In this study, theory has integrated with the case areas in the data analysis proce- dures. In the interplay between theory and case studies, there are two schools of thought. The first school argues that the good use of theory assists in designing the case study more effectively, as well as being useful for generalising the end results. The theory, thus, assists in selecting the cases for study, specifying what is to be explored, defining a complete and appropriate description, stipulating rival theories, and generalising the results to other cases (Yin 1993: 4). The second school draws from previous researches on the Grounded Theory (Glaser & Straus 1967; Miles & Huberman 1984). They argue for the induction of theory from case study research, saying that theory that is developed from case study research is often novel, and is testable and empirically valid (Eisenhardt 1989).
This study has combined the methodologies of both schools of thought whereby theory has informed the choice of the case areas and at the same time the case areas have informed the choice of theory. The choice of DRDP, BDRDP, and the YFEC catchment area has been informed by the theorisations on development, rural development, and the livelihoods framework. However, while dealing with such theorisations, for instance, issues of participation and local politics emerged leading to the consideration of TUNGO as a development organisation that could assist in understanding matters of local politics. This is the implication of the inseparability between a phenomenon under study and the case. Having explained the relationship between the theory and case areas, let me turn to three processes that I found important in this study: discourse analysis, content analysis, and co-data analysis.
According to Mills (1997), there are three forms of discourse analysis: the first is concerned with analyzing language use in context; the second, social psychology, is concerned with the analysis of talk and particularly the structure of argument, and; the third, critical linguistics, is concerned with analysis of different dialogical phenomena for action purposes because language is the central vehicle in the process whereby people are constituted as individuals and as social subjects, and because language and ideology are closely imbricated. The study uses the first form of analyzing language use in context in order to understand the modernizing development discourse with respect to the RNE-DRDPs. In trying to understand how the RNE-DRDPs have been a manifestation of the modernising development discourse, the concepts of development, rural development, sustainable develop- ment, and participation are dealt with through identifying different statements from the key documents that have references to these concepts and developing discus- sions. The presentation of the empirical data that has to do with discourse analysis is done in chapter five that deals with RNE-DRDPs as manifestation of the modern- ising development discourse in this study.
According to Berg (1995: 174-175), content analysis is about examining artefacts of social communication, which include written documents or transcriptions of re- corded verbal communication such as interviews and field notes. It is “any technique for making inferences by systematically and objectively identifying special charac- terristics of messages” (Holsti 1968: 608). Thus, content analysis is not amenable to analysis until the information conveyed has been condensed. Content analysis has been central in analysing data from interviews, observations, and the questionnaire. The different interviews and observations were transformed into free-flowing summaries. The structured questionnaire was analysed by getting the frequencies of each question and a general summary was made. These accounts from interviews,
observations, and a questionnaire were subjected to more interpretation through triangulation in in-depth interviews or discussions with individuals and focus group discussions. The triangulation aimed at either verifying what was found out or going deeper into what was said, or both verifying and going deeper. The presentation of findings in chapter six and seven in this study are fruit of content analysis.
A step further was made in the data analysis by taking into consideration the issue of inter-subjectivity and temporal limitation. As the dialogue that was carried on with the different respondents was an account for the whole of their life experiences until at the moment of the dialogue (Chanfrault-Duchet 1991), I, the data collector and interpreter, first, at the moment of the dialogical process, and second, at the moment of analytical processes of data generated, was involving my life experiences also. This implies that I was part of the dialogical exchange (Borland 1991) from the beginning to the end as the respondents were. As my listening during the interactive process of dialoguing was a listening for meaning, so was the listening of the informants and respondents. Let me cite an example of this issue of inter-sub- jectivity and temporal limitation.
I asked the Village Executive Officer (VEO) to get me six to ten people who were to be my respondents in a focus group discussion in order to understand how people plan together for a common project for the community. The VEO brought me six people, all of whom were women and all had Muslim names. The discussion that I expected to take at least an hour and a half finished within twenty minutes. Unanimously, the group had very fast established a project that would be for the community: a dispensary.
I wondered why all respondents were women, on one hand, and on the other hand, I wondered why all were Muslims. I came to realise that even the VEO was Muslim. Then I thought that he had invited his fellow Muslims. But why his fellow Muslims and why only women? I later came to find out the story that in the Ward there is a dispensary that belongs to the Lutheran Church; it gives services with preferences to fellow Protestants. There are other three hospitals nearby this village, one belonging to the Lutherans, and two belonging to the Catholics, with the same problem of preferential treatment to fellow Christians. So, what these people wanted was that they get their own health facility that would cater for Muslims.4
Here is a situation of participation in a focus group discussion. From the person who is allocated work to select the respondents to the outcome of the discussion, the whole process is being manoeuvred towards addressing the perceived need of the Muslim community. Some of these needs are particular and context specific that one needs to get into the social fabric of the place to be able to unearth them. It is the case of this community whereby to understand that the Muslims were in need of a health unit, one needed to have prior information of the relationship between other religions with respect to accessing resources in and around the community. Thus,
4 This is an account taken from research notes in one of the villages in the catchment area of the YFEC,
from the beginning of planning for a focus group discussion, during, and after it, the different people involved in the process were involved in actions of inter-sub- jectivity and temporal limitations. All the interactions, beginning from the VEO, whom I had asked to get the respondents, through the respondents in the whole discussion, were determined by the temporal issues of need to get into issues of organizing practices by me, and my respondents’ need to address their identified need as a marginalized Muslim community in the area of health. My triangulation and continuous questioning of why particularly Muslims were the selected respond- ents and the connection between them and the dispensary meant my continuous thrust into interpretation and involvement of my and their life experience in issues of religious relationships in the area, and particularly my interest in their organizing practices, whereby the people are involved in struggling to make sure that they utilise every opportunity that comes their way in order to address their needs.
The inter-subjectivity and temporal phenomena led this research to a co-data analytical process, which was realised through consistent feedback to the respond- ents about the notes and summaries made from the data. I discussed with officials of Bukoba District and the Dutch Insiders most of the conclusions I was arriving at from the data. The continuous sharing of my interpretations about the data assisted in keeping in touch with the respondents, not losing sight of the stated objectives of the encounters for dialogue, and always being updated. After developing stories about the case studies, a few of the people who participated in their creation when they were respondents discussed the summaries of the stories. They were to think about the stories to see if they reflected what they knew of their community. A lot of details and particulars were omitted to cater for privacy, but at the same time making sure that the core of the story remained substantially intact.
Before I get to the conclusion of this chapter on research methodology, let me present two issues that are important in the understanding of presentation of the respondents and the local institutions involved in the data collection of this study. All the respondents are coded in terms of the instrument for data collection, the category of respondent, the place of response, and the month and year of response. Thus, for example, a respondent code like “Int.DI1.Bkb.Sept2003” can be inter- preted as “an interview (int) to a Dutch Insider number one (DI1) in Bukoba (Bkb) in September 2003 (Sept2003). With regard to the local institutions involved in the processes of data collection, I have faked their names. This has been a deliberate choice in order to enhance the confidentiality with respect to these institutions.
Conclusion
This chapter about the research methodology has presented four issues: the research problem (the lack of knowledge on the processes that the aid beneficiaries get involved in so as to make aid relevant); study questions and their operationalisation; the data collection procedures, and; the data analysis procedures. The data collecting techniques and the data analysis procedures were geared towards the understanding of how the modernising development discourse and the organising practices have influenced the relevance of aid. As this study is about the bilateral development cooperation between the URT and the Netherlands government, there is need to understand the general context in which the study has taken place and the back- ground information behind this cooperation. This is the subject of the next chapter.