Questionnaire

Interviews followed a predetermined survey questionnaire consisting of 56

- 102 -

of community capacity development identified above. These were: (i) Community Organisational Structure; (ii) Socio-cultural Environment; (iii) Community Values;

and (iv) Community Impacts. A further nine ‘operational domains’ were aligned as

sub-sets of interest that fall within the broader ‘dimensions’ of social capital above (for example ‘depth of participation’, leadership quality, ‘problem solving ability’, ‘critical assessment’ and ‘resource mobilisation’). The resultant questionnaire utilised the four dimensions and nine domains but with some modification with suitable questions that would help diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of each community. Each section used a set of questions that required participants to select various specified choices. These choices represented the range of indicators considered appropriate to the ‘domain’ of community social interaction being

explored. For example, under ‘Community Organisational Structure’ the domain called ‘depth of participation’ sought information from people about the level of participation in community groups; under the ‘Socio-cultural Environment

dimension’ the domain called ‘trust’ gauged perceived levels of trust with others and was one aspect that contributed to the wider ‘sense of belonging/ community’ domain. This dimension and the domain ‘external linkages’ also attempted to gauge the levels of trust or honesty with certain professionals like doctors or in people from key social and power-based institutions like the police or church leaders.

The structure and style of questions within this survey were based on the Social

Capital –Integrated Questionnaire (SC-IQ) (see methodology Section 5.3.1 earlier)

because of its success in eliciting social capital information. Questions were

sourced from the SC-IQ although most needed modification in order to align to the four dimensions chosen and to obtain an assessment of the associated micro level domains. Other questions were adjusted and added to suit the research area. The researcher aimed at extracting information to help diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of each community. The reason for adapting the questionnaire in this manner was to retain some continuity of learning on the subject of instruments for measuring social capital and cohesion in communities. As Labonte and Laverack

- 103 -

(2002) pointed out there was no intention to “create a best practice template. One size doesn’t fit all communities”. Thus researchers determine the different domains suited to the particular community situations within which their research is targeted (p. 117). Further detail on the questionnaire design utilised for this study refer to Appendix 3.

The questionnaire’s first dimension, ‘organisational structures’, assessed community-based group activity (internally organised and with external groups operating within the settlement). Group types were aligned to the 18 categories of organisations defined by Grootaert et.al., (2004, p. 11) most likely to represent the majority of civil based groups that people may come in contact with. Questions

inquired about individuals’ attitudes and behaviours towards the importance of

these groups to the community; about membership levels; group participation; group leadership; volunteerism; social obligations to support groups (for example religious donations) and perceived benefits arising from their active participation. There were a total of 23 questions in the first section of the questionnaire. The domain and number of questions relating to that domain are listed here:

Domain 1: Community Structures

1.1 Family & Household Overview (1 question)

1.2 Groups & Breadth of Participation (4 questions: Number’s. 1.2 to 1.5) Domain 2: Participation

1.6 Diversity of Membership (2 questions: Number’s. 1.6 to 1.7)

1.8 Depth of Participation (5 questions: to Number 1.13) Domain 3: Leadership

1.14 Leadership (3 questions: to Number 1.16) Domain 8: Resource Mobilisation

1.17 Volunteering (1 question) 1.18 Social Giving (1 question)

- 104 -

The second section of the questionnaire assessed the ‘socio-environmental’ dimension of community life with a series of questions related to trust levels within the community and toward people within institutions that they may expect to interact with. Other questions assessed householder’s key sources of information on matters that may affect the community and how they go about fostering

collective action and public spiritedness to respond to such issues, all of which are considered as some of the important precursors for socio-economic growth and

development47 (Cheers, Cock, Keele, Kruger and Trigg, 2006, p. 1). In section two

there were a total of 10 questions, relating to three of the nine domains as indicated below:

Domain 4: Sense of Community

2.1 Trust (4 questions: to Number 2.4) Domain 6: Critical Assessment

2.5 Information & Communication (2 questions: to Number 2.6) Aspects of questions 1.9 also contributed to the evaluation of this domain.

Domain 5: Problem Assessment

2.7 Collective Action & Public Spiritedness (4 questions: to Number 2.10)

Aspects of questions 1.11, 2.2, and 3.5-3.7 also contributed to the evaluation of this domain.

The third section of the questionnaire assessed the ‘community values’ dimension with a series of questions related to the degree of tolerance and social

inclusiveness within the community -- considered key factors for improved quality of life and the development of healthy functioning communities (Labonte &

Laverack, 2001a, p. 112). There were a total of 8 questions in this third section, all related to one domain of interest: Sense of community

47

As acknowledged earlier there are many determinants associated with community capacity that contribute to economic development as an ultimate goal and this is outlined well in Labonte & Laverack, 2001a, p. 111-113.

- 105 -

Domain 4: Sense of Community

3.1 Belonging, Tolerance & Inclusion (8 questions: to Number 3.8) Aspects of questions 4.15 also contributed to the evaluation of this domain.

The final section of the questionnaire assessed the ‘community empowerment’ dimension with a series of questions related to household income and food

security, assessing levels of hardship. Other questions included how often people in their community had jointly petitioned or approached government officials or leaders during the last year for something to benefit the community. There were two specific domains involved in this final section; external linkages and external agency supports. This section included 8 questions:

Domain 7: External Linkages

4.1 Sociability (4 questions: to Number 4.4)

4.12 Political Action (3 questions: to Number 4.14)

Domain 9: External Agency Supports 4.15 Political Action (1question)

Aspects of questions 1.2 and 2.3 also contributed to the evaluation of this domain.

Questions on impacts were also included under the various dimensions. These were used to gather qualitative information about members’ perceptions of the benefits they received from their involvement in group activities and from community interactions with other community members. These included:

1.19 Impact & Benefits (2 questions) 1.21 Networks (3 questions)

4.5 Well-being (3 questions) 4.8 Empowerment (4 questions)

- 106 -

Aspects of questions 1.2-1.5, 1.9-1.10 also contributed to the evaluation of overall impacts.

The researcher carried out the field data collection with the help of two research

assistants - one Fijian and one Indo-Fijian. They assisted both the participant’s

understanding of the questions and the researcher’s understanding of their replies.

The use of research assistants was to ensure accurate linguistic interpretation and the use of terms specific to either Indo-Fijian or Fijian. Both research assistants signed confidentiality agreements prior to commencing the research (refer to Appendix 8).