Qualification of data

When looking at data from an oral history interview, it should be kept in mind that all data comes from a process of communication, in which both the interviewer as the respondent, as well as the situation in which the interview is conducted, influences the answers. Not only “what is said, but also how it is said, why it is said and what it means” is of importance when analyzing the material (Abrams 2010, 10). In Udhruh, several factors were noticed which might have influenced the content of the interviews.

First, local politics in Udhruh, and between Udhruh and Jerba. Our first key informant in the village who arranged many interviews for us, was Jamiyla, a woman from a wealthy family, living in Jerba. We were brought in contact with her by dr. F. Abudanah, from the Al-Hussein Bin Talal University in Wadi Musa. She runs a foundation for women in Udhruh, through which she knows many of the women in the village. However, her family is from Jerba and even though contact between the two villages is peaceful, not everyone in Udhruh seemed comfortable with her presence. Therefore, having her as our key informant was not a perfect situation (cf. Bernard 1995, 167). Our second contact, who also arranged many interviews, was Ibrahim. We met him in the village during the first day that we introduced the Oral History project in Udhruh. He was born and raised here and positively known among its inhabitants. But there was a problem between these two main contacts. Ibrahim’s wife also had a women’s foundation in Udhruh, therefore the two women were rivals. It appeared that they were in a fight for a long time and did not want to talk to each other. The two main contacts tried to sabotage each other’s interviews and accidently arranged interviews with the same people. This influenced the selection of respondents and the answers given.

33

The second factor is the need for income. The Udhruh area is dry,

agriculture is becoming more difficult and many people in Udhruh are without a job. The World Heritage Site Petra (Wadi Musa) is not far from Udhruh. Wadi Musa grew into a popular tourist destination during the last twenty years, hereby drastically transforming the economy and lifestyle of its inhabitants (Comer and Willems 2012, 500). People from Udhruh have seen how a tourism industry, based on an archaeological site, attracts many visitors, which can lead to jobs in the tourism industry and thus become a source of income. With this example in mind, they see the archaeological site in Udhruh as a potential tourist destination. Therefore, they promote the archaeological research and wish for a museum or visitors center. This might have influenced the answers given, in a way that they describe their own relation towards the archaeology as protective. This is called the deference effect: when people tell you what they think you want to hear (Bernard 1995, 232). Some inhabitants were denying use and movement of stones from the site to build houses. Also, as an archaeologist who is asking about

archaeology, possible social desirability of the answers must be taken into account (Bernard 1995, 239). When an archeologists asks about the importance of an archaeological site it is likely to receive a positive answer.

In the same way, my position as an archaeologist and part of the

archaeological team might have influenced the answers given. This depends on the position of archaeologists in the community: have they done well in the past, or have they been a burden for the locals, closing off places that were in use by inhabitants? Because of the excavations in the past which established good contacts with the local community, the position of archaeologists was good. However, in the past some objects were taken from the archaeological site and brought to a museum. This was mentioned by several local inhabitants and regarded as something negative. Therefore, a good communication with the local community regarding objects that are (temporarily) taken for archaeological research is important.

Third, there was a cultural and a language barrier between interviewer and respondents, which influenced mutual understanding of questions and answers

34

(Andrews 1995, 79-80). On forehand I learned some basics of the Arabic language, but not enough to make good conversation. The change of translator halfway the interview period caused inconsistency in questions and answers, hereby highlighting the influence of the translator on the final results. The most difficult of working with a translator was probably that some of them intended to take over the interview and asked their own questions. In these cases, the

conversation was intervened and a translation was asked, after which the questionnaire was followed again. This was necessary to keep control over the interviews. Nevertheless, it can be considered positively that the translators were so involved with the research that they started to think along (cf. Andrews 1995, 79-80).

Fourth, next to my position as an archaeologist, and someone who does not speak the language fluently, my gender, age, class, race, and nationality directly influenced communication with the interviewees (Andrews 1995, 75; Bernard 1995, 230). As a western woman I was welcome in almost any situation. I could talk with the men and sit with them without supervision because I am not Jordanian, nor Muslim; because of my western background, other rules social applied to me. Moreover, I could sit and talk with the women because I am a female, something that would have been impossible as a male interviewer.