Methods and instruments for collecting field data

The qualitative nature of inquiry of this study attracted a set of qualitative research methods.

However, the overall objective and focus of this study, as well as the insights and practical guidelines adopted from the applied phronésis and the CA, determined my selection of relevant qualitative methods. Thus, I viewed the methods of focus groups, life histories or personal narratives and in-depth individual interviews suitable to facilitate my inquiry and the collection of relevant field data.

3.5.1 Focus groups

The method of focus groups was the main method used to collect field data for this study. Morgan (1996: 130) defines focus groups as “a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher”. In defining focus groups in this way, Morgan (1996) underlines the nature and uniqueness of the method of the focus group. Accordingly, he states that a focus group (i) is a research method devoted to data collection, (ii) that interaction in a group is the source of the data, and (iii) that the researcher plays an active role in creating the group and in facilitating discussion to collect relevant data (Morgan, 1996: 130).

Morgan (1996) argues that these three constituting elements are useful for (i) distinguishing focus groups from other groups whose primary purpose is something other than research. In addition, (ii) focus groups differ from procedures that utilise multiple participants but do not allow interactive discussions, and (iii) focus groups also differ from other methods that collect data from naturally occurring group discussions where no one acts as an interviewer (Morgan, 1996: 130-131). In general, this understanding of focus groups points to the fact that focus groups ought to be purposefully designed and operated.

The method of focus groups is a famous method of social inquiry. For many years now, social scientists have been designing and using the method of focus groups in their social research contexts, although they use it “with very different theoretical and analytical backgrounds” (Smithson, 2008:

358). According to Smithson (2008: 358-359), researchers use focus groups when they want to

“observe a large amount of interaction on a specific topic in a short time” and/or when they want to

“produce the best sort of data for the research question”.

While noting that focus groups are “sites of social interactions”, Smithson (2008: 359) underscores the role of focus groups in facilitating the collective development of ideas and highlighting the interests, values, priorities and perspectives of participants. Focus groups also facilitate the construction of theories grounded in the actual experiences and language of the participants. In this way, Smithson (2008) contrasts the method of focus groups with other qualitative methods. In fact,

62

Smithson (2008: 368) emphasises that focus groups enable research participants to “engage in a range of argumentative behaviors, which results in a depth dialogue not often found in individual interviews” and, in so doing, contribute to the emergence and development of contrasting opinions or perspectives on specific issues.

Farquhar and Das (1999: 62), who used the method of focus groups to study the experiences of lesbians and found it useful, concluded that focus groups “can be helpful in facilitating access to particularly sensitive research populations, and giving voice to sections of the community who frequently remain unheard”. They also noted that, through well-moderated discussions in focus groups, the different layers of discourses on sensitive issues can be uncovered and the group taboos and routine silencing of certain views and experiences can be illuminated. In this regard, it is important that researchers facilitate critical reflection while also paying attention to sensitive moments, identifying unspoken assumptions and questioning the nature of everyday talk to unveil contradictions, norms, as well as the official and unofficial perspectives, in a sensitive topic (Farquhar and Das, 1999; Smithson, 2008).

Morgan (1996), Wilkinson (1998) and Smithson (2000) thus view the method of focus groups as a powerful one in creating spaces for the minority or marginalised groups to express their concerns, interests and perspectives on specific issues, and empowering them to engage in meaningful deliberations and making wise choices. In fact, Wilkinson (1998), Madriz (2000), Smithson (2000), and Pini (2002) observe that, in some instances, the method of focus groups has a positive effect on the participants when their active and free participation in the dialogues, debates and discussions with other group members turns into insightful, empowering, enjoyable and creative experiences. It follows that group participants can use the contexts of group interactions to become particularly reflective, exploring themselves and their relationships in tentative and thoughtful ways to eventually discover new things about their conditions (Smithson, 2008). In line with the aforesaid, Morgan and Krueger (1993) concluded that “the real strength of focus groups is not simply in exploring what people have to say, but in providing insights into sources of complex behaviors and motivations”.

Accordingly, I formed and moderated 45 focus groups with the view to give my study participants, who are key actors and stakeholders in the fishing sector of Ukerewe District, opportunities to explore, reflect on and enter into dialogue about the opportunities and challenges presented by their current relations and practices in the respective fisheries sections that they were engaged in. I also sought to give them opportunities to deliberate on ethically founded courses of action to safeguard and enhance the active and gainful participation of local people in the fishing sector. Eventually, these 45 focus groups generated very useful information for this study, as I will report in the chapters that follow.

63 3.5.2 The life story or narrative interview

The life story interview is another important method of inquiry used in arts and social science research. Atkinson (2002: 123) observes that the life story interview stands alone as a qualitative research method for “carrying out in-depth study of individual lives”. According to Atkinson (2002:

132), a life story interview is “a highly contextualized, highly personalized approach to the gathering of qualitative information about the human experience” that involves the informant, who tells his or her story, and the researcher, who guides the interview. It is also called the life history interview (Atkinson, 2002) or the narrative interview (Jovchelovitch and Bauer, 2000).

Both constructionist and naturalist researchers employ life story interviews in their research to

“understand a broad range of psychological, sociological, mystical-religious, and cosmological-philosophical issues” (Atkinson, 2002: 128). Like other qualitative methods, life story interviews allow for the gathering of rich qualitative data, and its resulting narratives can include important events, experiences, perspectives, values and feelings of a lifetime of the informant (Atkinson, 2002).

Thus, when conducted properly, life story interviews can become a valuable experience for both the informant and the researcher, and generate narratives that highlight “the most important influences, experiences, circumstances, issues, themes and lessons of a life time” (Atkinson, 2002: 125).

In general, Atkinson (2002) and Jovchelovitch and Bauer (2000) view life narratives or stories as excellent means for understanding how people see their own experiences, lives and interactions with others. Based on this, I decided to use the method of life story interview to highlight how some key actors view their fishing sector and their experiences in it, their own lives as being shaped by the fisheries activities they undertake, as well as their values, roles and duties as they interact with other actors and stakeholders. In this study I therefore employed the method of life story interviews to elicit specific information from three key informants with regard to their concrete experiences of deprivation or enhancement of their capabilities for active and gainful participation in their fishing sector. I selected and engaged with these three informants from amongst the eight that most study participants had recommended as being (i) the most successful long-time male participants in fisheries activities, (ii) the least successful long-time male participants in fisheries activities, and (iii) the successful female participants in fisheries activities.

I used examples of concrete experiences of capabilities deprivation or enhancement that I drew from these three informants to stimulate further critical dialogical reflection in the intra-homogeneous and heterogeneous focus groups (see section 3.7 below for further discussion) to better grasp the mechanisms and processes of the deprivation and/or enhancement of the capabilities of local actors in the fishing sector of Ukerewe. I also used the life story interviews to elicit and highlight the ways these informants view or argue for the possibility or impossibility of productive fisheries activities to

64

contribute to improving the human dignity and well-being of individuals participating in them, and the general welfare of their communities.

3.5.3 In-depth individual interview

The in-depth interview is a qualitative method used to elicit information in order to achieve a holistic understanding of the situation, issue or phenomenon (Berry, 1999). It involves the informant, who is knowledgeable of the issues, situation or phenomenon being studied, and the interviewer, who asks the informant open-ended questions, and probes wherever necessary, to obtain useful or relevant data (Berry, 1999; Guion, Diehl and McDonald, 2011). When conducted properly, the method of in-depth interview enables the capturing of the insights and perspectives of respondents on a particular issue, phenomenon or situation (Boyce and Neale, 2006). Its use of open-ended questions and a flexible style and format to gather data has earned this method other names, such as the unstructured interview or qualitative interview (Berry, 1999; Boyce and Neale, 2006; Guion et al., 2011).

Social researchers employ in-depth interviews when they seek to attain a deep understanding of the issues and detailed information about people’s thoughts and behaviours (Boyce and Neale, 2006). In the context of planning and evaluating programmes, for instance, the method of in-depth interviews is

“used for a variety of purposes, including needs assessment, program refinement, issue identification and strategic planning” (Guion et al., 2011: 1). Boyce and Neale (2006: 3) argue that in-depth individual interviews are often helpful in providing the “context to other data (such as outcome data)”

and in “offering a more complete picture of what happened in the program and why”. In addition, Boyce and Neale (2006: 3) emphasise that in-depth interviews can be “used in place of focus groups if the potential participants may not be included or comfortable talking openly in a group, or when you want to distinguish individual (as opposed to group) opinions about the program”.

Two situations of this study necessitated the use of in-depth individual interview. First, six key informants could not make available the time to participate in scheduled focus groups. Thus, given their knowledge, vast experience and active roles in the fishing sector of Ukerewe, I opted to engage them in in-depth individual interviews to elicit their insights into the current and future role of the fishing sector in contributing to the prosperity of individual actors and the fishing communities of Ukerewe.

Second, it appeared that some relevant and sensitive information on the current relations and practices of actors and stakeholders would be well elucidated through engaging key informants in individual interviews. I decided to gather this sensitive information through individual in-depth interviews and later shared and/or reflected on the information with study participants in intra-homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Generally, I decided to engage another four key actors in in-depth individual interviews to better elucidate their insights into the conditions, mechanisms and processes that

65

contribute to the deprivation or enhancement of the capabilities of local actors. I provide further detailed explanations of the selection criteria and circumstances that led to the involvement of these 10 informants in in-depth individual interviews in section 3.7 of this chapter.

3.5.4 Research instruments

The research instruments used to elicit information from the study participants were standardised discussion and interview guides. Whereas standardised¹³ discussion guides were used to elicit information from focus group participants, the standardised interview guides were used to elicit information from individual informants through life story and in-depth individual interviews. These standardised guides embedded the CA’s categories and Flyvbjerg’s value-rational questions. While paying attention to my specific research objectives, I adapted the CA’s categories and insights into the processes of the production and reduction of poverty and incorporated them into Flyvbjerg’s main value questions to generate my standardised discussion and interview guides¹⁴. Accordingly, the content of my themes and questions for the discussions and interviews revolved around the following.

 First, what is really happening in the current fishing sector of Ukerewe in terms of the trends in fish stocks and catches, and the human dignity, agency and well-being of local actors and their communities?

 Second, what is desirable in the current fishing sector of Ukerewe in terms of the human dignity, agency and well-being of local actors and their communities?

 Third, which agents, processes and mechanisms of power drive the current production, distribution and exchange relations in the fishing sector of Ukerewe?

 Fourth, who benefits and who is losing out in the current production, distribution and exchange relations and practices in the fishing sector of Ukerewe?

 Fifth, what is desirable in the fishing sector of Ukerewe in the future in terms of the human dignity, agency and well-being of local actors and their communities?

 Sixth, which production, distribution and exchange relations and practices are desired in the fishing sector of Ukerewe in the future?

 Seventh, which agents, processes and mechanisms of power would contribute to realising the desired production, distribution and exchange relations and practices in the fishing sector of Ukerewe in the future?

13Standardised in the sense that the same set of themes and/or questions were applied to the same participants in specific categories of actors and stakeholder groups. I have presented these standardised discussion guides at the back of my dissertation as Appendix A.

14I learned from Jentoft (2006) some practical ways of integrating these value questions into my contextualised discussion and interview guides. Jentoft (2006) adapted value-rational questioning to underscore the phronetic dimension in fisheries management.

66

In sum, the use of these value-rational questions during the discussions and interviews enabled the collection of relevant data on the fishing sector of Ukerewe, the ethical issues underlying current relations and practices in it, as well as the values that informed the pro-poor initiatives that were envisioned.