My qualitative approach

In this study, I was interested in understanding the concurrent dynamics of the internal context interacting with the external social world of the fishers living in a postcolonial site, in relation to child labour. Their realities regarding child labour, for me, are dynamic and could be negotiated dialogically. The data involved in this kind of study are not numerical but words and descriptive in nature. These are amenable to the use of qualitative research. Moreover, my approach is qualitative because this study uses critical ethnography which focuses on case study using multiple methods of data collection (interview, focus group discussion, observation) (see Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011).

My study also explored the said, unsaid, unsayable, hidden, anxieties and emotional aspects of child labour in a fishing community from fishers’ perspective (Bryman, 2012).

Silverman (2010, p. 326) argues that ‘there is no longer a call for each researcher to describe and defend qualitative approaches’. Nonetheless, as part of my qualitative approach, I followed Dunne, Pryor and Yates (2005) perspective of regarding research as a social process. By so doing I considered all the theoretical, methodological and other substantive issues as intertwined and related to my identity as a researcher, Ghanaian, and as a child who was a labourer.

My feelings (anger, surprises, joy) about my observations were also documented in my diary and my reflective journal. As discussed in Section 4.3, I spent ten months to observe discourses and to personally conduct in-depth examination of the community and the contextual practices (Cohen et al., 2011). Each interview was transcribed as soon after

conducting the interview as possible. These included transcription of “false starts, hesitations, pauses, laughing, crying, whispering and overlapping of responses”, as well as my words as captured in my research diary and reflective journal (Saville Young &

Frosh, 2010, p. 517).

4.4.1 Case study

The definition of case study has become a subject of controversy owing to the manner and the extent to which all sorts of research and evaluation reports and their procedures, methods and styles have come to be put under the ‘umbrella of case study’ (see Yin, 2014). Nonetheless, Case study, for me, could be described as an examination of a subject of study (Case) and its related contextual conditions in an up-close, in-depth, and detailed manner for a period of time (Yin, 2014). Gerring (2007, p. 1) gives an analogy that, for me, may act as a very apt and short formulation of what case study is about. He says,

There are two ways to learn how to build a house. One might study the construction of many houses – perhaps a large subdivision or even hundreds of thousands of houses. Or one might study the construction of one particular house. The first approach is a cross-case method. The second is a within-case or case study method (Gerring 2007, p. 1).

Furthermore, I also kept up with the understanding of Cohen and Manion (1989, pp. 124-125 cited in Adzahlie-Mensah, 2013) that,

…the case study researcher typically observes the characteristics of an individual unit – a child, a clique, a class, a school or community … to probe deeply and to analyse intensively … with a view to establishing generalisations about the wider population to which that unit belongs.

My approach to case study, therefore, was based on a constructivist paradigm (Yin, 2014). This paradigm “recognises the importance of the subjective human creation of meaning, …………Pluralism, not relativism, is stressed with focus on the circular dynamic tension of subject and object” (Crabtree & Miller, 1999, p. 10 cited in Yin, 2014).

Following this understanding and the lack of time and funds, my case were fishers in a fishing community which I studied in its complexity to generate knowledge that may

inform social work practice and wider studies. This was also to allow me study the child labour phenomenon in-depth and intensively through a long dialogic process. To do this, I, using a multiple method, selected fishers in one fishing community of interest in the Central region (see Appendix 2 for the map of Central region) of Ghana. This particular fishing community was selected because it is typical of any other fishing community in Ghana (see GSS, 2014b); I worked and lived in the same region where the community is located; at age 11 I lived in the same community as a child labourer. The selection of this community was also informed by the argument that children living in fishing communities have more problems than those in urban areas (see Akyeampong, 2011). As part of the ethical arrangements (Sensitive nature of the study), the identity of the community is kept private and undisclosed.

The constructivist paradigmatic approach to case study fostered close collaboration between me and the fishers, making it possible for the fishers to share with me their realities (Yin, 2014). It also created an enabling environment for me to understand the fishers’ actions and emotional responses.

4.4.2 Sampling and recruitment of the participants

The data were collected during two field visits. So, the participants were selected in two phases. In the first visit of five months (May-September 2013), I purposively selected eight participants, comprising four males and four females. For the second phase, which was also for five months (May-September, 2014), I selected eight participants purposively. They comprised five males and three females. These set of participants were interviewed and observed. They were not part of the focus group discussion (these methods will be discussed in Section 4.5). Different set of eight fishers was selected purposively for the focus group discussion only (see Stewart & Shamdasani, 2015). They comprised five females and three males. This was meant to help reveal a wealth of detailed information and deep insight, and also to engender variety of views (Krueger, 2002; Stewart & Shamdasani, 2015). My research participants comprised a critical case sample of 24 fishers (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Yin, 2003). By critical case sample, I mean these fishers have been living in the fishing community all their lives, and have been in

the fishing business in the community in their entire lives. These fishers were made up of 12 males and 12 females.

Before I commenced the recruitment, I had to set boundaries to give an indication of who will be studied and those who will NOT be studied. This was to ensure that my study remained reasonable in scope. My suggestions on how to bind a case included: (1) by time and place (Creswell, 2003); (2) by definition and context (Miles & Huberman, 1994); and (3) time and activity (Stake, 1995). All of these are said to be similar to the development of inclusion and exclusion criteria for sample selection in a quantitative study. The difference is that these boundaries also indicate the breadth and depth of the study and not simply the sample to be included (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Bryman, 2012;

Yin, 2014). Practically the following was the inclusion criteria I used to set out the criteria for all those who could be part of the study.

 Participants had to be working with a child or children: biological or foster parent for not less than 8 years.

 Participants had to be able to demonstrate an understanding of the study.

 Participants had to be able to verbally communicate.

 Once a fisher was recruited, no opposite gender sibling or extended family member was recruited because it was believed that it might be uncomfortable for two siblings or cousins of the opposite gender to participate together.

Based on this criterion, I developed a semi-structured interview schedule to select those who could participate in the study at their own free will. I used multiple methods to identify and select participants through purposive sampling (see Baskarada, 2014; Baxter

& Jack, 2008). I was guided by what Smith cited in Robson, (2002, p.135) refers to as

‘the search for typicality,' in the selection of participants for the study. This means the selection of subjects from whom what will be observed in a particular situation at a particular time is likely to apply more generally. First of all the community chief introduced me to the chief fisherman who in turn introduced me to the fishers at an assembly point. These fishers were composed of migrants, indigenes, and seasonal fishers. I administered a semi-structured interview to identify all of them. This process went on till I got all the 8 participants in the phase and 8 in the second phase, later on.

They were asked to mention the number of years they have been in the fishing business, the number of years they have been working with the children among others. They were asked to state whether the children are their own children or not. Based on this, the seasonal fishers were excluded from the study. This was due to the fact that they were not always into the fishing business. The indigenous and migrant fishers who had been in the fishing business for at least a minimum of eight years were selected to participate in the study because of their deep experiences and understandings of human activities and social structures of the community (Golo, 2012). This was also in conformity with critical ethnography which requires that data is collected from people who have unique experiences and understandings of the actualities in a particular local setting (Madison 2005; Thomas, 1993; Smith, 2005).

There were significant ethical issues involved that underpinned the recruitment of these fishers. Some of them had agreed straight away to be part of the study. Others complained of not having anything tangible from being participants in other studies. Few of the selected fishers were also worried that I could be discussing their activities on radio and on the only television station in the Central region. Some of the fishers selected for the study knew that I am a Ghanaian from a community which is not similar to their community. As I mentioned in the preface, my ability to speak the local dialect frequently helped me to gain their trust. Very few of them knew that I had spent some part of my childhood in the community. This helped me to make a case for my preparedness to help the community through research (see Chapter Eight for further discussion of how I addressed these issues). I kept negotiating these challenges as a process by continuously reminding them that they could decide not to be part of the study anytime (see Section 4.7 for further discussion). Despite these challenges, each fisher was selected only after she/he had fully understood the purpose of the research, the right to withdraw at any stage and/or give assent to participate. This study in a way involved a larger population of the community members because I observed and participated in almost every activity throughout my stay in the community as a student of critical ethnography. The next section discusses the data collection methods used in the study.