The Field of Study and Research Design
Denzin and Lincoln (2008, p. 4) posit that all qualitative research involves:
an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.
In my case, this naturalistic approach to research involved using primarily ethnographic tools: semi-structured interviews, non-participant interviews,
participant observation, non-formal observation and participatory mapping activities.
The length of time in the field lasted four months, from August to December 2014, however I was quickly immersed in Abidjan life and the two different spheres of the discussion groups. In the first two days, expert interviews began, and within two weeks I began interviews and observations with participants (See Appendix Four for a research timetable). This time period, one year before scheduled elections, captured the spaces within a moment of significant political and social change. If conducted even six months later or earlier, the study may have resulted in different findings, especially with regards to justice and the politicised nature of the grins. This highlights the importance of situating the knowledge within the distinct historical moment (Freire, 1972) in order to understand the meaning of dialogue at this time, what Morgan and Guilherme (2012) call relating the texts to the ‘zeitgeist.’
While unsure of my access to discussion spaces before arriving in the country, I had decided to visit multiple spaces if possible, as observing a broad range of grins and agoras would allow a more complete view of the research field. I ultimately visited 33 grins and six agoras, totalling nearly 100 hours of semi-structured observation. However, I spent more time in certain spaces such as Grin 2, Grin 12, Agora 2 and Agora 317 which also enabled me to gain in-depth of knowledge and to see how life changed from day to day in the spaces. The following sub-sections describe my main methods of collecting data: interviews, participatory mapping and observations.
Interviews
30 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 grin and 15 agora participants. Interviews were guided by a set of 12 questions (see Appendix Five for Interview Schedule), but each interview differed substantially
depending on information provided by the participant, his or her role within the discussion space and the type of discussion space. For a list of the
participants and brief descriptions of them, see Appendix Seven. All
17 While participants have pseudonyms, discussion spaces are ascribed a number.
interviews were done individually, except for Marc and Pierre who were interviewed together.
The sampling of these interviews, though purposive in both cases, occurred very differently between grins and agoras and illuminated how the spaces function. Initial access to grins was found through contacts at NGOs,
journalists who had worked with the groups and taxi drivers. Interviews with grin participants usually followed my visit to their space; after attending a grin, I would be able to ask the leader of the grin, or my contact person, if I could have someone’s number or would directly sample at that moment and I often left each grin with a few phone numbers. There was little gatekeeping in terms of both accessing the spaces or the members themselves and grins did not have to report to a larger governing body for permission. Agoras, on the other hand, rarely met publicly and were more cautious of foreigners because of their anti-Western stance and status as a political opposition group. Contact with agoras often had to come from leaders of two national associations, FENAPAOCI and FENOPACI. In many cases, I had to attend meeting with the gatekeepers and was introduced a part of their official delegation. Then, presidents of the individual agoras decide who I could interview. For example, I received from a local journalist the contact information of two presidents of agoras within FENOPACI, unknown to me; the presidents refused to talk to me until the FENOPACI’s president approved. I called the president, who I had already met but had not offered these contacts initially, and asked for permission to interview the presidents. This may have posed some ethical issues in terms of the data and also of the participants’ inability to refuse an interview with me if ordered by a national leader, however the formal consent sheet gave me the opportunity to discuss the research in private with the participant and allow them to ask further questions and decide to participate.
Also, unlike the grins, I interviewed four agora participants who no longer attended agoras. Because of the lack of public meetings, most casual agora attendees no longer had the chance to be bystanders as they were in the past, and I also found it important to understand why they stopped. In both groups, certain participants became ‘active partners’ who understood the goals of my study and helped me to carry out my research (Angrosino & Rosenberg, 2013,
p. 152) and, understanding that I wanted to observe the spaces as they were without disrupting their normal activities, often included this in introductions or sought ways to arrange meetings so that this could occur.
I purposively sampled to include a range of ages and ‘roles’ within the grins and also to have female representation, although this was more difficult.
Ultimately, I chose to sample people based on the categories that they gave me, such as côro (Dioula word meaning leader, see Chapter Five) youth, woman and not necessarily on how I viewed them (Loflaand, 1976 in Gibson
& Brown, 2009). In this way, I began to see that age was more fluid concept or that actors who were considered ‘youth’ in the 2000s were still viewed in those terms. For example, at Grin 12, when I asked to speak to a young member, they suggested a 36 year old man who was the president of the local youth chapter of the RDR (Field Notes, October 18).
Sampling was representative of the entire population of grins and agoras.
Three female members may have been slightly oversampled in proportion to female participation at meetings but gaining insights into barriers to their participation as well as their contributions was important to this research. I also chose to interview the same amount of grin and agora participants, although there are significantly more grin observation hours. This is highly indicative of the research environment where grins were accessible and highly active whereas agoras had either disbanded or existed in the shadows. While each grin and agora had its unique composition of members, sampling is generally representative of the demographics I encountered in the field: the majority between 20 and 40 years old with some older and younger members mixed in. Data on ethnicity was not collected however judging from
participants’ names, and details that they shared, religion was usually revealed. All but one grin interviewee was Muslim and all agora participants were Christian, which was a generally representative of the populations of those discussion groups.
Within Abidjan, I did not initially target any particular neighbourhoods but I strove to have observations in a range of communes18, and especially those notoriously affected by the conflict: Abobo, known as the ‘home of the grins,’
and Yopougon, ‘the home of agoras.’ Treichville, Anyama, Adjame, Port Bouët and Cocody were also sites of observations and interviews, covering 7 of 13 communes in Abidjan. I also visited the capital city of Yamoussoukro and Bonoua which enhanced my knowledge of issues surrounding peace and reconciliation on a more national level and also gave insights into the history of the country. Participants always chose the site of the interview, which in part responded to questions of power and positionality but more importantly ensured the participant felt safe and at ease. Allowing participants to choose the site also gave me insight into who they were, what activities they enjoyed and what their lives resembled. Often, interviews took place in people’s
homes, in churches, on street corners, in the grin spaces or in places of work.
In addition to speaking with participants, 18 expert interviews were also conducted with NGO workers, government officials, professors, activists and journalists (see Appendix 9 for a list of organisations and institutions). These interviews gave baseline knowledge and perspective on grins and agoras, both before and after the crisis, and also helped me to triangulate data from grins and agora interviews and observations, especially regarding freedom of speech and assembly, the current political climate, the extent to which spaces had been integrated into NGO and national dialogue programmes and general public perceptions of the groups. These interviews did not adhere to the
interview schedule but varied depending on the organisation and role of the person.
Participatory Mapping
Participatory mapping is a common approach when working with youth or when attempting research methods which minimise unequal power dynamics (Milligan, 2014). Participatory group mapping was conducted with three grins
18Communes are similar to boroughs. The characteristics of different communes are described in Chapter 5.
and one agora, in the study’s key areas: Yopougon, Treichville and Abobo.
These maps allowed members to share how they perceived their areas and enabled me to make comparisons between different areas of the city (See Appendix 10 for an example). For this activity, I brought large sheets of poster paper, pens, markers, post-it notes and tape to the meetings. The groups determined what geographically constituted their ‘neighbourhood’ and drew a map, including their discussion space, other sites of importance such as schools, other grins or agoras, churches, mosques, shops, banks, markets or households. I also asked them to identify any sites of violence during the 2011 post-electoral violence. This activity occurred during meeting times with the exception of the agora: because of the sensitivities of public meetings, the leader did his own map and we discussed and amended it with a few of his members. This activity also highlighted group dynamics and processes of learning and dialogue. For example, in Grin 12 (December 20, 2014), I
observed how, like in dialogue, members recognised one another’s strengths and assigned leadership roles for the process based on this, and not on age or other hierarchies.
Observations: Semi-structured and Unstructured
Observations, both semi-structured and unstructured, constituted an important part of data generation. I took a semi-structured approach to observations in the spaces and created an Observation Schedule (Appendix Six) that set forth general categories of information that I sought, yet allowed me to remain open to information that presented itself in the course of a meeting (Gillham, 2008).
Unstructured observations occurred in everyday life and helped to inform my semi-structured observations. The total hours of semi-structured observation were: 80.25 hours in grins, 18.5 hours in agoras and 21.25 in related dialogue activities such as NGO events, local associations, political rallies and similar events. See Appendix Eight for a table of observations.
Participant observation within the extended case method (Burawoy, 1991, 2009) acknowledges and encourages the researcher’s engagement and the inevitable impact of an outsider within a space. As a guest, and following the
Ivorian custom of ‘asking for the news’ (see Chapter Six), I generally spoke at every meeting. Usually, I introduced myself and answered preliminary
questions and as the meeting progressed was able to ask questions and even contribute my opinions to the discussion when appropriate (see also below on Positionality). I tried to minimise my obtrusiveness by following social norms of greetings and recording my observations as discreetly as possible. To ensure that participants remained at ease and free to speak, I recorded
observations by hand and not with an audio recording device. Some photos of groups were taken although not analysed as data but rather as a way to illustrate certain aspects of the spaces discussed in the data analysis and to jog my memory about meetings or events. Members often expected me and invited me to take photos and all photos in Appendices 10, 16 and 17 are taken by the author and have been authorised to use in this thesis.
Observation notes became a mix of thick description, annotated dialogue and my own initial analyses. I would often indicate times, such as the length that one person spoke or the length of time that people stayed on a subject but these were not analysed quantitatively. These handwritten notes were re-transcribed nightly, along with any voice memos I took afterward, as soon as possible, filling in gaps or details when lacking. As Gilham (2008, p. 68) explains, these observation notes became an important part of the ‘inter-subjective process.’ Additionally, my smartphone became an invaluable research tool where I would regularly take notes when chatting with people or when observing meetings. Using a phone was often more discreet and less intrusive than pulling out a notebook in semi-structured and non-structured observations as it gave the appearance of engaging in a familiar activity and perhaps enabled people to feel less ‘observed.’ These phone notes were added to the daily field notes in my computer but sometimes have a different style because of the slower writing speed on the electronic device (See Appendix 11).
I also created dialogue maps, often several during the course of a meeting.
For 5-minute intervals, I would map the flow of dialogue between members and also note important types of speech (e.g. question, agreement, joke, disagreement). These maps helped to keep me aware of the inclusivity of
dialogue, the seating arrangements, fluctuating number of members in session and the topics discussed. It also helped to understand if and when particular members dominated conversations and if this linked to other factors, such as discussion topic. These maps were drafted in my notebook,
photographed and loaded in to the typed up field notes at the end of the day. I later created digital versions of these for data analysis. For more on how I used these, see Chapter Six.
My role as ‘observer’ at grins and agoras differed due to various dynamics. In grins, the group was smaller and I was generally brought along as someone’s
‘friend’. I was generally treated as a guest, with the exception of three grins that I frequented often, yet allowed within the circle of conversation and expected to participate. I could sit where I chose, though often was given a comfortable chair and a drink at first-time visits. For agoras, I visited most with several members of the national board of FENAPAOCI. In these meetings, I always had a seat at the front with the national board and was introduced as part and parcel of their team. Furthermore, the oratory nature of agoras as compared with the discussion-group style of grins meant that I became far less of a ‘participant’ within the agoras than the grins, although this was similar to other attendees.
Finally, I also included semi-structured observations of events and activities that I attended that were related in some way to dialogue or peace, as these broadened my understanding of the meaning of dialogue in the Ivoirian context and gave me insights into the ways ‘dialogue’ was being approached in the peacebuilding context. See the Table of Observations in Appendix Eight for further details. Unlike grins and agoras, the names of these events were not anonymised as they were public and the titles and sponsors reveal important information about them.