Methods

Methods are “the concrete techniques or procedures we plan to use … the activities we engage in so as to gather and analyse our data” (Crotty, 1998, p. 6). With methods come the practicalities and difficulties of use. Social constructionism holds that knowledge is embodied in individuals but is created and maintained in reference to significant social groupings. “[B]eing there” with people in their “natural setting” (Creswell, 2003, p. 181) or “real world contexts” (Gillham, 2005, p. 3) provides congruence for data collection and interpretation in terms of the chosen theoretical framework.

2.5.1

Finding the participants

Prior knowledge and further background research identified the relevant stakeholder groups and some associated key participants. Fieldwork opportunities came from attendance at farm forestry field days, field trips, local authority forums, interest group and academic conferences, annual general meetings, official events and even with co-recipients of Miss E.L. Hellaby Indigenous Grasslands Research Trust scholarships at the triennial gathering. These fora provided access to the views of a large number of people where they participated as speakers and as participants in conversations. Names were gathered from stakeholder websites, the mass media - newspaper articles, radio and television programmes, the Lincoln University academic network, and published material.

Initial interviews tended to be people in leadership or key roles who had strategic experience or special knowledge of the research topic (Gillham, 2000, 2005; Yin, 2003). However Becker (1998, pp. 90-91) warns to “doubt everything anyone in power tells you” as they are looking to portray their organisation or group in the best possible light. Becker particularly noted the tendency to omit information. Snowball sampling (Babbie, 2001; Gillham, 2005) happened naturally. Those recommended were included where they offered an opportunity for confirmation of findings or to explore a point of difference. This is the grounded theory approach of constant comparison (Babbie, 2001; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Robson, 1993). Becker (1998) likens this approach to searching for the negative case. In the case of the Ngai Tahu, the indigenous people of the high country, a different approach to arranging research participants was required. The tribal authority, TRONT, identified three participants that they considered had the authority and authenticity to speak on the topic. In the thesis these participants are referred to as 'Ngai Tahu, pers. comm.' in recognition that these were collective rather than individual perspectives. A

further 49 people were interviewed, making a total of 52 people. Because of the cross over of some interviewees between categories, e.g., scientist and ENGO, or runholder and ENGO, the reporting of stakeholder numbers does not total 52. They are runholders, 20; ENGOs, 9; scientists, 9; DOC, 4; LINZ and service providers, 7; RMA and local government, 3; and other, 2.

2.5.2

Research access issues

Lofland and Lofland (1995, p. 25) describe some research settings as “difficult”. One participant mused whether he should be talking with the “enemy”. Given my background, I had anticipated that there would be barriers to gaining research access to the runholder community. What could not be anticipated was that the bar would be raised when another Lincoln University researcher’s report, i.e., Brower (2006), was seen by the high country farming community as being contrary to their interests. Some in the high country community refused to talk with me, some vented then relented, and most were more guarded in their interviews. Brower's report was politicised in support of ENGO aspirations. Attempts to critically discuss these research findings with ENGO members put me at odds with some of them. I had not anticipated my determination to listen to all sides would strain established relationships, but on reflection came the realisation that being part of a group can involve the uncritical acceptance of discourse and modus operandi. Maintaining credibility as a researcher has meant taking care to stay independent of, and separate from, all of the stakeholder groups.

Negotiating research access to the employees of the government department LINZ was also difficult. This is covered in Ch.11, s11.1.2 as this is very much part of that particular story.

2.5.3

Interviewing

Most of the interviews were carried out in the workplace or home of the participant. Lofland and Lofland (1995, p. 16) consider that “face-to-face interaction is the fullest condition of participating in the mind of another human being … and … you must participate in the mind of another human being … to acquire social knowledge”. A limited number of interviews were carried out by telephone, but this has been mainly for fact finding or confirmation. Unless there is an established relationship, the telephone as interview medium proved very fast moving. As Gilman (2005) noted it is more difficult to explore a topic without the face-to-face communication. Email contact has been useful in the same way as using the phone, for fact finding or confirmation.

Onsite interviews provided additional information that informs the discourse. Hunting out archival documents in the New Zealand Government Parliamentary Library provided a feeling for the parliamentary culture and process that would have not been possible had the documents been accessed remotely. A visit to the main office of Land Information New Zealand in Wellington

gave the insight that this was a ‘fortress’ with tightly controlled access formalities and measures. Interviews on high country farms gave the opportunity to look out the window or go for a drive in the farm truck to ‘see’ what the “eye-ometer” was seeing.

A research information sheet (Appendix 1) outlining the project and contact details, and a consent form (Appendix 2) approved by the Human Ethics Committee (Approval number 2005-11) was provided to research participants. At the start of the interview permission was requested to record the interview, and explanation given how the recording and the transcript would be handled to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. Recording an interview provides clear evidence of what was talked about. An accusation by a runholder that my background was not disclosed was countered with a copy of the transcript as evidence that this was not the case. Where runholder and ENGO interview participant material has been used, their anonymity has been ensured by changing their initials.

Despite preparing for interviews as semi-structured, the actual form tended to be what Robson called “open-ended” (1993, p. 159). The interviews were like a “guided conversation … in which the interviewer establishes a general direction for the conversation and pursues specific topics raised by the respondent” (Babbie, 2001, p. 293; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). The unstructured interview provided the opportunity for serendipity and the discovery of what Corbin and Strauss (2008) called fortuitous data. The defensiveness of especially runholders and some bureaucrats responded better to what Gillham (2005, p. 47) describes as a “loosely structured trawl” than to the “interrogative” feel of a structured interview.

2.5.4

Transcription and analysis

All interviews were transcribed as a basis for analysis. The format used made no provision for silence, ums, ahs etc, just text was transcribed but was punctuated loosely to reflect the structure of the oral expression. As spoken English is not in the form of complete sentences, or even complete words, a dash was used to separate these phrases or changes of direction so they didn’t all run into each other and to aid comprehension when reading later. The research is at a social or group level, not linguistic or psychological, so the focus was on the actual text.

The advice in the literature (Lofland & Lofland, 1995) and first hand from other researchers was mixed on whether to carry out the coding and categorisation manually or using a computer. As an exercise I carried out a comparative trial using the same interview, coding manually and using nVivo software. The loosely structured interviews, in combination with the line by line focus of the coding software, resulted in a huge 788 separate codes, not all of which were analytically relevant. As a counter measure incorporating the concepts of reflexivity and to mitigate against preconceived opinions deriving from my previous involvement in Forest and Bird, all the runholder interviews were coded using the software. This measure is supported by Bazeley's

(2007, p. 3) observation that what a computer can contribute is that it “ensures that the user is working more methodically, more thoroughly, more attentively”. In order to keep the amount of data manageable all other interviews were manually coded.

I found the computer difficult to use conceptually to create more abstract categories or themes. Being aware I was a visual thinker as an exercise I converted the nVivo codes to an excel file, printed it and cut it up so each code was a separate piece of paper and then played with them like a massive jigsaw puzzle on my living room floor grouping and rearranging where the individual codes fitted and how the groups connected to each other. Agar (1991) (quoted in Lofland & Lofland, 1995, p. 201) considers that computer screens are too small to allow “simultaneous visual access to materials [which] is what makes the ideas happen”. This visual and kinaesthetic mapping was crucial for me to conceptualise and abstract the categories and themes from the data. Some codes and categories derived from the literature (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), some were from my interpretation of the discourse, and some were what were called nVivo codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), i.e., they were in participant's own language.

2.5.5

Other data

Sources of data other than that from interviews have contributed substantially to building the picture. This other data or 'nontechnical' literature can be considered as primary data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In a constructionist approach even peer reviewed literature can be considered as primary data.

New Zealand Parliament’s processes are systematically recorded and archived. All parliamentary debate is reproduced verbatim in Hansard and publicly available. Select Committee records are available to the public at the Parliamentary Library in Wellington. The LINZ website carries copies of cabinet policy documents and associated reports released under the Official Information Act 1982, but not all relevant documents are posted. Unlike other government department websites however, LINZ has removed some material with no archival access. Participants suggested further reading or gave me documents of interest. The mass media, television, newspapers, and magazines provide filtered discourse; filtered as media releases, or by reporters and agendas of publishers. The Lincoln University library has been productive as a resource. It is an archive for the Tussock Grasslands Mountain Lands Institute publications, and other high country information such as the Rabbit and Land Management Programme newsletters. The National Library and Interloan has provided access to historical documents and reports.

2.5.6

Ending data collection

As a research topic that remains contested it was necessary to designate the end of data collection in order to complete the writing up. This date was 30/9/2010.