Anthropological methods

To better understand the human-wildlife conflict present in the study area I used a mixed-methods approach to socio-cultural data collection. During two field trips I carried out a range of semi-structured interviews, focus groups and participant observation.

During March-April 2012, I made a pilot field visit to Lajuma Research Centre, South Africa – a research centre already well established with Durham University. During this time I used the research centre’s owner and staff as gatekeepers to establish communication with surrounding land holders. It was during this period that I established contact with Mogalakwena Research Centre, a research centre located in northern Blouberg. Through members of this research centre I was able to make contact with local commercial farmers in the surrounding area. I then followed a snowball sampling strategy, where I used the social networks of people with the desired characteristics to gain access to further participants, those respondents then recruiting others themselves (Sadler et al. 2010). Desired characteristics were primarily commercial crop farming as an occupation and having had negative interactions with baboons.

2.2.1.1 Semi-structured interviews

During August 2012 to December 2013, I used purposive sampling to select interview subjects, appropriate given that the object of anthropological data collection was to identify and describe cases of human-wildlife conflict (Bernard 2006). Furthermore, the geographic location of the field site exposed me to the participants I wished to gain information from. I did not set out to conduct a specific number of interviews, but took available opportunities to interview participants whenever they arose. Given that qualitative research typically focuses on relatively small samples (Bell et al. 2008), this was considered appropriate. As such I approached farmers and asked if they would be willing to answer my questions whenever contact was made, and I deemed it appropriate to ask. I also used farmers known to me as gatekeepers to reach farming contacts of theirs.

Semi-structured interviews are the most common method of interviewing and allow a clear set of questions to be followed while the interviewer maintains discretion to follow any leads (Bernard 2006). The meaning and significance people give to their actions, which are necessary to understand why people act the way they do, can be better understood through semi-structured interviews (Seale 2004). This type of interview works well with busy people who require efficient use of their time, such as commercial farmers, and when more than one chance to interview someone is not possible – as was the case with many of the farmers I encountered (Bernard 2006).

34 Interviews were conducted later in the field season (from April 2013 onwards), at which point I felt I was well known and trusted within the community. This allowed interviewees to feel more comfortable answering the questions posed to them and allowed me time to learn what I wanted to know and how to phrase questions appropriately (Bernard 2006). Interviews were conducted in the participants’ homes or farms whenever possible – a non-threatening, relaxing environment that was unlikely to be affected by other people (Gillham 2000). Prior to the interview commencing, I explained the nature of my project, the enquiries I was making and the ethical considerations around them. I made it clear that all responses were voluntary, confidential and anonymous, and that participants could withdraw from the study at any time, in which case all records of their participation would be erased. An information sheet was provided and a consent form was signed by all who took part (see Appendix 1 and 2). All interviews were conducted in English, voice recorded and later transcribed and entered into QSR NVivo 9. Each interview lasted between 30-60 minutes, depending on the participant’s willingness to talk and how in depth their answers were.

An interview guide (Appendix 3) was formulated and used during each interview, which allowed me to remain focussed on the research questions and use the same standard questions throughout (Bernard 2006). The interview guide was split into five distinct sections, each section concerning the following:

 The participant’s farming activities

 Perceptions of and attitudes towards baboons

 Experiences of conflict with wildlife

 Mitigation techniques used to prevent conflict with wildlife

 Perceptions of and attitudes towards nature and conservation.

The interview was given in this order so that, for example, interviewees’ perceptions of baboons were gained before asking about problems with baboons. The last question allowed the participant to provide any further information they wished. The interview guide was modified slightly for use with non-crop farming participants, such that crop related questions were removed.

Lastly, a brief questionnaire was left with each participant to complete at their convenience, which allowed me to gather demographic information. Information requested included age, religion, ethnicity, education level, property size, sources of income, percentage of income from crops and crop types grown (see Appendix 4).

35

2.2.1.2 Participant observation and ethnography

During my field work I also conducted participant observation. It is argued that being a participant of what one observes is the only way to understand and interpret the meanings of people’s actions and experiences (Cole 2005). It involves getting close to people and making them feel comfortable enough with the researcher’s presence so that information about participants’ lives can be observed and recorded (Bernard 2006). I immersed myself into the daily lives of the local people and built trustful relationships. As a result I was invited to attend numerous social events, including a funeral, and was also taken to a number of community agricultural meetings.

I recorded information from my observations in an ethnographic diary. I wrote an entry as soon as possible after every occasion that I had contact with participants, and gave specific attention to discourse I thought relevant to my research. I also asked my research assistants (see biological methods) to record any conversation they had with participants involving any aspect of the research. I transferred all material to NVivo 9 and coded its contents.

2.2.1.3 Farmer workshop

In November 2013 I carried out a mitigation workshop with local farmers. This involved presenting the attendees with a number of mitigation techniques – any that I had heard about, seen or read in the literature. After each method was presented discussion was opened up amongst the farmers so that they could share any prior experience with the method and their perceptions of whether they believe the method to be effective and appropriate for use on commercial farms in the study area.

A conference room was hired for the workshop in a local establishment that was well-known within the community and not too far for most farmers in the study area to travel (located on Farm Q in Figure 2.3). Dinner was provided for participants after the workshop in an attempt to encourage participants to attend. Invitations were made, printed in both English and Afrikaans, and personally handed out to farmers that I had contact with (Appendix 5). Posters were also made (Appendix 6), printed in English and Afrikaans, and put up around the local town to promote the workshop and encourage participants that I had no previous contact with. Thirty participants attended the workshop. The workshop was essentially a ‘group interview’ that allowed me to present participants with an idea, and the participants to respond to each other as the idea was evaluated (Frey & Fontana 1991). The workshop was video-recorded with permission from the participants and was later transcribed.

36

2.2.1.4 Data analysis

I used a grounded theory approach to identify the major themes within my social data – that is, I discovered ideas from the data, rather than trying to fit ideas to the data (Glaser & Scott 2006). I coded all data in NVivo 9, using an inductive coding approach – that is, codes evolved from the data (Bernard 2006). I was then able to organise codes into major themes. Drawing on those which occurred with high frequency and included intense responses from the participants I was able to create a thematic framework from which I analyse and discuss the results.