Data Collection Methods

In a case study approach, triangulation is an essential prerequisite (Thomas, 2012:68).

Triangulation was used to gather information in two key ways, firstly by viewing the phenomenon being studied from different perspectives from different actors, and secondly through using multiple methods in which to gather these views and contributions. In this regard, Foucault (1991:77) presents his ‘polyhedron of intelligibility’ stating that “we can only really understand something by looking at it from different directions and using different methods.”

Simons (2009:33) specifies three qualitative methods used in case studies that facilitate in-depth analysis and understanding, namely, interviews, observations and document analysis. Thomas (2012:162) elaborates on commonly used methods in case studies and collates them into three typologies, these are, those that use mainly words, those that use words, images and/or numbers, and those that use mainly numbers.

The methods used in this research draw from the epistemological paradigm of this study, those of critical theory and constructivism. Duke (2007 as cited in Simons, 2012:33) presents exemplars of methods relevant to research questions, and their epistemological roots. The related examples are presented in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: Key Methods related to Research Epistemology

In collecting data in CbPD it is essential that the methods suit the participants. They need to be compatible with education, language and practices of those involved.

Collaborative prototyping for example is suited to situations where there is a language chasm between designers and community members, as this method elicits observation data and can lead to specific questions and discussions.

The methods chosen for this case study focussed on participant inclusion in the understanding, conceptualisation and design of solid waste management products, services and systems in an informal settlement, and are presented below.

6.3.1 Interviews

Interviews were conducted with all members of the immediate design team (3 people in total), in AT terms, the subjects of the collaborative design activity. This included members of the community, government employees, a private designer and researchers from a local university. These interviews were semi-structured, adopting the interview as conversation approach, the aim of which is to equalise the interviewer/

interviewee relationship and provide the opportunity for active dialogue, co-constructed meanings and collaborative learning (Simons, 2012:44).

Initial group interviews were conducted with members of the two key activity systems, that is waste disposal (community members) and waste collection (government employees) to identify each group’s perspective on waste management in general, and their personal experiences. Group interviews offered a number of advantages in the early stages of the project, namely: the fact that they are less threatening to any one individual encouraged open dialogue; and they provided a clear image of each group’s framing of solid waste management. These interviews identified certain tensions early on, which would become focal points of design intervention. These group interviews

of a translator, adept at both english and isiXhosa, as well as design terminology. It was important to minimise “tech-speak” in order to reduce the boundaries to engagement.

Following on from these group interviews, semi-structured interviews with individual group members from both government and the community were conducted. Aligned to the first phase of appreciative inquiry, Discovery, these conversations were aimed at exploring what is, specifically, values, strengths, best-fit practices, personal experiences and possibilities, around the theme of solid waste. Keeping these interviews conversational and unstructured allowed community members and government staff to identify peripheral issues not directly related to the issue of solid waste, but issues that impacted the system indirectly. Further interviews and discussions were aligned to the subsequent phases of design and AI, and were driven by: Dreaming, imagining what could be; Designing, determining what should be; and Destiny, creating what will be (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005).

These conversations were conducted during multiple field visits to the community and involved community member-led walks, discussion groups and collaborative design workshops.

6.3.2 Historical Materials and Document Analysis

Interrogating historical materials was useful in understanding how the waste management system had changed over time. Data on the informal settlement also proved useful in understanding how the community had developed to date. Historical material included government reports and documents, press statements and other documentation related to the informal settlement, its people and the implementation of services.

In dealing with these secondary sources it was important to reduce the effects of selectivity in use. Guidelines to this effect were taken into consideration and were:

• Get to know the case well to avoid the inaccuracies in interpretation and evidence that often come with a failure to fully examine the literature,

• Recognise the limits placed on historical evidence from the context provided by the historian, and

• Do not limit the search for evidence among secondary sources to only those that provide confirmation of findings (adapted from Thies, 2002:364).

6.3.3 Observations

Observation in case studies is present throughout the entire research process, beginning with first encounters with participants and ending when the researcher leaves the field (Simons, 2012:55). Simons (ibid) proposes five reasons for formal observation as a research method in case studies, they are:

• The researcher gains a comprehensive picture of the site, a “sense of setting” that cannot be obtained through only speaking to people. This was done through multiple visits to the informal settlement and included guided and non-guided walks of the place. These observations contributed to the understanding of the waste management system from the perspective of the residents and highlighted a number of key factors.

• The documentation of observations provides a “rich description” and basis for further analysis and interpretation. This documentation took the form of written field notes, photographs and video.

• One discovers cultural norms and values of the community. CHAT further facilitated these discoveries through its use as an analytical lens, directing focus toward rules, roles, artefacts and tools and other mediating aspects of the activity system.

• Interviews benefit the articulate and favour same-language communication.

Observations can offer another way of capturing participant experiences when language hinders discussion. Observations in this study were later unpacked with those participants who had been observed performing certain tasks, with the help of a translator. This was to ensure I hadn’t misread the participant’s actions.

• Finally, observations can provide triangulation or a cross-check with other data collected. In the research presented here observations both initiated conversation and qualified conversation topics. This moving between seeing and discussing offered rich findings and helped avoid misinterpretation.

Within the case study presented in this report, observations were related to community members’ interactions with solid waste. This entailed several sessions where design researchers were led around the informal settlement by community members and observed how people discarded waste, what tools they used, and the type of waste being discarded. These observations prompted questions around how the community understood the current waste management system implemented by the CoCT and highlighted certain contradictions between their understanding and its implementation.

6.3.4 Co-design Workshops

Collaborative design workshops formed the basis of the dream and design phases where participants collectively imagined what could possibly work, and then later, contributed to the design of these products and the revised solid waste management system. During these workshops participants from all spheres of the quad-helix were involved, this was imperative in reaching consensus during the workshop. This was important as if ideas produced needed to be checked with other participants, the entire process can be slow. It also give participants time to learn from one another and the realities each cohort faces in relation to the system.

Data from these workshops took the form of concept sketches, system descriptions and notes.