Research Methodology 3.1 Introduction
3.6 Analysing and interpreting data
After returning to Leeds from my fieldwork at the end of January 2013, I started to focus on the process of analysing and interpreting the data. In order to analyse the data gathered from interviews, observations and FGDs, it was first necessary to separate the data gathered using each method. As discussed in relation to the analysis of textual sources (see section 3.3.1), the data recorded through interviews, observations and discussions in Bahasa Indonesia (the Indonesian language) were all transcribed and analysed (in Indonesian).98 Only later when I selected the most relevant examples of data to illustrate a particular point or topic did I translate from Indonesian into English. Therefore, to be clear, I did not translate all data gathered from my fieldwork into English but left some parts in Bahasa Indonesia without translation. Although this transcribing and translating was a very time-consuming process, it enabled me to become more familiar with the data, and to gradually start identifying key themes. As noted above (section 3.3.1) relevant literature on the question of translating data (for example, Temple and Young 2004; van Nes et al 2010) suggests that ‘qualitative research is considered valid when the distance between the meaning as expressed by the participants and the meaning as interpreted in the findings is as close as possible’ (van Nes et al 2010:314).99
98 The reflective notes that were written manually in my fieldwork diary (written sometimes in English and sometimes in Indonesian) were also organised and typed out in a document on my laptop to secure against the possibility of my diary being misplaced or lost.
99 Translating the ‘Indonesian’ data into English, the key challenge for me was to find the most suitable word to describe the participants’ comments or statements. The translation process involved interpretation as well. The better I was at interpreting the participants’ comments or participants, the better the English translation can be understood by readers. My approach was check this ‘feeling’ or meaning with my proofreader until I felt confident with the chosen meaning in my analysis and
As May (2008:138) notes, understanding data gathered from interviews involves
“the coding of open-ended replies in order to permit comparison” and, with this in mind, I started the systematic coding by re-reading through these transcripts and my own reflexive notes. After this I coded the data into categories and themes based on the main research questions (and semi-structured interview questions), which together provided the main tools for guiding the extraction (‘cutting and pasting’) of these themes. As I wanted to locate the distinctions between the official discourses and the lived experiences of dakwah, as well as between the private and public aspects of the dakwah of the Liqo-Tarbiyah movement, it was key to capture the responses of the different levels of respondents – the elites, the activists (the mentors and trainees of the Liqo), and the scholars – during this process. In the next step of the analysis, these themes were simultaneously organised, compared and contrasted to interpret the information. Then key parts of the data were highlighted, and this determined the focus of the chapters as well as the sections of each fieldwork-based chapter.
The process of analysis used the whole set of data produced through my ethnographic fieldwork. The semi-structured interviews, however, generated the most detailed data, allowing me to critique the official discourses of the elites through the first-hand information about the Liqo-Tarbiyah sessions from the early generation of mentors and their trainees. Preparing the interview guide before entering the field proved to be very useful, both for conducting the interviews and for analysing the data they produced. It ensured that the key interview questions
interpretation of the data. I also checked my work against that of other researchers on the same subject, so that I could further clarify the ‘feeling’ and meaning of a certain word or term.
were always asked, allowed other themes to also be addressed during each interview, and helped me to categorise or cluster the themes during the analysis. The reflexive notes from participant observation and two group discussions were also very useful, although the data these produced lacked the depth of that generated by the interviews. The data from observations mainly exposed me to the living dakwah practices of the Liqo-Tarbiyah community, while that gathered from discussion sessions primarily exposed me to public opinion on the Liqo-Tarbiyah movement.
The data gathered from this case study helped me to contextualise my research themes. As Blaxter et al. (2001:72) stress, “the detailed study of one or a small number of cases does not mean that the context of those cases can be ignored”.
Despite the earlier discussion of the fact that the findings of a single case study cannot be generalised (see Section 3.2), the findings of single case studies do have significant value in producing evidence in a research context. Given that the process of contextualising and interpreting data should be reflexive, I located my research project in the wider context of my field of study. I reflected upon the key themes in my research, such as: private dakwah; public dakwah; lived experience and lived religion; official discourses; Islamism; politics; identity and modernity with reference to the wider discourses of dakwah; and Islam and politics in the sociology and anthropology of Islam.
To address the concern that case studies can be structured by the interests and perspectives of their researchers, thus producing findings that lack validity (Hakim, 2000), I paid attention to the role of the qualitative researcher as an interpreter. As Geertz (2000) emphasises, an interpretative researcher should give their own version of how they understand the subject they are studying. As an ‘interpreter’ of this
project, I was constantly reminding myself that my interpretations should be based on strong evidence drawn from the opinions and events that I observed during my fieldwork. This evidence should be seen as being based on a continuous process of clarification and validation. For instance, the process of writing-up the research exposed me to ‘gaps’ in information, which led me to carefully revisit the fieldwork materials and to clarify issues with respondents through emails.
The final step of the writing-up process involved re-assessing the themes and presenting them within a rounded explanation. Continuous brainstorming was used to generate the main analytical ideas, to connect the chapters together and to line them up with the research questions. Finally, the overall work of transcription, translation, analysis, interpretation and writing-up was carried out at the Leeds Humanity Research Institute (LHRI) office (or the Cavendish Road office) using the University’s M drive, and a daily backup of the research was made on my external hard disk.
3.7 Conclusion
The main purpose of this chapter has been to present and justify, as well as reflect upon, the research methods used for this project. This ethnographic research utilises a single case study of weekly Liqo sessions in Jakarta, and analyses the history, ideology and structure of the Tarbiyah movement in relation to the discussion of private and public dimensions of dakwah and the official discourses and lived experiences of the Tarbiyah community. The study integrates both primary and secondary data to investigate the key research question that has been asked about the conception of dakwah adopted by the Liqo-Tarbiyah movement and the lived
religious experiences of its members. This chapter has explained the rationale for using both deductive and inductive methods in carrying out this case study, as well as the reasons for selecting the case study, and the three main data collection techniques – the literature review, the semi-structured interview and participant observation – together with one complementary method – the focus group discussion. The ethical procedures for data collection that are outlined by the University of Leeds Ethics Committee were discussed, and the impact of my multiple identities on the research were explained in regard to my position as an outsider researcher vis-à-vis my respondents. The limitations that I encountered as an outsider were also identified, together with the strategies that I adopted to address them. Conducting ethnographic fieldwork amongst the Liqo-Tarbiyah community in Jakarta was a hugely rewarding experience for me. It was enjoyable to meet new people who were willing to talk and share information about their ideologies and religious experiences, and to build new friendships ‘between the researcher and the researched’ afterwards.