Chapter 3: A two-part research strategy
3.4 Design of semi-structured interviews
3.4.2 Data collection: implementation, limitations and suggestions for future research research
Study A – interviews conducted in UK
The interviews with NGOs were conducted between December 2009 and August 2011, but the majority occurred between December 2009 and August 2010. The aspiration was that all interviews be conducted face to face; but five interviews were implemented via Skype owing to the fact that these participants were based outside the UK or could not be met in person. In consequence, there were challenges in the Skype interviews due to poor internet connectivity and the different dynamic between interviewer and interviewee due to their not meeting in person.
A key element of qualitative interviewing is ensuring flexibility, not just in the ordering of questions but also in terms of the resilience of the researcher in the face of unexpected challenges during implementation (see Bryman, 2008). Faulty recording equipment meant that two of the interviews could not be recorded, resulting in total reliance on the researcher’s notes. Due to some of the participants’ time constraints, it was not always possible to pose every question to each of the interviewees, but in these instances the researcher endeavoured to ensure key questions were answered – namely those directly about multi-hazard assessments.
Finally, two CAFOD UK staff were included in the study; thus their close connection to the EngD could be considered a bias. Therefore the researcher has attempted to ensure a balanced argument by not favouring the viewpoints of these respondents (which are more aligned with that of the researcher) over those of the remaining respondents. Indeed, the
112 comments provided by each individual are highly insightful in terms of understanding the process and role of hazard assessment within the DRR and CCA work conducted by humanitarian and development NGOs, since most interviewees have good knowledge of the sector as a whole.
Study B – interviews and scoping study to the Philippines
The interviews were conducted as part of a scoping study to the Philippines between the 6th to the 28th September 2010, the additional purpose of which was to identify a case study for the second part of the research. The interviews involved NGOs based in Metro Manila, Legazpi City (the provincial capital of Albay) and Illigan City in Lanao del Norte (Mindanao; see Figure 3.4). The reason for targeting participants in these areas was owing to the fact that (1) the INGOs are based in Manila; (2) partners of one organisation included in Study A (HD INGO D;
see Chapter 4) are located in Albay, which was proposed as a suitable case study owing to it being one of the most multi-hazardous provinces in the Philippines; and (3) because the researcher was invited to observe and participate in CAFOD’s ‘Regional Exchange of Southeast Asian CAFOD Partners on Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in Land Use Planning and Management’ – a 6 day workshop held between the 18th and 25th September 2010 in Illigan City and Osamiz, Mindanao. The workshop is referred to as ‘Regional Exchange Workshop’ in Chapter 5.
In addition to the challenges outlined in the section above, challenges during the Philippines interviews related to language and cultural issues, and the fact that participants did not tend to share the same level of detail as those interviewed in the UK. The challenges are discussed in the context of both visits to the Philippines in the following section.
113 Figure 3.4 Location map of 2010 field visits. Source of data: Phil GIS (2013).
114 Study C – case study interviews and field work
The fieldwork for the case study was conducted between the 10th October and the 9th November 2013, with the five weeks spent between Metro Manila and Albay interviewing key stakeholders and making participant and field observations. The interview guide contained a number of prompt questions for each category, with the guides slightly differing between technical experts (scientists and local government), NGO practitioners and community members (Appendix C). All of the pre-arranged interviews were recorded, expect where one interviewee expressly requested there be no recording made. Two impromptu interviews were not recorded owing to the fact that these began as conversations, which developed into interviews but did not cover the extent of the interview questions.
It was envisaged that interviewees might use the interview as an opportunity to volunteer their experiences of Typhoon Reming; however most required prompting. In situ revision of questions by the researcher was necessary, owing to the emergence of new information during the interview or because interviewees struggled to understand the question being asked of them. Owing to time constraints on certain interviewees, not every question could be asked of every participant, but the researcher endeavoured to ask the most pressing questions. Interviewees generally tended to be reluctant to criticise other groups with true conviction, which is interpreted as their being uncomfortable to be fully open with the interviewer.
Whilst the aim was to conduct one-to-one interviews, circumstances often meant that interviews were conducted in pairs and, in the case of local communities, larger groups. The choice of interview location was beyond the researcher’s control and, at times, meant that the interviewee was distracted by their surroundings, such as interruptions by family members and neighbours (see Mercer, 2006). During the group interviews, curious community members would often approach and become involved mid-way through the interview. These are just
115 some of the realities of conducting research in this type of setting and are difficult to avoid. In order to negate the dominance of more confident or authoritative figures the researcher would direct questions to other members of the group to ensure their involvement. For transparency, the dominant speakers have been emphasised in Appendix G.
The challenges encountered during the field visit have implications for the quality of the data collected; whilst these challenges could not be avoided, they are important to highlight to ensure transparency. Whilst English is a formal language in the Philippines, most communities communicate in Tagalog or the local Filipino dialect. Translation took the form of either a disaster management officer from the municipal government or an NGO who was familiar with the community or, likewise, an NGO (as per Usamah and Haynes, 2012). Despite being briefed regarding the objective of the translation (i.e. verbatim translation), one NGO translator often provided their own answers and opinions whilst the other translators would, from time to time, undoubtedly nuance the answer with their own understanding of the issue. The quality of interpretation also varied owing to the different competencies in the translators’ knowledge of English and their perception of how much the researcher understood of what had been said (communities often spoke in a mixture of Bicolano and English). Whilst the problems associated with this were unavoidable, the researchers’ awareness aided her to differentiate between the opinions of the community and those of the translator, assisted by the fact that the local dialogue was interspersed with English. Future research in the Philippines would need to involve a dedicated and impartial translator who adequately understands the approach of qualitative research. Furthermore, it would be preferable to get a more even representation of age and sex by, for example, conducting interviews before or after working hours with the aim of interviewing more male participants.
In terms of the interviews with NGOs, local government and scientists, there was a range of levels of understanding of English and there were nuances in the meaning of a number of
116 English words. Given that English is mostly spoken by the more educated, it would have been deemed inappropriate to have requested an interpreter in these interviews. This is, perhaps, an unavoidable problem given that Usamah and Haynes (2012) also conducted their key stakeholder interviews in English. During the interviews, it became clear that (at times) respondents misconstrued the questions being asked of them; unfortunately, this was not always obvious until after the interview. When it was apparent during the interview, the interviewee attempted to clarify the question or follow up with additional questions but this did not always result in a successful understanding of the question by the respondent. It is evident that longer engagement and multiple meetings with those interviewed would have ensured more detailed responses and better understanding between the interviewer and respondent and is, as such, suggested for future research.
Accepting these inevitable challenges is part of being a qualitative researcher and, moreover, these problems are outweighed by the rich and detailed information interviews provide.
Beyond being aware of the limits of the research, qualitative researchers must also be mindful of how they may have influenced and created bias in the research. Identifying these influences requires the researcher to be reflexive. This quality and other implications of interview research are discussed in the following section.