Methods for data collection

I collected data through document analysis, observation, event ethnography and semi-structured interviews.

3.2.1. Document analysis, event ethnography and observation

The document analysis and observation served as an introduction to the global, national and local research sites. Through them, I have been able to up-date myself on the latest debates, identify dominant narratives and aspects to be explored, note issues to be asked about in interviews and establish personal networks for further research.

The document analysis has helped me go deeper in an understanding of policy visions and their ramifications in terms of tenure security, as well as compare these with interview data. I have considered international frameworks such as the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure. The analysis has centred on Malagasy policy documents, including the Land Policy Letters (LPFs) 2005 and 2015, the framework law and other laws linked to the policy, Land Policy Programme (PNF) of 2016, the evaluations made of the policy in 2008 and 2011, advocacy material of CSOs and documents of the on-going donor projects. I have also looked at documents from the local land offices, such as training and communication material.

The event ethnographies conducted in global and national policy arenas provided valuable contextual information for analysis (Tables 3.1. and 3.2.), enabling me to consider the events themselves (e.g. the World Bank Conferences and WFAL) as objects of ethnographic investigation (Brosius et al. 2010). This meant observing the more formal opening, closing and plenary sessions but also attending to side events, interactions between conference participants and the overall conduct of the event (Brosius et al. 2010; Campbell et al. 2014; Corson et al. 2014). The added value of such an exercise lies in observing the interaction of actors in real life situations and the dynamics in the production of their stories. I attended to their spoken, written and expressive communication. Overall, these observations contributed to a more personal understanding of the stories being produced on tenure security and practices of securing

72

tenure, and dynamics existing between actors, thus enabling more detailed field work to take place, complemented by other data collection methods.

In addition to the global and national levels, I conducted observation in Ankazomiriotra.

The observations served as an entry point for establishing contacts with people, getting access to information and building a deeper understanding of the local context, including its complex power structures (Fauroux 2002a). My intention was to understand the work and challenges faced by the local land office, observe the interaction between the office and farmers, grasp some of the realities of local life, and appreciate the relations farmers hold with their land. Market days were suitable occasions for getting to know life in the municipality and the work of the land office. Walks in the countryside, time spent in the villages and work in the fields were additional occasions to observe the land use practices of farmers, such as how they delineate their boundaries, coordinate activities and link with public authorities, which I recorded in field notes (Gibbs 2007). These notes were useful in the data analysis to explain local contexts and actor positions, and reflect on my role in the research.

3.2.2. Semi-structured interviews

The semi-structured interviews constitute the main source of information and method of data collection. Their added value lies in being able to directly interact with actors, and they were conducted with global, national and local actors (Table 3.4.). Prior to the interviews, I defined key themes to frame the discussions and more targeted questions specific to each situation. Mason (2002) talks about big and mini-research questions decided on the spot during interview. The themes and questions provided overall guidance and structure for the interviews, rather than being too directive. My aim was to keep the discussions as open as possible to generate natural conversation, reflecting the constructions and orientations of the interviewee rather than of the researcher (Riessman 1993; Gubrium and Holstein 2009).

73

Table 3.4. Summary of semi-structured interviews

Level Sample Number of interviewees

Global Purposive 23 (9 representatives of IGOs; 5 government officials; 4 financial and technical partners; 2 private consultants; 1 CSO; 1 from the private sector)

National Purposive 24 (9 representatives of national administration; 8 CSOs; 7 financial and technical partners)

1 focus group discussion (Chiefs of fokontany and elders) 93 Interviews (7 representatives of local administration; 6 regional administration and deconcentrated state land service; 7 local CSOs; 2 regional CSOs; 2 local economic players; 2 regional economic players; 9 chiefs of fokontany;

58 farmers)

3.2.2.1. Interviews with global and national actors

The global actors interviewed have either contributed to the land policy process in Madagascar or to international initiatives. The national actors were directly involved in the policy process at some stage since 2005. The themes that structured the interviews focused on: i) the activities of the institutions and actors; ii) how tenure security has been conceived; iii) their engagement in the Malagasy land policy process; iv) visions and experiences of the policy process; and v) their interaction with other institutions and actors. I furthermore adapted more specific questions to the characteristics of each institution and social actor, and to the dynamics of each discussion, leading to a very diverse set of discussions.

The discussions progressed easily when the interviewees were vocal and willing to share their opinions. They built their own narratives, in which I intervened by seeking clarification or introducing new topics. It was more demanding to manage the dynamics when the interviewees were restrained and/or maintained an institutional position. This could have been because of the more official nature of the interview (demand of consent, recording etc.) while off the record they spoke more openly. On those occasions, I had to direct the conversations more.

I found it most demanding to reach out and conduct meaningful interviews with the directors of the state land service. They remained distant, did not show much interest in the subject and power imbalances existed between me and them. Therefore, the discussions often stayed superficial, involving an exchange on the policy in general. I

74

had to combine other sources of information (observations, document analysis) to properly capture their discourse of contest and resistance to the policy. Yet, the overall difficulty in reaching out to representatives of the state land service is also indicative of the conflicts in the policy process and the weak integration of the state land service in it.

Because of these constraints, I ended up conducting many more interviews with actors who had been part of the policy process. Consequently, the story of the state land service is told to a large extent by the initiators and proponents of the policy, who might emphasize the negative characteristics of the state land service.

A considerable aid in the global and national interviews was the ability to speak the same language (French or English) and play with words. However, the Skype conversations were more demanding. They had to be concise (one hour maximum) and I could not observe the body language of the interviewee, which would have enriched their stories.

3.2.2.2. Interviews with local actors

I started the local interviews by talking to municipal actors, farmers’ organisations, CSOs and economic players. I also organised a focus group discussion. The chiefs of the three fokontanys and two elders from each were invited to take part. However, only the fokontany C was fully represented. The discussion helped identify key tenure issues in the municipality and the selected fokontanys, and review questions related to policy implementation. I conducted further individual interviews with the chiefs of the three fokontanys and seven other chiefs. The interviews were particularly useful in gathering information on local history, developments and challenges in terms of land tenure. I met the chiefs of the three fokontanys on several occasions to build up longer-term relations and to learn the latest news. I equally conducted interviews with the employees of the local land office and CRIF.

The main data collection consisted of interviewing 58 farmers selected on the basis of the sampling list. These interviews enabled me to understand local meanings of land and land tenure systems (Shipton and Goheen 1992), picture challenges of tenure security in the fokontanys, learn about local practices to secure tenure and the participation of farmers in the policy process, and the use they might have for certificates. I structured

75

the interviews around these elements. Again, I asked more specific questions, adapting to each interview.

Tenure security being an abstract notion, I introduced the subject by talking about challenges, tensions and conflicts that might exist. The idea was to discuss any open, latent or probable issues inside families, between neighbours or towards outsiders. The issue was also introduced by talking about any real or perceived threats to tenure rights.

Finally, I asked whether people feel confident in terms of access to, control over and management of their lands in the longer term. When introducing tenure security, I avoided referring to the local land office and the certificates, as these would have restricted the conversation.

This leads me to the challenges of conducting interviews with farmers. First, my experience is that it is complicated to talk about tenure security. People might not be willing to expose sore points, admit possible vulnerabilities and reveal tensions to an outsider, especially if these exist within families. When I perceived tension in the interview situation, I kept the discussions more general, inviting the interviewees to reflect on their knowledge of what happens in the village or wider community, rather than directly sharing their own case. Furthermore, some people were reluctant to discuss their wealth, how much land they have land and where. Indeed, Shipton and Goheen (1992) also note the subtleties and challenges in statistically measuring land holdings.

Therefore, I chose not to collect any quantitative data, identify precise locations of parcels or produce maps.

Another challenge I faced was leading rich and reflective discussions especially with younger people and women. There were interviews that did not flow easily, in which responses to questions were short and the situation was more of an investigation than a semi-structured interview. I kept conversations short if I saw they did not lead anywhere.

I also tried to talk about the local life in general and family history before introducing questions related to land. However, these shorter interviews are also valuable as they enabled me to observe differences between people and provide a richer picture of the villages. A personal challenge I encountered was developing clear and open-ended questions on the spot. First, I attended to separating my own analytic questions from content-related ones directed at interviewees. In fact, there were cases where the

76

interviewees asked me to repeat questions as they were not coherent enough. Second, I recognised the need to be careful not to direct the answers by the way the questions are framed when listening to recordings and observing my own practice. Third, a lot of interactional dynamics are lost in translation.

A related challenge is about the extent of information collected. Throughout the data collection, I was concerned whether the interviews are deep enough, wondering if I asked the right questions and could have pushed the interviews further without intruding.

My self-censure and shyness in this sense might have left some issues undiscovered. In general, I enjoyed the semi-structured interviews when they were built around a dialogue and an easily flowing thematic discussion into which I can drop questions to ensure that all key topics are covered. These are interviews that adapt to the characteristics of the interviewee and the dynamics of the situation. The nature of qualitative research enabled me to conduct this type of interview. The downside is that it is difficult to collect information in a systematic way. Therefore, they could be combined with more structured interviews to collect data on specific aspects.