Research ethics and validity

The research process carried out during this study prioritised and was based on social research ethics principles which include:

4.8.1 Autonomy

Terre Blanche and Durrheim (1999, p. 62) discussed the need to respect the autonomy of all persons participating in the research work. This research observed issues such as:

i. Voluntary participation;

132

iii. Freedom of participants to withdraw from the research at any time and participants’ rights to anonymity in any publication that might arise out of research.

All the research participants who were involved in this study participated in the study on voluntary a basis, and were free to leave at any stage of the research process. I endeavoured to show my respect for the research participants throughout the study. Wellington (2000) argued that participants in a research study have the right to be informed about the aim, purpose, findings and their potential consequences. Before the study commenced, I organised a briefing of all the research participants where I explained the aim and purpose of the study including some of the benefits the study might bring to the fishing communities in terms of better understandings between the government and the communities as well as sustainable fish catches as a long term benefit.

The research process also took into account the following three research values in social research: respect of person, respect for truth and respect for democratic values by recognising participants’ contributions in the workshops, including and clarifying their views to reflect the truth and allowing people to express their democratic principles without fear or favour (Bassey, 1995). I asked for permission to take pictures, videos, audio recording of all the discussions in the two case studies and also permission to use the names of research participants and pictures in the research report (see Appendix 1). In all the meetings I organised with stakeholders they were assured of full use of materials and any evidence obtained in the study and I indicated throughout that they would be fully acknowledged for their contributions to the study. Terre-Blanche and Durrheim (2002) argued that in a research process there should be freedom for research participants to withdraw from the research at any time depending on the interest of individuals. I offered this freedom to my research participants.

4.8.2 Non-maleficence

Macklin (2002) stressed that the researcher should ensure no harm to research participants as a direct or indirect consequence of the research and that deception is fundamentally wrong and should be avoided wherever possible. This is associated to any harm that can arise and/or affect respondents during the research. In this research, I made sure that there was no element that could cause harm to research participants, any other person or the community at large. The central contention of the research has potential benefits outweighing any risk of harm since all the findings will be used to develop better practices for the sustainability of the fisheries resources.

4.8.3 Beneficence

The research explored ways of bringing the learning interactions that exist between the resource users, Fisheries College and the government together so that both sides could learn and benefit from each other. Wassenaar (2006) noted that the research participant’s risks cannot simply be offset by the payments of large sums of money; there must be more direct benefits such as better access to health facilities, better skills, better knowledge of the topic in question and so on. The study explored ways of enhancing social interactions amongst stakeholders including the fishing communities which may result in informing and improving extension and training that will recognise and make use of both explicit or concrete knowledge and tacit knowledge for the sustainability of the fisheries resources.

4.8.4 Validity and trustworthiness of the research

Durrheim (2002) described the concept of validity by referring to the degree to which research conclusions are sound and/or trustworthy. The design, methodology and data analysis applied in the study were rigorously and carefully constituted. I paid particular attention to internal coherence, in that I sought to find a theoretical and practical approach to the research that would align with the core object of the study (co-management) as well as the emerging trends in agricultural extension training (namely co-learning / social learning) in the natural resources management context. I also needed an approach that would work with diverse stakeholders, which the CHAT / social learning approaches provided. During the change laboratory workshops, for example, participants were able to rework and restructure the contradictions which were obtained in the first phase of the study to represent and reflect real issues on the ground. I considered this as another way of triangulating raw data obtained from research participants through participatory learning processes where the data was considered and deliberated – a form of member checking.

This led to the defining of aligned data generation techniques, which were qualitative in nature, as the object of the research and the goals of the study required such data. In doing this, I sought to ensure that this was thorough, and that I used a range of different data sources to facilitate triangulation. Through the research design, data was also member checked and deliberated in depth by research participants.

I was also mindful of the two main threats to validity in qualitative research: researcher bias and participant reactivity (Durrheim (2002)). As someone who worked in the organisation before, and was involved in a number of research programmes before embarking on this research, I drew on my previous experience to make sense of what was being discussed, avoiding bias by capturing the data carefully and then reflecting carefully on it afterwards, and through using theory and contextual analysis to provide wider referents through which I could read and work with the data. I also considered advice from Cohen et al. (2007) who

134

suggested that researcher bias may be overcome by the researcher’s declaration of personal values and beliefs that he/she brings into the study, and by researcher reflexivity (see Section 4.7.4 above). I therefore sought to avoid participant bias through triangulation of data sources, respondent validation, long term involvement with participants, researcher reflexivity and comparison of tools developed by different groups during the data generation process, and through careful abductive analytical work. I also had in mind that I needed to constantly ask myself ‘how could I be wrong?’, ‘how I can do it better next time?’ and ‘how do I manage my position as an interventionist researcher to ensure on-going research reflexivity?’ (Lather, 1986). I also kept notes on and constantly reflected on power relations in the research process, which I reflect on at the end of the study (see Section 8.6.2.4).

4.9 Conclusion

This chapter discussed the methodological framework used for the study, showing the methodological implications of Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) research, especially as this relates to expansive learning using the DWR framework. The chapter also discussed the case study approach and how abductive analysis of activity systems helped to surface tensions and contradictions that aimed at facilitating expansive learning in fisheries co-management. This chapter also outlines the methods used to generate data to respond the research goals outlined in the first chapter and how data was analysed. The methods are informed by the field-based and contextual analyses presented in Chapter 1 and 2 (literature review) and the theoretical framework presented for socio-cultural / cultural historical learning presented in Chapter 3 (features of social learning in fisheries co-management). The research project was a learning process which took place over a number of years in order to have a better understanding on how learning takes place in the fisheries co-management context (see Section 1.7.2). A systematic methodological framework was followed as shown in the table that follows.

Table 4.6: Summary of research activities over a period of time

No Research Activity 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1 Contextual profile of social learning in fisheries co- management

2 Research proposal writing and submission

3 Data collection and literature review (interviews, focus group discussions)

4 Data analysis (change laboratory workshops) and

start writing up

5 Co-management stakeholders way forward workshop

6 Writing up continues and submission of thesis

The chapter that follows explores learning in fisheries co-management, and shows the first layer of analysis of the study.

136