methods of data analysis in such designs are open to emergent concepts and ideas, and they produce detailed descriptions and classification (themes). They identify patterns of association as well as typologies and explanations (Snape and Spencer, 2003; Alhojailan, 2012).
As the study conducted was qualitative in nature, a case study design was adopted considering the nature of the research problem and the objectives that the study sought to achieve. Baskarada (2014) posits that case studies provide an opportunity for researchers to obtain a deep and holistic view of the research problem, and may facilitate description, explanation and understanding of the research problem at
58 hand. Barker and Edwards (2012) conducted a study to determine how big an average sample of a qualitative research study should be. They interviewed a number of social science researchers whose responses were that it depends on how much responses are received from a particular sampled number of participants. A sufficient number of responses can offer guidance on epistemological, methodological and practical issues to take into account when conducting research projects. Their responses also emphasise that it also depends on the research problem, research aim and objectives, whereas some social scientists provided an average number of between twenty (20) and thirty (30) respondents (Creswell, 2007;
Barker and Edwards, 2012).
As reflected in the introduction, the researcher decided on the sample size of 20 participants. Thus, a sample comprising five (5) community members, five (5) task team members, five (5) religious leaders and five (5) traditional authorities was targeted for the project. Five representatives out of each of the four (4) identified groups were targeted to participate in the project. However, not all five (5) representatives in all 4 identified groups were available for interviews. For example, three (3) out of five (5) members of the task team were available and agreed to be interviewed. Out of five (5) targeted traditional leaders, only four (4) were available.
The total shortfall of 3 participants from the targeted 20 was compensated by increasing the number of community members and the number of pastors to seven (7) and six (6), respectively. This follows the understanding that what is important in sampling is satisfying the principle of saturation (Mason, 2010).
Interviews were conducted with 20 participants as planned. As noted in the introduction, thematic data analysis was utilised where themes, sub-themes, categories and their sub-categories emerged from the data obtained. The findings are discussed according to the themes and illustrated by direct quotations from the data as captured in the field notes. The relationship between the data obtained and the existing literature was discussed as a way of demonstrating the trustworthiness of the study and to demonstrate that the findings obtained contribute towards confirming and enhancing literature and the theoretical framework (as discussed in chapter 2).
59 3.3 Research Procedure
The researcher addressed all logistical arrangements for interview meetings with the sampled respondents. The logistical arrangements included calling respondents and setting up appointments for interviews where the researcher agreed to visit the respondents in their respective homes for the purpose of interviews. The participants were requested to sign letters of consent before they were interviewed. The interviews conducted with each respondent took an average time of 30 to 45 minutes. This was inclusive of the time spent in clarifying interview questions and probing in instances where more clarity was sought from the respondents. The whole data collection process lasted for a period of two weeks, inclusive of weekends. Each interview was captured into field notes after obtaining permission from the participants. Saturation with the sample was reached before considering all sets of field notes. However, the researcher studied all sets of 20 field notes that were captured for each interview for analysis and reporting.
Attempts to audio-tape interview proceedings were made. However, the first five (5) respondents indicated their discomfort regarding the recording arrangement.
Although the respondents were assured of the confidentiality with which their responses would be handled, they still maintained their discomfort with the recording arrangement. Some pointed out that they had never taken part in a study. As such, they did not know the fate of their responses. Others argued their discomfort, citing that there is no need for the researcher to record them since they could provide the same information in writing without revealing their identities. Somehow the researcher understood the political sensitivity of the issue investigated and security concerns of the respondents, and yielded to their insistence not to be audio taped.
The researcher decided to withdraw the audio-taping attempt and decided to maximise on taking notes during interview discussion. This was outlined as one of the possible risks of the study.
Issues such as credibility, authenticity and trustworthiness of the study were taken into consideration as a standard practice in interpretive qualitative studies. As guided by Shenton (2004) and Anney (2014), the researcher ascertained the quality criteria by ensuring credibility, transferability and confirmability of the study. On credibility,
60 the researcher attempted to demonstrate that a true picture of the phenomenon under investigation is presented without exaggerating or under-reporting. On transferability, the researcher provided details on the context of the fieldwork to ensure justification of the findings. As far as confirmability is concerned, the researcher demonstrated that findings emerged from the data gathered and not from the researcher’s own predispositions. During the research process, ethical consideration was adhered to as outlined in chapter 1.