As explained above, qualitative research refers to the meanings and descriptions of things as opposed to quantitative research which is concerned with counts and measures of such things. Therefore, this study is all about analyzing text and is in no way dealing with numbers or figures. The research deals with South Africa’s foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine, the Israel-Palestine conflict, the role played by international institutions such as the United Nations in containing this conflict and how interest groups supporting both Israel and Palestine view this conflict.
Before embarking on a particular study a researcher should ask oneself if the chosen methodology will answer the questions asked in the study and how will it go about in achieving this. So, how does one find out if the chosen methodology is the most appropriate for the study? According to Swetman (2004:31), “At higher levels a complete justification of the approach is required including a survey of possibilities, a rationale for choice and an extensive review of the chosen method and its relation to the variables.” Therefore, a minimum requirement is an explanation of the reasons for the approach and its likely advantages and disadvantages.
The present study entails looking at three countries, which are Israel, Palestine and South Africa. This type of research design is known as comparative, cross-cultural and cross- national studies. According to Mouton (2001:154), “Comparative studies focus on the
similarities and differences between groups of units of analysis. Such objects can include individual organizations, cultures, countries, societies, institutions and even individuals.” These types of studies are common in the fields of international politics and economics. It is therefore quite befitting that this kind of research methodology is used in this study.
In research, a researcher chooses a particular way to conduct an inquiry, chooses a particular way to present and test the chosen theories or ideas and these pertain to a certain method that is embarked upon by the researcher. It is quite clear that conducting research involves so many things and choices. According to Ball (2012:43), “You read carefully chosen things, carry out certain investigations and not others, ask particular questions of selected people, get responses, categorize them, analyse them, emphasize some things and not others, adopt theoretical positions….” Moreover, a researcher needs to choose analytic techniques, and make a wide range of other informed choices. Most importantly, as a norm and as good practice within the research community, a researcher needs to be honest with how the process of research went, such as mentioning the limitations of the methodology.
Selecting a methodology is not an easy thing as there are several issues that the researcherhas to keep in mind before taking such an important decision. A researcher has to look at the nature of the research and how it would suit the study when choosing a particular methodology. According to Roberts (2004) methodology selection rests primarily on the (1) problem to be investigated, (2) purpose of the study, (3) theory base, and (4) nature of data. Selection may also depend on the research skills of the researcher and those of the researcher’s committee members. It is therefore quite clear that for this study the qualitative approach was the most appropriate choice. This is because analyzing and interpreting both the primary and secondary text for the study only involves the qualitative approach.
Research falls into two basic styles which are objective and subjective. However, for the purposes of this study only the subjective style was dealt with in this section. Swetnam (2004:31) states that “Subjective approaches deal with the created social lives of groups and individuals through observation and explanation: both are systematically controlled and empirical and may be used by physical or social scientists.” The study aimed to observe and explain the events that are taking place in Israel and Palestine, the response of international institutions to this as well as South Africa’s foreign policy towards these two respective states.
As with everything else under the sun, the comparative, cross-cultural and cross-national studies have their own strengths and weaknesses. With regard to their strength, with these studies, according to Mouton (2001:154), “The logic of comparison approximates causal inferences and allows scholars to attempt stronger causal hypotheses. It also allows for comparison of different theoretical viewpoints across different settings.” As far as this study is concerned different theoretical viewpoints have been applied. These theories which are realism, institutionalism and human rights theories, have assisted in bringing different theoretical viewpoints and thus provide a clearer understanding as to what is really happening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It is very imperative for a researcher to explain why a particular methodology was employed over the other. This is to ensure that the method chosen was not just picked randomly because it fits the style of the researcher and will give favourable results but was chosen on its merit. Ball (2012:44) avers that, “There’s no need to cheat and seek favourable results. A negative outcome for your inquiry is perfectly respectable, and is normally a valuable result itself.” Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the methodology used was chosen because it was the most appropriate and would give results that give a true reflection of the tools employed during the study.
It is almost impossible to apply a quantitative paradigm in this study as it deals mostly with text and not figures. Therefore, the most suitable methodology is the qualitative approach as it looks at the nature of something not its quantity. Roberts (2004) points out that what distinguishes qualitative research from quantitative research is theoretical/philosophical rationale. This means that in quantitative research, inquiry begins with a specific plan such as a set of detailed questions and hypotheses. On the other hand, with qualitative research, inquiry begins with broad, general questions about the area under investigation. Since this study involves conducting in-depth, open-ended interviews and looking at written documents it therefore falls neatly under qualitative paradigm.
Although it is important to mention mostly what methodology has been used and why was it chosen, the researcher is allowed to explain why a certain methodology was not chosen. However, too much time should not be spent on explaining the methodology that was not used. Swetnam (2004) suggests that too much valuable time should not be wasted in complex descriptions of methods that have been not chosen for reasons which are patently obvious. Concentration should be rather on the selected style and the exploration of its potential
advantages and disadvantages as they relate to the study. For instance, stating that open- ended questions were sent to interest groups who are pro-Israel and also those that are pro- Palestine would have been less useful as this would be stating the obvious. It would also be worth mentioning that these open-ended questions were sent to Israel and Palestine representatives in South Africa.
One of the disadvantages of using the qualitative methodology is that purposive sampling can be too small. Palys (2008) describes purposive sampling as a technique in which a researcher relies on his or her own judgment when choosing members of population to participate in the study. This type of sampling is virtually synonymous with qualitative research. According to Mouton (2001:155), “There are problems in the selection of appropriate cases for the purposes of selection, i.e. the degree of comparability of cases. In cross-cultural and cross- national studies, there are obvious constraints associated with differences in language, culture, symbols, signs, and so on.” This was the case in the initial stages of this study as the researcher has opted to interview about ten participants however this was deemed too small a sample therefore the number of participants was increased to twenty. While it would have been impossible to reach saturation point using this number, the responses obtained from these informants were much better and diverse than would have been the case with only ten informants.
Another great thing about choosing this type of methodology is that it calls the researcher to be transparent and honest about the steps taken when conducting the research. In this case for instance, the researcher has to mention that he had to start by writing other chapters before embarking on the literature review as he awaited the ethical clearance from the university. According to Ball (2012:44), “If you later decide to adapt some of your methods in the light of early work or trials that change your views, then say so and talk about their implications too. All the time, think of it as an exercise in transparency.” This is to make sure that other researchers, who may want to build on the conducted research, can be sure that the approach was sound and that the findings are justified.
Another reason that has made the researcher choose the qualitative methodology is that unlike the quantitative methodology it is much more personal and thus has a human touch to it. According to Berg (2001) researchers focus on naturally emerging languages and the meanings individuals assign to experience. These experiences include emotions, motivations, symbols and their meanings, empathy, and other aspects associated with naturally evolving
lives of individuals. Furthermore, these elements prove further that qualitative research is natural because of their experiences and various conditions affecting their natural settings. It is quite clear by now that qualitative research is indeed natural in its approach as it looks at the nature or character of something. This makes it much more enjoyable and personal to conduct since it deals with text and the interpretation of hidden meaning within the text. Moreover, Roberts (2004:111) provides five reasons for doing qualitative research which are:
1. The conviction of the researcher based on research experience 2. The nature of the research problem
3. To uncover and understand what lies behind any phenomenon about which little is yet known
4. To gain novel and fresh slants on things about which quite a bit is already known 5. To give intricate details of phenomena that are difficult to convey with
quantitative methods
Indeed, the aim of this study was to understand what lies behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and gain novel slants on things about which quite a bit is already known.
One thing that makes the qualitative methodology much more interesting is its sense of unpredictability. A researcher just cannot tell how the results will go during the gathering of data. Berg (2001) asserts that even though the virtue of qualitative research is seldom questioned in the abstract, its practice is sometimes criticized for being nonscientific and thus invalid. However, these critics tended to lose sight of the probability factor inherent in quantitative practices. So, with quantitative research the researcher is almost certain what the findings will look like as this type of research deals with figures. On the other hand, the qualitative paradigm is less predictable as it deals with the interpretation of text.
As for the sample size, some experts say that it does not really matter how big or small the sample size is, as the result that might be found could be the same. Instead, they emphasize the point that the sample should be representative of the research population in order for the results to be credible. According to Swetnam (2004:43), “The smaller the sample, the less is the generalisability of the results. A lot of defective research results from attempting to extrapolate from tiny samples to grand theory. We may be forced by circumstances to use the only sample that can be reached – an opportunity sample.” However, with regard to this study it would have been difficult to use a smaller sample due to the nature of the study hence the
researcher decided to increase the number of participants from the original ten to twenty. Therefore, there is no definite answer as to what size should a sample be. This means that a researcher has to decide the best suited sample for the study conducted and provide a clear justification for using such a sample.
Choosing the qualitative methodology over the quantitative one was not done because it was easier to conduct research using the former. Instead, it was chosen because it was the most suitable methodology of the two. And besides going over such an extensive amount of data was no easy thing to embark on. According to Roberts (2004) since there are no statistics to be performed in qualitative research, some mistakenly believe it to be easier to conduct than a quantitative study. However, analyzing huge amounts of qualitative data into meaningful themes requires considerable time and effort. Therefore, choosing this type of methodology was not about personal preference and its easiness to conduct but it was more about its suitability for the study. As such, the choice was a rational one.
What also made choosing this type of methodology easier is the usage of open-ended questions which give detailed and varied answers. This could provide useful and valuable information for the study and thus make it richer. It is a basic assumption in much social- science research that if the words used are the same and are communicated in the same manner, they will mean the same thing to numerous people in a sample (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). Since the study did not use close-ended questions and structured interviews but used open-ended interviews, the same answers from different people were not anticipated and what came forth were varied and interesting answers.
Furthermore, a good research design should be decided by how it approaches the two issues of comparison and control. According to Bechhofer and Paterson (2000:2), “Designing a piece of empirical research requires the researcher to decide on the best of collecting data in research locales which will permit meaningful and insightful comparisons.” This means that at the same time the research design must achieve the control which gives some degree of certainty that the explanations offered are indeed superior to competing explanations. Control is about choosing which method and approach are suitable for the gathering of data. Comparison is about ensuring that the most appropriate and relevant data for the study is chosen.
For a researcher to collect data he or she has to assume different roles during the data collection process. This is because in qualitative research, the person that is the researcher has
a special importance. According to Flick (1998) the main instrument of collecting data as well as comprehension are researchers and their communication skills. Owing to this, researchers cannot afford to take a neutral posture in the field and in their contacts with persons interviewed. This means that they have to take or play certain roles and positions, sometimes unwillingly. This is essential in determining which information the researcher gets access to and gets barred from accessing. This researcher has used his considerable contacts acquired as a media practitioner to gain access to most of the participants that have contributed invaluable information to the study.
Research design refers to particular steps that have to be followed when conducting a research. Through this, the researcher specifies the most adequate operations to be performed in order to test a specific hypothesis. According to Bless et al (2006) research designs have two essential components and these are; observation and an analysis of the relationships between the variables. The potential of these two essential components may be achieved by manipulating certain variables in order to observe the effect on other variables, or by observing corresponding changes in more than one variable. In the case of this study this was achieved by comparing and interpreting the answers received from different participants who were sent questions in the form of a questionnaire.
There is no set out rule or structure as to how to conduct a qualitative research methodology. However, there has to be valid reasons behind conducting such a study. According to Cresswell (2007) qualitative research is conducted because a problem or issue needs to be explored. Moreover it is conducted because we need a complex, detailed understanding of the issue. Qualitative research is also conducted because quantitative measures do not fit the problem. In this study the qualitative methodology was employed because there was a need to explore South Africa’s foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine and its handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict. A detailed and complex understanding of the issue of South Africa’s foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine and the approach to the conflict that involves these two Middle Eastern states was needed and appropriate. Due to the nature of the study, which needed extensive textual analysis, it was almost impossible to use a quantitative approach, hence a qualitative method was used.
It is quite important to note that research is a process and not just one simple event. As such, after choosing the topic the researcher needs to go out there and conduct the research as the study won’t research itself. So much goes into researching, writing, analyzing and
interpreting the data obtained during the actual research. As Schmitter (2008:263) puts it, “It is this process of translation from something problematic or puzzling into something on which you can gather valid data about which you can make compelling inferences that constitutes your research design.” Choosing this research design was not just a given. However, it was dictated to by the nature of the study as it required vigorous gathering and interpretation of data. Therefore, opting for a qualitative research methodology was not a safe bet but was chosen merely because it would have been impossible to conduct quantitative research for the purposes of this study.
The mere fact that there were no figures to deal with but rather extensive text and answers to open-ended questions to interpret and analyse proves that quantitative research was totally out of question. The qualitative methodology, as with all things, is not without its faults and weaknesses though. As Silverman (2000:9) avers, “In many, quantitatively oriented social science methodology textbooks, qualitative research is often treated as a relatively minor methodology. As such, it is suggested that it should only be contemplated at early or exploratory stages of a study. Therefore, from this perspective, with regards to qualitative research, it can be assumed that it should be used to familiarize oneself with a setting before the serious sampling and counting begins.
Another disadvantage is that its findings at times are so far-fetched from reality that they cannot be used in everyday life. According to Flick (1998) it has also become clear that social science results are rarely perceived and used in everyday life their investigations and findings often remain too far removed from everyday questions and problems. So then what