DATA ANALYSIS

The process of data generation was followed by that of data analysis. In order to facilitate analysis, I coded all the interviews that were held. The interviews that were held in Lesotho (Case Study 3) begin with an L; while those in South Africa (Case Study 2) and Zimbabwe (Case Study 1) begin with an SA and a Z respectively. The interviews are also assigned numbers in order to differentiate them in each case study. In the case of Case Studies 2 and 3 where I also conducted interviews to share feedback on the research process – in the expansive phase of the research – the interviews are prefixed with the first letter of the country followed by the letters FB (for feedback), followed by a number. A Case Record enabled me to capture relevant information for each case study, including case specific analyses and reflections, which then became an important source of semi-processed information in the writing of the thesis (The Case Record is saved onto a CD ROM attached as Appendix 6).

I moved from analysing each interview (see Case Record Sections 2.4; 3.4.1 and 4.4.1), to analysing interviews in each case study (see Case Record Sections 2.5; 3.5 and 4.5), to analysing the three case studies individually and collectively (Chapters 5 to 8). I used theoretical lenses (see Chapter 3) to aid me in analysing the data: the second and third generation activity system and its associated layers of contradictions; and I sought an explanatory principle using critical realism layers of reality. I also employed Bourdieu‟s theory of habitus for clues on dispositions associated with our unconscious actions in practices; and Archer‟s concept of morphogenesis to explain how farmers may be exercising their agency and to what extent. During CL workshops, participants were directly involved in the historical and empirical analysis of contradictions and limitations in their practices. I worked with research participants in the field to carry out the first level of data analysis through interrogating contradictions that are present in their respective agricultural practices borrowing from CHAT and expansive learning. Beyond that, I conducted cross-case analysis within each set of case studies to draw out learning. The analysis was shared with research participants during feedback encounters in order to sharpen and validate it.

In the final writing up of this study, I drew on a critical realist analysis framework (Danermark et al., 2002) and employed inductive, abductive and retroductive analysis (see Appendix 5). Abductive analysis allows the emergence of themes from data; it takes place when one uses theoretical lenses to make sense of data and is characterised by a movement from the concrete to the abstract. Retroductive analysis is concerned with establishing explanations of what must be the case for things to be the way they are (Danermark et al., 2002). In discussing abduction Danermark et al., (2002) noted that:

152

Here we interpret and redescribe the different components/aspects from different hypothetical conceptual frameworks and theories about structures and relations … Here several different theoretical interpretations and explanations can and should be made, compared and possibly integrated with one another. (p. 110)

As already discussed, the theoretical lenses that were employed in abductive analysis in the research are: structure and agency, relationalism, CHAT and theory of habitus/practice (see Sections 3.2; 3.3; 3.4 and 3.5). Retroduction analysis consisted in finding explanatory principles and causal mechanisms and often relied on examining history and contemporary structural issues for their explanatory powers. Chapter 5 which explores farmer learning processes is primarily organised according to inductive analysis but also offers other forms of analyses. Chapter 6, which focuses on surfacing contradictions in third generation activity systems of the three case studies, primarily employs retroductive analysis. Chapter 7 which focuses on the modelling of solutions to contradictions employs abductive analysis, using the CHAT framework. Chapter 8 also uses abductive analysis using agentive talk which was drawn from both CHAT and critical realism. Chapter 9 is a synthesis of theoretical reflections, while Chapter 10 makes recommendations which are informed by the analyses conducted in Chapters 5 to 8 and synthesis in Chapter 9.

I developed a tool (see Appendix 4) that helped me to conduct abductive analysis which compelled me to look for the following aspects: object of learning or work; mediating tools; rules; community and power relations; contradictions and limitations; relational agency; habitus; tacit knowledge; time-space considerations; structure and agency relations; motivation/incentive; causal mechanisms (culture, power relations, biophysical factors and scores for ecological, economic and social sustainability performance of the practice. The tool drew on the theoretical framing discussed above and also sought to address some of their limitations (such as relational agency in CHAT). I developed this tool after recognising that the initial tool which was primarily based on CHAT was inadequate to enable me to handle the data generated in the study (see Appendix 4). The table below (Table 4.7) shows the layers of analysis in the research which reflected double hermeneutics as advised by Cohen (1989) and Danermark et al. (2002):

In order to understand and explain the social world, as social scientists we try to understand and explain what meaning actions and events have to people, but we also endeavour to produce concepts, which make it possible to transcend common sense and attain a deeper understanding and explanation of a more abstract character. This is called the double hermeneutic of social science. (Danermark et al., 2002, p. 200)

153

Table 4.7: Summary of the analysis framework

Type of analysis Mode of inference Research question addressed

Interviews analysis Inductive analysis

Initial categories from field work interviews and observation

How do farmers learn about sustainable agriculture in their workplaces? (Appendix 4.1) Activity system analysis

in each case study Abductive using second generation CHAT Historical analysis

How do farmers learn about sustainable agriculture in their workplaces?

What are the current limitations and contradictions of sustainable

agriculture learning processes among farmers? (Chapter 5) Cross-case analysis leading to identification of learning processes, enablements and constraints

Inductive analysis to establish themes.

Abduction drawing on CHAT; and theory of practice

Retroduction using critical realism‟s causal mechanisms that explain why learning is mediated the way it is.

How do farmers learn about sustainable agriculture in their workplaces?

What are the current limitations and contradictions of sustainable

agriculture learning processes among farmers? (Chapter 5)

Analysis of

contradictions Abduction using CHAT underpinned by causal mechanisms which lead to retroductive analysis to establish what must have caused the contradictions.

What are the current limitations and contradictions of sustainable

agriculture learning processes among farmers? (Chapter 6)

Analysis of CL

workshop processes Abduction using CHAT concept of zone of proximal development and working with the expansive learning process which resembles co-learning to move from the need state to the desired state. Located in third generation CHAT characterised by boundary crossing.

e. How can sustainability be better learnt and more reflexively practised in the farmer‟s workplace? (Chapter 7)

Micro-analysis of

learning processes Abduction informed by a critical reading of Sannino (2008), Engeström (2008) and Sen‟s 1999 capability thesis (in Lister, 2004) on agentive talk.

f. What conceptual artefacts can the study develop to support expansive learning for sustainability in farmers‟ workplaces? (Chapter 8)

Cross analysis of theory

in relation to the study Abduction by discussing how the theories applied in a the context of change oriented learning and sustainability case study worked and what could be improved

g. What conceptual artefacts can the study develop to support expansive learning for sustainability in farmers‟ workplaces? (Chapter 9)

Practical

recommendations (Case based)

Abductive based on the perceived zone of proximal development for each case study and what could be done to move towards the desired state

Retroductive inferences to develop a history of the future of

sustainable agriculture practice globally based on the same notion.

h. How can sustainability be better learnt and more reflexively practised in the farmer‟s workplace?

i. What conceptual artefacts can the study develop to support expansive learning for sustainability in farmers‟ workplaces? (Chapter 10)

154

The research process, including the analysis, enabled me to progressively deepen contextual and theoretical knowledge and shaped the categories of analysis as I proceeded with deepening insights as discussed in the next section (see Section 4.8).