Prior informed consent

In keeping with principles of good research, throughout the research process, I observed the cardinal rules of ethical principles seeking prior informed consent (Cohen et al., 2007). Securing informed consent means “the knowing consent of the individuals to participate as an exercise of their choice, free from any element of fraud, deceit, duress or similar unfair inducement or manipulation” (Berg, 1998, p. 47). Consent was first sought by phone and by e-mail. Upon meeting the research participants, I spent time to explain what the research was about and obtained further verbal consent. Consent was also specifically sought before taking still and video pictures and there were no instances when research participants declined. In Lesotho, where I could not speak the local language, translation was used to discuss consent. However, certain issues cannot be predicted and do not conform to prior informed consent. For example, one of the model solutions developed in Case Study 2 was the formation of an organic association for farmers, retailers, facilitators, local government and retailers in Durban. The participants drew up principles that included inclusivity – that each stakeholder group had to be represented, but when the Board was constituted some groups were either not represented or under-represented. This was an ethical issue encountered in the research which illustrates a challenge in interventionist research where one cannot tell the nature of intervention that will emerge.

Bassey (1999) discussed three central ethical issues in research, which also guided this study: respect for truth; respect for democracy; and respect for persons. In deciding on how to respond to the matter of exclusion of some stakeholder groups in Case Study 2, I was guided by the principles of respect for truth and for democracy. The research participants had agreed to form an association based on particular values and principles and in my view they were not being adequately observed, so I asked why and went on to interview one of the stakeholder groups that was excluded – but in a manner that I saw as responsible. In Case Study 3 during the feedback workshop, research participants pointed out that one of the contradictions in the promotion of their practice was associated with the tension between the individualism of the MFS promoting institutions and cooperation among them. In the feedback meeting with the leaders of these organisations, in respect for truth and at the same time maintaining the anonymity of the persons who raised the issue – in order to do no harm – I communicated the concern. But these ethical dilemmas were not always comfortable or easy to deal with. In Case Study 1, a difficult issue arose when one of the research participants who was to attend a feedback workshop and whose relative passed away a day before the workshop, asked me to help him by carrying some of the mourners and a coffin on my way from Harare on the

150

day of the workshop. It was difficult to decline and the main dilemma was concerned with starting late, which would have implications for other participants. When I arrived about 45 minutes late, the other participants were about to leave because they had other commitments. A compromise was reached to go ahead with the workshop but only within the time that remained – about 2 hours 15 minutes, which proved adequate.

The table below (Table 4.6) provides summarised details of research participants and data gathering methods used at different stages of the research process.

Table 4.6: Summary of data generation with research participants

Phase 1: Interviews,

documents and observations in the field

Phase 2: Focus group discussions, observation of learning processes in workshop and of practice in the field.

Change laboratory workshop Feedback workshop Case Study

1 3 individual interviews 2 group interviews 4 farmers

6 development practitioners A total of 10 people involved (2 women)

Attended by 4 farmers, 4 Permaculture facilitators; 4 pupils and 1 government agriculture extension worker. It took place over 4 days and in about 10 hours. Researcher served as facilitator and had an assistant.

(4 of the 17 participants were women/girls)

2 farmers; 4 pupils; 4 Permaculture facilitators, researcher and assistant. Workshop lasted about 2.5 hours.

(4 of the 10 participants were women/girls) 11 documents and 1 website

Case Study

2 10 individual interviews 5 farmers 1 farm worker

4 trainers

1 organic produce marketer A total of 11 people were involved (3 women) (1 person is active both as a farmer and as a trainer)

Workshop was attended by 16 people: 2 organic farmers; 2 farm workers; 2 organic trainers; 3 environmental educators; 4 rural NGO leaders; 1 photographer. Daily

attendance ranged from 6 to 12. CL workshop lasted 12 hours and took place over 4 days. I worked as facilitator and worked with a research assistant.

(8 of the 16 participants were women) 3 feedback interviews with 2 organic farmers/facilitators; 1 organic marketer; 1 funding partner. Interviews lasted 3 hours altogether. (2 of the four interviewees were women) 4 websites Case Study

3 3 individual interviews 4 group interviews 31 farmers

5 development practitioners A total of 38 people were involved (21 women and 17 men)

Attended by 2 MFS promoters; 8 farmers from two districts of Lesotho; and 4 government agriculture extension workers. I worked as researcher and facilitator, with an assistant. Workshop took about 12 hours, in 4 sessions over two days. (9 of the research participants were women) 5 MFS farmers and 2 MFS facilitators attended a 2 hour feedback workshops; 2 MFS facilitators were interviewed for an hour. (5 of the 9 participants were women)

151