Research Workbook

I also kept a daily Research Workbook, which, as well as diary/descriptive type notes and information, also included my thoughts, feelings, reservations, uncertainties, shortcomings, breakthroughs and triumphs over the three months of fieldwork. I wrote this up each evening and, as well as noting reactions, feelings and ideas for improvement in my practice, as it related to my methods, tried to provide myself with signposts which would enable me to pinpoint specific information relating to empowerment at a later date. I also kept ‘top up the tape’ notes of interviewees’ comments made after the tape-recorder was turned off, or points which might clarify what was on the tape. These were sometimes made in my Research Workbook, in a

special mini-notebook, or, occasionally (so as to catch the moment), on the back of the interviewee’s Consent Form. The most interesting comments or summings-up were sometimes made after the recorded interview had finished. My PhD colleagues at ANU had warned me this might be so, but 1 was surprised when it first happened and 1 was caught without writing materials immediately to hand. I logged the atmosphere and feelings permeating an interview in the Research Workbook, if I felt that it would be relevant when 1 came to interpret the interview. Two examples will illustrate this point. One interviewee, as a member of a proud local minority community, was instantly known in the cafe where we met. 1 could sense that she was a wise, respected (and very likely feared) woman and, although 1 had met her before, I was extra-careful to show respect, remind her of our previous meeting, when I had been genuinely impressed by her, hopefully gaining her confidence (interview, 11/3/2011). Noting in my Workbook her reception in the cafe added significantly to my understanding of the interview, because it provided the context of the conversation when 1 came to analyse it.

1 may have been over-enthusiastic when another interviewee arrived fully covered, except for her face (‘covering gives me a way of being in the world’) and announced that she had become a Muslim two weeks before our meeting. She told me she had been concerned how 1 would react to her appearing as a covered woman. 1 explained my reaction by telling her that, to my mind, her presence would add to the diversity of the local, small town, community (her being a white convert to Islam) and I could only see that as a positive thing. She was not so sure about my view, but told me that her self-esteem and outlook on life had improved immeasurably as a result of the lead-up to, and adoption of, her new faith (interview, 14/3/2011). Again, noting that she was covered, and her and others’ reaction to that, added to my understanding of her interview and viewpoint. She told me she had suffered from a ‘lack of self- respect’ for years and felt that covering would stop people judging her and that Islam would give her daughter a solid foundation: ‘for her own self-preservation (...) so she could do well in life’. Essentially, she said she was now: ‘the happiest she had ever been.’ However, she also acknowledged that the encouragement and help she had received from her WLF Branch prior to her adoption of Islam had also made her feel ‘good’ and ‘proud’ and the knowledge that by paying her loan back she was

helping other women was a very important factor for her.

My Research Workbook was a useful addition because it allowed me to note down things which happened outside the formal interviews, usually on the same day. In addition, it allowed me to record non-verbal aspects of an interview. All this helped me in interpreting the interviews and their overall atmosphere later in the research process.

4.4.1 Interview Analysis

An important element of my interview analysis was the inspiration and practical help I got from the work of Carolyn Hendriks, particularly ‘Praxis Stories” (2007). Her willingness to share in detail various personal experiences while doing research on an ‘interpretive project’ was a revelation. Above all, she noted the intensity of this type of research experience, the variety of ‘nuanced’ and ‘dynamic’ skills and ‘fundamental attributes’ required for it (Hendriks 2007:293-4) and how she discovered: ‘that fieldwork can....be psychologically and physically demanding” (Hendriks, 2007:293-4). This description of the process of research in the field enabled me to connect my pre-fieldwork ideas with actual conversations and interviews which 1 had taped and eventually produced in transcript form. As Hendricks (2007:285) noted, in her experience: ‘The themes and issues I had been exploring in my own head were now part of a series of conversations. Suddenly my project felt alive.’

Practically, I am indebted to her for the idea of creating ‘Summary Sheets’ (Hendriks, 2007:287) as a way of working with interview transcriptions. Unlike her, I transcribed my interviews verbatim, but the Summary Sheet overview sheets I produced after the interviews, which outlined what Hendriks calls ‘the flow and content of each conversation’ and the general themes covered, helped me to winnow copious amount of material when it came to the analysis.

Seidman (2006:125) also writes about ‘making and analysing thematic connections’ and the importance of acknowledging the exercise of judgement. He cites Marshall (1981) who argues that this ‘may be the most important ingredient the researcher

brings to the study (quoted in Seidman, 2006: 118). Seidman (2006:118) emphasises that for some researchers: ‘judgement depends on the researcher’s experience both in the past, in general and in working with and internalising the interview material’. This certainly chimed with my research experience, as did Hendriks’ (2007:287) related point about memory: ‘I was able to mentally recall most interviews in astounding detail’. I realised as I began writing this thesis how much 1 used my memory during the interview editing process and how reliable was my recall of the interview and the context within which it was conducted.

Conclusion

This Chapter has outlined the methodology and methods I used to address my research questions. As should be clear, 1 used a variety of methods, all reflecting a qualitative methodology. My aim was to explore my respondents’ experiences of the WLF. I always attempted to put my respondents at ease and to be reflexive in both my research practice and the interpretation of my findings. The next four Chapters report these findings. In these Chapters, 1 look first at the organisation and its philosophy, aims and practices, thus addressing research question 1. Subsequently, I examine the views of the WLF Coordinators, Management Committee members. Donors and Supporters about both the organisation and its practice and empowerment, thus addressing my second research question. The third Chapter then turns to the views of the Borrowers about the organisation and its practice, and how it seeks to empower, addressing questions 3 and 4. These three Chapters allow me to raise questions about the differences between the organisation’s aims/philosophy and the views of both Lenders and Borrowers about its practices, so more fully addressing the fourth research question. I focus on the more general questions about the utility of the relational empowerment concept and the development of more adequate indicators of empowerment in Chapter 8.