Analysing and Referencing of Data 97

Chinyika Data: Adopting Activity Theory as Analytical lens

The fact-finding trip to Chinyika revealed that the community structures and historical context had a great bearing on how individual and collective voices influenced what happened in the community including how livelihoods were supported. This insight shifted my thinking regarding the research approach. I needed to understand the historical background and cultural connotations that had enabled attainment of food security. This led to identifying activity theory as the most appropriate lens through which to analyse the Chinyika Community. The intention of the case study was to highlight contextual

conditions related to what poor people’s voices are and how they inform livelihood initiatives (Stake 1995). This context would be relevant to the research objective that draws from the voices of poor people.

Data Analysis Through Activity Theory Lens

I adopted Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy’s approach to applying activity theory using emerging theories data (Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy 1999). The approach consists of six steps as follows:

Table 3.1- Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy Application of Activity Theory Step 1- Clarifying purpose of

the activity system

This includes understanding the context within which the activities occur and understanding the subjects, their motivations and interpretations of the perceived contradictions in the system

Step 2- Analysing the activity system

This includes defining the subjects and their peculiarities; defining the relevant community and the rules, roles and how it all comes together; defining the object or expected outcome of the activity.

Step 3- Analysing the activity structure

This includes defining the activity itself and the various component actions and operations.

Step 4- Analysing the mediators

This includes the various types of mediators and mediation such as the tools used in the system, the formal and informal rules and the various roles that influence the activity system.

Step 5- Analysing the context This includes the individual and communal beliefs at work in the context; the structure of social interactions; how tasks are organised; the space to participate and influence what is happening in the activity system. Step 6- Analysing activity

system dynamics

This includes understanding the interrelationships that exist between the components of the activity system and how formally established they are. Also how these have changed over time.

I started by organising the data for structural and reflexive analysis. Structural analysis identifies patterns inherent in the discourse, text, event or phenomena while reflexive

analysis involves a decision to use intuition and personal judgement to analyse data (Dooley 2002: 343). In order to facilitate this level of analysis, I adapted the grounded theory approach of coding the data by organising the data around the six steps indicated above.

Coding Data

I used grounded theory to analyse the data generated from the action research part. Grounded theory is a method that enables organising data through a coding system to generate theory from emerging patterns in the data. The resultant theory is grounded in the data that is systematically collected and analysed to reveal patterns of action and interaction between and among various actors (Strauss & Corbin 2008). The following example demonstrates the first level of coding into many categories:

A sense of being let down

d.1.1 they used uneducated people- us d.1.2 abrogated their promise to give us jobs d.1.3 loans with no grace period- unable to repay d.1.4 we do their desire not ours

d.1.4 leaders do not include us in projects where they make money Perceptions

c.4.5 leaders are paid to share with community but they don’t c.5.2 workshops come with monetary benefits

c.5.4 leaders use community as ‘tools’

c.7.2 leaders sold food aid instead of giving to the poor c.10.1 ‘white man’ promised to give us money but did not Learning

a.5.3 coop as place for exchange of information

b.2.2 others come to learn from coop (research student) c.2.3 there must be outcome with all learning that is brought c.2.4 those who teach must not leave until outcome happens c.2.8 too much learning- little benefit- only eating

As the patterns emerged, I was able to integrate them into categories to enable a better analysis (Heath and Cowley 2004). For instance, taking the three categories above and verifying some of the data with what the leaders said, I was able to consolidate them into a category code-named “How the women describe their circumstances”. Using grounded theory, I was able “to explore basic social processes and to understand the multiplicity of interactions that produces variation in that process” (Heath and Cowley 2004:142).

Referencing data

I kept all the audio recordings in one folder and transcribed each one under a specific file name as follows: DW0018 Introduction to women by leaders. Each audio recording was transcribed into text as a separate marked document using the alphabet. Each document was then segmented and numbered. The third level is the sub-segments within the segment, which are also numbered, giving an overall referencing as follows:

Document marker Letter of the alphabet a.b.c….. Segment marker Numerical identifier- 1,2,3,….. Sub-segment marker Numerical identifier- 1,2,3,…..

As I have two sets of data: the Chinyika community data and the COSUN group data, I decided to prefix the Chinyika data with ‘ch’ as a way of differentiating the two. Thus a reference in the text that appears as ch.d.4.2 refers to document D, segment 4 and sub- segment 2 within segment 4 of the Chinyika data set. A reference that appears as d.4.2 refers to document D, segment 4 and sub-segment 2 within segment 4 of the COSUN data set.