Power Relations

Going into this project I was conscious that presenting myself as an events professional who was living and working in the diaspora had the potential for setting up an unhelpful illusion of a hierarchical power relationship between myself and the research group. It was important for me to approach the group in a transparent manner that did not give off the wrong impression.

In Zimbabwe, citizens who live and work in the diaspora are sometimes perceived as having more power as the assumption is that they are living in countries which are more advanced economically and thus have access to financial resources that local Zimbabweans do not have. Given this prevailing mind-set, there was still the prospect that I might be viewed as the external figure that ‘parachutes in’ from outside, with ample financial resources to disburse which would put me at a different power level (Smith, 2012). I had to ensure participants did not get the perception that I was just there to carry out a ‘quick win’ research project, which might involve ‘throwing money’ at their problem without considering the long term impacts.

This issue was complex to navigate as I could not deny my position, and also knew that my work experience and contacts gave me access to key networks of influence that would help me liaise with other stakeholders in the multifaceted societal structure in order to mobilise the necessary support for the project in later stages. So as to avoid the illusion of hierarchical power relationship between myself and the group I was careful to craft introductory communications that clarified my position and explicitly stated that the research participants that signed up would be considered co-designers and would partner in the decision-making regarding design, data collection and analysis activities. I also set one important rule for myself, which I communicated to the group, I would endeavour to only speak 20% of the time when we were together. I did this because I was aware I could slip into the default position of

182 taking over discussions and planning activities as I always did in my day-to-day work, and this might establish informal power hierarchies and silence my co-researchers.

Another important point we had to be aware of as a group was that any action based social change project where participation, democracy and dialogue are key, requires, to a certain extent, that some form of power be re-distributed (Dagron, 2009). It was therefore important to have a frank discussion about the risks of engaging with the project very early on before consent forms were signed. The implications of any attempts to alter power relationships in a societal structure could result in a backlash from those who might have felt threatened by our activities. At the consent meeting, we agreed that research participants would not be placed in situations with stakeholders at different perceived power levels without preparation beforehand. Research participants would also be given the option to develop a communication process that best supported their view of democracy, transparency and dialogue. If there was a decision by the group to include different stakeholder representatives at some of the planning and meaning-making sessions, then rules of engagement as to how we would like to work with them would be drawn up and agreed by the group as a whole. These rules of engagement would be explicitly communicated to stakeholders also preparing them for these sessions as well as managing their expectations.

When the question of topics that might be taboo was raised we agreed that the context we were working in would require us to go through a process of conscientisation to confront our assumptions about power regarding age; gender, socio- economic standing, religious affiliation and political affiliation (Freire, 1996). We therefore used our initial phase of dialogue and critical reflection using the online platform, Slack, to do this. We also ensured that our rules of engagement would explicitly cover how disagreements and priorities would be handled.

183 5.3.3. Collecting The Data

In my position as a researcher and PhD student I needed to collect rich, thick (substantial) descriptions of the experience from all participants in the project as we would then use this information to generate actionable knowledge (Holloway, 1997). This meant that as a research team we would have to commit to collecting data that enabled us to confront what we thought we knew, as well as our process of knowing throughout the project. We discussed and agreed that I would collect data that would record and report the voice of the participants. Part of my role as research-facilitator would be to take the lead in arranging the collection and storage of data and I would focus on using mechanisms that were not restrictive or prohibitive to my co-researchers (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Ledwith and Springett, 2010; Smith, 2012; Strega and Brown, 2015). We agreed on the methods and platforms indicated in Table 5. These methods enabled us to collect useful data to prompt our moments of critical reflection and confront the

‘culture of silence’ that surrounded the self-limiting beliefs about the societal structure we were working to change (Freire, 1996). Table 5 below outlines the methods that were used to collect and record the data used to generate knowledge. Examples of raw data from these activities are included in the confidential Appendix.

Table 5 : Data Collection Methods Project Phase and

research activities

Research - Facilitator Co-researchers Other

Stakeholders*

184 5.3.4 Building Theory – Making sense of the data

There were several iterations of the data analysis process using transcripts from the following activities:-

• Dialogue and critical reflection process on Slack in 2016

• Design workshop held in Harare in January 2017

• WhatsApp conversations following on from the design workshop and the project evaluation workshop meeting held in June 2017

My first meeting with the group in June 2016 included a discussion to agree how we would work regarding participatory levels. I was transparent about my motivations and declared my interest in conducting the research project as a PhD student who needed to write and submit a thesis after a period of time. I had this conversation with the group early on because we had to discuss how the findings from the research would be treated and presented. We therefore agreed that although the group would be participating at the highest participatory level, they only wanted to be involved in the analysis and reporting activities that were directed at other stakeholders in their societal structure like policymakers, funders, embassies, gallerists and the general public. The group agreed to let me conduct further analysis of the data in order to answer my thesis research questions, on condition that I presented an overview of these findings to the group who would give their feedback and provide recommendations on how to improve the PED process - this was done at the evaluation workshop in June 2017.

Data Analysis Phase 1

Phase 1 of the data analysis was conducted as a group at the June 2017 workshop. The group allocated tasks beforehand, in order to make sense of the data from the critical reflection process and the June design workshop. They agreed to go through the Slack and WhatsApp conversations held before and after the PED workshop. Each group member came to the evaluation workshop with their personal reflections on the process and the key issues they

185 wanted to discuss and make sense of from the PED process. The co-researchers would also give me their feedback on taking part in the PED process and their recommendations for how to improve it for future projects.

I was tasked with going through the January workshop transcript to prepare an initial set of themes and points that we would discuss and verify together as a group, a process discussed by Cahill (2010). This form of participatory data analysis was conducted without any pre-set codes, we instead relied on an emergent coding process that focused in on specific recurring words used in conversations as well as questions and suggestions that evoked reactions ranging from energetic responses to long silences among the group. We discussed these themes at the workshop and then the group gave me specific points they wanted me to incorporate in my research findings (Chapters 6, 7, and 8).

Data Analysis Phase 2

In order to answer my core research questions for this thesis I also analysed all the data on my own. I went through all the transcripts with a set of pre-set codes linked to the themes I had identified in the literature based on the lens of postcolonial theory in order to see if I could identify power technologies enframing the group and map if they were going through any form of social change in this PED process. I also developed a set of codes to track these elements in the data – see Table 6. I have presented the results and discussion from our analysis in Chapters, 6, 7 and 8. Extracts from our conversations and discussions on Slack, WhatsApp, and interviews are included as well as some pictures taken during various activities as well in the confidential Appendix section.

It is important to note that I wanted all participants to feel as comfortable as possible and thus group members were invited to use the language they felt comfortable using. As discussions developed group members fell into a pattern of using a combination of Shona and English (2 of the 3 main languages used in the country). The group also frequently used local idioms,

186 slang and made references to analogies specific to the Zimbabwean context. I have done my best to provide explanatory footnotes and translations that are as close to the essence of the message as possible so that readers can vicariously experience some of the depth of the discussions and challenges faced by the group during the process. This will help to develop a detailed picture of the complex levels in the social structure that we wanted to change. This form of presentation also creates a clear path to follow through our untidy and iterative process that highlights the distance we travelled. Each chapter presents key findings emerging from our initial participatory analysis workshop and then my findings from my analysis process.

Table 6: Examples of Pre-set Codes

Themes Codes

I incorporated the following strategies as recommended by Greenwood and Levin (1998) to ensure validity of the research:-

1. Member-checking and critical reflection– to determine the accuracy of the qualitative findings in each action research cycle I took the specific descriptions or themes back to the research participants to determine whether the participants felt that they were accurate. This is what Greenwood and Levin, 1998 call ‘internal credibility’. I would