Disadvantages

Having identified qualitative methodology as appropriate for this study, I had to consider some of the challenges or problems that I might have had to encounter when implementing this methodology in the field. Quantitative researchers have been the biggest critics of the qualitative approach. They have criticised it for being too subjective as the researcher can be too close to the subject matter as well as the participants and this could lead to bias in the study (Bryman, 2004). The research by Li (1997) and Arthur (2008) mentioned earlier, revealed the close proximity between the researcher, the subject matter and the participants who were sharing not only similar experiences but also a national heritage. Arthur (2008), for instance, stated that he found it difficult to remain neutral within his research because of his close relations with the experience of migration and that the way he dealt with it was to accept that differences exist between the experiences of his participants. Being neutral within a subjective study is challenging as it requires the researcher to approach the site and the participant as a ‘learner’, being careful not to influence the information from the participants (Rossman and Rallis, 2003). If the researcher knows who he/she is and his/her role in a setting, it may help to balance the different perspectives between the researcher and the researched, that is, the emic (insider view and voice) and etic (outsider view and voice)4. Anthropologists use these terms to help identify the thoughts and points of view of the researcher (etic) and his/her participants (emic) (Rossman and Rallis, 2003: 48). The situation is different with quantitative research that adopts an objective approach

4_{Emic and etic both stem from psychological backgrounds, but emic, being the insider perspective, is also}

influenced by cultural anthropology where scholars try to understand culture from the perspective of those that live within that culture. Etic, referring to the outsider perspective is influenced by behaviourist psychology and anthropology where researchers link culture to the external factors that may have an impact on it (Morris, Leung and Lickel, 1999: 781)

ensuring that the research is not tarnished by bias and that certain methods are adopted to make that possible - for example, survey questionnaires (Bryman, 2004).

In Oakley’s (1993) analysis of research on motherhood, she referred to a situation where the participant ‘invited’ the researcher to be part of the interview by asking her opinion on mothering, knowing that she was a mother familiar with the experience. Oakley advised that in such a situation, the researcher should try to avoid giving an opinion by placing the opinion of the participant above that of the researcher. By offering an opinion, the researcher could be in a position where she either guides the responses of the participant or disrupts the interview that is in process especially if the researcher does not agree with some forms of mothering revealed by the participant. The researcher must be aware of her position within the research and the experience in the field will further make her aware of this position as well as help her deal with situations where she is invited to give her opinions, express her feelings and thoughts on a particular issue. Therefore, as challenging as it may be, the researcher must learn to be neutral in her dealings with the participants as it may influence the outcome of the research.

As most qualitative researchers study a small group of people, they have been criticized for being unable to generalise the experience to the entire population of the target group (Bryman, 2004). Nonetheless, by narrowing the scope to a small population of the target group, the qualitative researcher hopes to gain a better understanding of an experience or behaviour instead of simply using statistics to show the impact of it on the society

(Ambert, Adler, Adler and Dentzer, 1995: 880). However, I feel that this criticism has to take into consideration the purpose of the research, that is, whether it provides solutions to a problem (instrumental), contributes to knowledge on the subject (enlightenment), provides a new way of understanding (symbolic) or requires changes in terms of actions on the part of the participants (emanicipatory) (Rossman and Rallis, 2005: 20-24). My research may be

viewed as a combination of enlightenment and the symbolic as it is adding to existing literature on migration decision-making and African women as well as combining two theories to explore the subject matter, namely black feminist standpoint theory (Collins, 2000) and the insider-outsider theory (Merton, 1972) which will be discussed in detail in the subsequent sections. The results of this research are not intended to be generalisable as they will be used as an example of migration decision-making of Kenyan and Nigerian women which is currently lacking in this area of research.

Finally, this methodology has the challenging task of analysing people’s thoughts, feelings, mannerism and experiences. Questions of truth and knowledge emerge out of the data, where the researcher has to find out whether the information given is a true

representation of an experience. Choosing an appropriate epistemological approach will help to develop a way of understanding the information presented to me in terms of how I analyse and interpret the data thereby establishing my position within the study. The next section explores this point further by providing a detailed discussion of the theoretical underpinnings that guide this methodology and identify the most suitable methods of data collection. The theories that will be discussed are the insider-outsider theory and the black feminist standpoint theory.