Data  collection

A  number  of  methods  were  used  on  fieldwork  to  collect  and  record  data.  The  main   sources  of  empirical  data  were  semi-­‐structured  in-­‐depth  interviews,  which  focused  on   both  individuals’  perceptions  and  their  actions  since  joining  AbM.    

The  interviews  were  structured  along  a  number  of  questions  based  on  the  analytical   framework  described  in  the  literature  review  Chapter  (see  Chapter  2,  section  2.5).  The   first  part  of  the  interview  questions  focus  on  the  context  and  engagement  with  AbM   activities  and  the  community.  This  includes  information  on  availability,  access  and  use   of  ICTs  before  and  after  joining  AbM.  The  most  important  part  of  the  interview  

questions,  structured  open-­‐ended  questions,  focus  on  gathering  data  on  interviewees’  

views  and  experience.  The  questions  were  formulated  based  on  factors  identified  in   the  literature  as  important  to  the  development  of  political  voice.  For  instance,   individual  reflection  about  what  (or  whether)  has  changed  in  their  lives  since  they   joined  AbM,  is  important  factor  to  identify  in  the  process  of  developing  a  political  voice.  

These  include  questions  such  as:  “What  kind  of  activities  have  you  been  involved  in   AbM?  (E.g.  meetings,  marches,  road  barricades,  campaigns:  No  land,  no  house,  no   vote);  How  important  do  you  think  these  activities  are  (do  they  matter)?  How  they   benefit  you  and/or  other  people?”  

The  questions  were  devised  through  an  iterative  process,  re-­‐writing  the  questions  as   relevant  information  became  available    as  a  result  of  interactions  with  AbM,  and   informal  and  formal  interviews.  For  example,  when  I  learned  from  the  first  interviewee   about  the  “cellphone  toyi-­‐toyi”  experience  in  2007.  I  included  a  set  of  questions  about   this  episode,  in  the  interview  guide  template.  The  same  applies  to  particular  uses  of   technology  or  interpersonal  relations,  which  I  learned  about  from  informal  talks  and   during  AbM  meetings.    Questions  were  tailored  to  individuals  as  a  result  of  

observations.  Members,  who  were  proactive  during  AbM  meetings  and  organised   activities,  were  asked  questions  related  to  their  activities  (for  example:  “Were  you   responsible  for  any  activity  (as  a  leader  or  member)?  Who  did  you  relate  to  in  those   activities  (local  community  members/other  community  members/  AbM  office/  

external  supporters)?”).  

The  list  of  questions  (see  appendix  1)  was  adjusted  for  some  respondents,  when  some   questions  were  not  applicable.  For  example,  respondents  who  had  little  or  no  

experience  with  computers  were  not  asked  the  set  of  questions  relating  to  the  use  of   computers.  However,  I  would  still  ask  questions  related  to  perceptions  about  other   members’  use,  and  their  views  of  the  role  of  particular  tools  (e.g.  the  AbM  website).  

Moreover,  using  individual  histories  about  their  past  and  present  insights  and  

experiences  (Watts  et  al.,  2003),  helped  to  identify  factors  affecting  the  development   of  a  political  voice  process.    

In  terms  of  data  gathering  it  is  important  to  note  that  interviews  alone  may  provide   biased  data.  For  instance,  there  is  a  possibility  that  interviewees  overlook  relevant   details,  which  they  might  not  be  aware  of  or  consider  irrelevant  (Haug,  2013).  When   studying  the  process  of  developing  a  political  voice,  self-­‐reports  can  be  distorted   and/or  partial.  This  issue  was  also  identified  by  Watts  et  al:  

“Although  [the  interview]  respects  the  perspective  of  the  respondent,  it  is  subject   to  distortion  due  to  gaps  in  recall,  reticence  about  self-­‐disclosure,  a  desire  to   project  a  certain  image  to  the  interviewer  or  the  respondent  herself  or  himself,  and   so  on”  (2003,  p.190).  

For  this  reason,  I  attempted  to  supplement  the  interview  data  with  observations   outside  the  interview  context;  through  participant  observation.  Participant  

observation  is  one  of  several  methods  of  qualitative  research,  also  referred  to  as  an   ethnographic  approach  (Spradley,  1980).  Participant  observation  can  be  described  as  a  

“a  method  in  which  a  researcher  takes  part  in  the  daily  activities,  rituals,  interactions,   and  events  of  a  group  of  people  as  one  of  the  means  of  learning  the  explicit  and  tacit   aspects  of  their  life  routines  and  their  culture”  (DeWalt  and  DeWalt,  2002,  p.1)    

Participant  observation  can  also  be  labour  intensive,  and  has  a  propensity  for  culture   shock.  Moreover,  the  establishment  of  closer  links  between  researcher  and  subjects,   might  compromise  analysis  of  data  collected  (Bernard,  1994).  The  researcher  needs  to   manage  his/her  impressions,  and  maintain  a  sense  of  objectivity  through  distance  in   order  to  write  analytically  about  the  subject  (Kawulich,  2005).  

Participant  observation  enabled  me  to  collect  data  on  group  dynamics  and   communication  exchanges.  The  method  of  participant  observation  offers  a  set  of   directions  to  assist  the  engagement  with  and  collection  of  secondary  data,  as  well  as   avoiding,  or  at  least  reducing  the  problem  of  passivity  as  pointed  out  by  Gaventa  and   Cornwall  (2008).⁶⁶      

Using  the  participant  observation  method,  I  engaged  in  AbM  activities  such  as   meetings,  community  visits  and  celebratory  events.  This  allowed  me  to  observe  the   activities,  individuals,  interpersonal  relationship,  and  context  (Spradley,  1980).  As   suggested  by  Haug,  observing  “what  activists  actually  do  when  they  strategize,  quarrel,   negotiate,  create  master  frames,  devise  campaigns,  or  make  decisions  collectively  is  an   important  source  of  knowledge  in  making  sense  of  social  movements”  (Haug,  2013’,  p.  

723).  

66  According  to  the  authors,  the  use  of  surveys  and  questionnaires  “may  reinforce  passivity  of  powerless   groups  through  making  them  the  objects  of  another’s  inquiry,  rather  than  subjects  of  their  own”  

(Gaventa  and  Cornwall,  2008’,  p.  178).  

While  studying  AbM,  my  role  was  not  of  a  merely  observer  of  the  events,  but  I  was   actively  participating  in  the  discussions,  meetings,  events,  and  offering  support  such  as   transportation,  and  computer  and  internet  skills.  However,  I  also  had  to  deal  with   certain  problems  that  emerged  from  this  participant  observation  approach  (see   sections  3.2.1  and  3.2.3  of  this  Chapter  and  8.2  of  Chapter  8).  

While  engaging  in  participant  observation  I  identified  features  and  tools  of  mobile   phones  and  internet  –  that  were  used.  A  number  of  observations  were  made  about  the   structure  of  communication,  resource  availability,  including  personal  resources  for   buying  airtime,  individual  familiarity  (user  skill)  and  motivations  to  use  with  the   technologies  (meaningful  use).  In  that  way  participant  observation  also  offered  a  way   to  corroborate  and  contextualise  the  information  gained  in  interviews.