Multi-method research approach

Given the interdisciplinary nature of the research, no single method was sufficient for data collection. Consequently, the decision was made to adopt a mixture of four different methods:

semi-structured interviews, informal meetings, observations and secondary data analysis. The selected methods and the justification for each are outlined below, followed by the means of evaluating the rigour and quality of the research applied.

Semi-structured interviews

The most obvious means of understanding how NGOs conduct multi-hazard assessments is by collecting the experiences and views of those who develop and implement these methods themselves. Essentially, interviewing is a conversation, albeit one manufactured for research ends (Dowling, 2010), and can range from structured inflexible formats to fully unstructured in-depth discussion. Where the researcher positions herself on this spectrum relates to both

94 the objective of the research as well as the practicalities of implementation. Given the lack of prior reviews of NGO tools for hazard assessment, and having regard to the formulation of some ideas regarding the approaches NGOs adopt from the literature analysis, the most appropriate approach to interviewing was semi-structured. This type of interview allows for a balance between gathering data on topics the researcher is interested in (e.g. knowledge and scale of application), whilst also allowing unanticipated information to emerge.

Semi-structured interviews are a means of exploring the perceptions and views of respondents by probing for more information and clarification of answers (Barriball and While, 1994). This method is therefore a powerful means of conducting exploratory research, as its flexibility allows for unanticipated avenues of enquiry to be pursued should they emerge during the conversation (Valentine, 2005). Semi-structured interviews were also deemed appropriate for part two of the research since they comprise a means of documenting the opinions of a diverse sample group (Barriball and While, 1994). This latter data collection and analysis necessitated meeting with interviewees ranging from government scientists to local communities.

The challenge of interview based research is in managing its labour intensive implementation and data analysis demands. There are numerous opportunities for bias to emerge since interviews are couched within the experiences and subjectivity of the interviewee and the influence and positionality of the researcher (Valentine, 2005). Unless they can be repeated, interviews represent a snap shot in time and may reflect the mood and level of engagement of the participant and interviewer at that moment. In order to minimise bias, questions are carefully constructed and phrased and, where possible, more than one perspective from the same organisation included. The researcher should adopt a reflexive stance, by acknowledging where she might have influenced the interview process and data analysis and how her position

95 and perception in the eyes of the participant may have influenced their choice of answer (see Section 3.5).

In the context of the case study, there is also the question of the veracity of the eye witness accounts of those interviewed about the Typhoon Reming lahar disaster (Guthrie et al., 2009), especially in the case of accurately reciting a disaster that occurred six years prior. However, this can be minimised through data triangulation. The implementation challenges and ethical considerations when conducting this type of research are explored in later sections.

Semi-structured interviews employ an interview guide, which can (and did) include fully worded questions that the researcher is not restricted to asking. Furthermore, the interview is organised but questions need not be followed in a sequential manner (Bryman, 2008; Dunn, 2010; Newing, 2011). The challenge of semi-structured interviewing lies with the interviewer;

they have to balance the skill of allowing emergent topics to transcend, whilst at the same time ensuring the interviewee focuses upon the topic at hand (Dunn, 2010).

Semi-structured interviews were adopted as a primary means of gathering data for both components of the research. The details of their design, sampling strategy and implementation are discussed in Section 3.4.

Informal meetings

The opportunity for informal meetings arose both in the UK and the Philippines. These meetings provided an additional opportunity to (1) understand the NGO sector and multi-hazards as well as (2) determine the key actors in the field of multi-hazard assessments in the Philippines. In the UK, informal meetings were conducted with:

 DRR and CCA representatives from the UK Department for International Development: four meetings over the course of the research to discuss multi-hazards, DRR and CCA;

96

 two representatives of International Institute for Environment Development (IIED):

met to discuss community-based CCA, multi-hazards, the utility of science and the Philippines;

 a representative of the Emergency Capacity Building Project: discussed NGO toolkits over a Skype meeting;

 a representative of the international NGO Acción Contra el Hambre: discussed their work in the Philippines over a Skype meeting.

A number of informal meetings were also conducted during the scoping visit to the Philippines (September 2010) in order to help the researcher understand the DRR and multi-hazard context of the Philippines, as well as identify a possible case study for the final component of the research (see Table 3.4). Some of the information from these is directly referred to within the presentation of results in chapters 5 and 9, but the majority is acknowledged as having played a role in informing the researcher as to the wider context of her research.

Table 3.4 Informal meetings in the Philippines.

Type of participant Number of participants

Location Details

Local NGOs 4 Manila and Legazpi

City (Albay)

3 humanitarian/ development;

1 conservation

International NGO 1 Manila Humanitarian/Development

Donor 1 Manila Asian Development Bank

Scientists 8 Manila 5 government (PHIVOLCS,

MGB, NAMRIA, PAGASA); 1 not for profit; 2 academic (Geologist and Hydrologist) Local government 3 Legazpi City (Albay) Emergency managers

Total 17 - -

Informal meetings were unrecorded and did not always involve the signing of the consent forms, as this was deemed inappropriate in the Philippines and instilled a sense of formality in what was an informal setting built on verbal understanding and trust between the participant

97 and interviewer. Participants were fully aware that they were meeting to discuss topics for the research project.

Secondary data and information

During both studies, a key component of the research was the collection and analysis of documentation relating to (1) the NGOs interviewed and their existing toolkits for hazard assessment and (2) literature and internal reports on the case study, along with historical records of previous disasters, lahar occurrence and quantitative rainfall data. The data collected for the case study analysis are further described in Chapter 6.

For the purposes of part one of the research, prior to and during the interviews, documentation detailing the background to the organisations being interviewed was collected, which helped to contextualise the answers from different organisations. Specific details regarding these cannot be shared since they would compromise the anonymity of the interviewees but they included:

 annual reports

 programme summaries and reviews

 toolkits

The respective organisations’ toolkits for conducting participatory community-based (hazard), vulnerability and capacity assessments for the purpose of DRR and/or CCA were reviewed in order to tailor specific questions to ask of interviewees. In addition, toolkits for conducting participatory community-based hazard, vulnerability and capacity assessments for DRR or CCA were more broadly consulted, in order to identify at a more general level the extent of their adoption of a multi-hazard approach and inclusion of scientific as well as community knowledge. This study gave the researcher a prior understanding of these toolkits; and it was

98 through this analysis that she recognised the need to speak with those actually involved in designing and implementing the process in order to fully understand these toolkits.

The challenge of collecting secondary data and information is that it relied upon the goodwill of the interviewees, who were often extremely busy and, therefore, not always able to send these to the researcher. However, when shared it was an invaluable means of providing context and triangulating the information collected during the interviews.

Observation research: the importance of context and participation

Kearns (2010) argues that ‘observation has been taken for granted as something that occurs

‘naturally’… [but that] with critical reflection observation can be transformed into a self-conscious, effective and ethically sound practice’ (2010: 241). In social science observation requires more than simply seeing – listening is a critical aspect of participant observation (Kearns, 2010).

The research makes no claims to adopting an ethnographic approach but opportunities for observational research comprised an important means of understanding the context of the other methods of data collection. Bazeley (2007) notes that awareness of context (e.g.

through ‘naturalistic observation’) is one of the most often acknowledged characteristics of a qualitative approach to research. Irrespective of the primary mode of data collection, she states that observations ensure a balance of perspectives gained from participants (Bazeley, 2007). Qualitative observation involves the researcher taking notes on the behaviour and actions of individuals at the research site, essentially field notes, and can vary from non-participation to totally non-participation of the researcher (Creswell, 2014).

There were three main opportunities for participant observation during this research, and reflecting on these emphasises the need to be reflexive regarding how the researcher’s presence in these situations may have shaped and influenced the observations she made

99 (Valentine, 2005). The first opportunity was time spent at CAFOD, which would range from passive observation of the workings of an NGO (Kearns’, 2010, ‘observer-as-participant’), participation during meetings and workshops, giving of presentations and involvement in group discussions, to discussing concerns with individual staff on, for example, how to integrate science or hazard assessment in a particular project. The second opportunity was via external NGO/donor workshops, forums and trainings, which allowed the researcher insight into the context of DRR in the NGO sector. Lastly, observations were made in the Philippines at additional activities the researcher was invited to attend.

Observations are a useful means of contextualising the research and achieving insight into the bigger picture. However, there are ethical implications of recording observations of those perhaps not fully appreciative of why they are being observed. However, in the context of this research, most participants were aware of the researcher’s position.

The details of the opportunities for observation are given in Appendix A. Opportunities for observations were by at times unforeseen (e.g. last minute invitation to attend NGO forums in the Philippines). Field notes were taken throughout the two visits to the Philippines, with the researcher compiling a daily account of her experiences and reflections of interviews, meetings and surroundings of the previous day. The research also required observations in the Philippines beyond that of participants in the study, for example observations of structural vulnerability and exposure to multi-hazards (see Chapter 6). A key means of documenting these was by taking photographs.