Semi-structured interviews

4.4.1.1 Individual interviews

I used semi-structured individual interviews to generate most of the primary data in the first phase of the research which was exploratory (see Table 4.1). I employed this method because it allowed me to obtain information from different sources and because it offered me the necessary flexibility to obtain, from each person, the most relevant information related to the research interest. I achieved this by developing an interview protocol for each „stakeholder‟ group (see Appendix 3). Following appropriate ethical protocols (see Section 4.2.2.6), I then engaged each research participant in an informal conversation. The follow-up questions during the interviews were shaped by the research subjects through issues arising from the discussion – in what may be called a „transactional‟ encounter. I was following the advice of Cicourel (1964, in Bloor and Wood, 2006) who say the central impulse of depth interviewing (also called semi-structured interviewing) lies in the sacrifice of reliability in pursuit of validity, meaning that such interviews sacrifice standardization and repeatability in order to access more fully the social meanings of the respondent‟s world. Interviews are purposeful

128

conversations (Bloor and Wood, 2006) and involve the exchange of views between two or more people (Kvale, 1996 in Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007), and are therefore inter- subjective. Some of the interview techniques to ensure both depth and rigour included stating the purpose of the study, asking open-ended questions, pausing and immediately cross- checking important issues or suggestions that were being raised, and capturing of spoken interactions on tape with full transcriptions, as discussed below in more detail.

In the first phase, I conducted ten semi-structured individual interviews in South Africa, three in Lesotho and three in Zimbabwe. Each interview lasted between 45 minutes and two and half hours. I conducted two-part interviews with gate-keepers7 _{who were also key informants.}

They were people through whom I gained access to engage with research participants (see Section 4.3.2.1). In Zimbabwe, I took notes of the interviews and sent transcripts for improvement. In South Africa and Lesotho, I tape-recorded the interviews and transcribed them later in the evenings and after temporarily leaving the field. The advantage of tape recording was that I was able to retain an accurate interview record. I recorded after obtaining

the informed consent of the research participants which was written in the case of Zimbabwe

(see Appendix 5), where the gatekeeper did not accompany me, but verbal in the other two case studies. However, in South Africa this strategy nearly failed when I was robbed in my room at a guest house of my laptop, camera and cell phone. Luckily the tape recorder was not in the laptop bag, nor drawers that were ransacked because even my backup strategy of downloading onto the laptop every evening would not have helped.

4.4.1.2 Group interviews

I had originally planned to conduct focus group discussions in order to elicit the input of groups of interviewees, especially farmers. Upon further reflection before testing the tools I realised that focus group discussions would need participants who were familiar with the research process and object as they would have to facilitate the sessions. Group interviews on the other hand allowed me to use the interview schedule as well as follow up on new and emerging issues, while at the same time ensuring that we were moving towards addressing the research questions. A group interview is one in which several respondents are simultaneously asked questions by the researcher (Bloor & Wood, 2006). The method was efficient because it allowed me to elicit the input of several people in a short space of time. All in all, I held four group interviews in Lesotho – involving over 30 people and two groups in Zimbabwe involving seven people. As with individual semi-structured interviews, I took notes in Zimbabwe and sent transcripts for correction. While in Lesotho I tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed and sent the material for correction too. There were no group

7

Access in the field is usually through a gatekeeper who controls access to the setting (Bloor & Wood, 2006).

129

interviews in South Africa during the exploratory phase of the research as research participants chose how and with whom they were to be interviewed.

4.4.1.3 Data gathering using semi-structured interviews

In the SCOPE Permaculture-based case study, I held three individual semi-structured interviews with Permaculture facilitators who have been and are involved in facilitating the learning of Permaculture in Zimbabwe and two group interviews: one with three teachers and another with four farmers who promote and practise Permaculture. All six educators were male and among the four farmers, two were women. The teachers work at St Margaret School in rural Hwedza, while the farmers and one interviewee, a former teacher at the school live near the school. The remaining two interviewees were the SCOPE Materials Development Manager and a SCOPE founding member, both whom I met with in Harare. Individual interviews lasted between one and two and a half hours while group interviews took about two hours each. I took notes in the field and typed them up soon after when my memory was still fresh. I sent them to interviewees for checking and received some feedback, which made suggestions for extra detail but was mostly complimentary regarding the accuracy of what was recorded (see Case Record Section 2.3). I nevertheless decided that in future I would tape-record the interviews and that is how I recorded subsequent interviews in Case Studies 1 and 2. At this stage my framework of analysis was basically the activity system (see Appendix 4.1). The interviews were conducted in August 2008. It was only after this first case study that I developed a more comprehensive framework of analysis that captured the key dimensions of the research questions and theoretical frameworks. I coded the names in order to protect the anonymity of the research participants (see Case Record Section 2.3 for transcripts of selected interviews). The main language used during the interviews in Case Study 1 was English.

In the organic farming case study in South Africa (Case Study 2), I used semi-structured interviews for data collection from five farmers, one farm worker, three trainers, one organic produce marketer and one farmer who is also a trainer. Out of the ten research participants, three were women; none of the trainers interviewed were women. Interviews lasted between 45 minutes and two and a half hours each and I had to hold follow-up interviews with two research participants. Although all of them were individual interviews, the gate-keeper who took me around to meet research participants occasionally contributed to the conversations but I decided not to treat this as a group interview, because I had not invited his comments. The interviews were conducted in September 2008. For each interview, I used the analysis framework (see Appendix 4.2) to pull out essential information for the study purposes. Some of the interviews were not audible enough and I sent transcripts of the interviews to research participants so that they could validate the information. The response rate was low. I also coded the names of the interviewees for anonymity. Then I compiled a 30 page report

130

answering research questions and shared it with research participants (see Case Record Section 3.5) through the key informant. Responses were slow even after phoning to follow up, but ultimately only two people responded expressing surprise that they had said so much. Nine of the ten interviews were conducted in English, and one in Zulu and English, with the help of a translator (see Case Record Section 3.3 for transcripts of three selected interviews). In the Machobane Farming System case study of Lesotho, I held three individual semi- structured interviews and one group interview with MFS promoters; one group interview with former MFS promoters; and two group interviews with farmers practising MFS in two neighbouring districts – Mohale‟s Hoek and Mafeteng (see Case Record Section 4.3 for examples of transcripts). The combined number of farmer participants was 36; about two- thirds of them were women. Of the seven promoters, two were women. As mentioned above, the interviews were based on the work of two organisations promoting MFS in Lesotho: Rural Self-help Development Association (RSDA) and Machobane Agricultural Development Foundation (MADF). In each organisation, the director, trainers and farmers were interviewed. All the interviews, except one were conducted over a week at the beginning of October 2008. The last interview was conducted in March 2009 during a visit to conduct a Change Laboratory workshop and the issues raised were included in subsequent reports. Each interview lasted about an hour. For one of the promoters, the key informant, I held two interviews, one at the beginning and the other at the end of the visit. While we conversed in English with the seven MFS promoters, the interviews with farmers were translated from Sesotho to English and back.

The number of people interviewed in each case study varied partly because of who was available to be interviewed and partly because the gatekeepers suggested who I could talk to. Time was also a determining factor, as I had about a week assigned for data gathering in each case study in the initial round of interviews. It was easier to conduct more interviews in Durban because interviewees lived relatively near each other. I interviewed the highest number of people in Lesotho because the farmer groups, which were already organised, attended in large numbers. The other determining factor as to how far I went with interviewing was concerned with whether I felt that there appeared to be sufficient information to work with on the research topic. The translations also posed potential validity threats but the connectedness of the interviews and the follow-up questions minimised such threats. This is because the translators were locals who were trained in agriculture and extension and had a good grasp of the subject and this helped to mitigate language threats to validity. The relatively low response rates to both transcribed interviews and reports in each case study potentially threatened the validity of the findings and I addressed this through presenting „mirror data‟ in the Change Laboratory workshops that followed (see Sections 7.2- 7.4) and the changes were generally concerned with emphasis. For example, in Zimbabwe the

131

marketing issue was underlined during the workshop; in Lesotho the framing of lack of government assistance was changed; and in South Africa the issue of inclusion of lay knowledge assumed more importance. Women participation in Zimbabwe and South Africa was low but high in Lesotho even though in all three countries, there are more women farmers than men. What was striking (and not necessarily representative) was that there was a very small proportion of women among the sustainable agriculture facilitators – none in Zimbabwe and South Africa, and only two in Lesotho. The interviews are summarised in Table 4.6 at the end of Section 4.4.