A case study approach was implemented targeting households particularly women in Sub- division A of Clonmore Farm. This section explains the target population, sampling
57
procedures and the case study approach that was implemented to collect primary data. Although this research applied mixed methods it was more inclined to interpretivist approach. Hence it was decided that a sample population of 61 households stratified by women’s marital status out of the 341 households would provide sufficient information and insights to answer the research questions. Questionnaire driven interviews were conducted with 61 women participants constituting 18 per cent sample population and in addition 19 key informants were also interviewed. A two-stage sampling approach was implemented at village and household level to ensure a spatially representative sample within the farm and proportionally representative sample per village by targeting eight (8) households in each village. The purposive snowball sampling approach was applied and intended to yield a sample of women respondents stratified by marital status: Married, Never Married, Divorced and Widowed. Women in these categories had varying representations in the different categories and different villages because the numbers could not be predetermined before and during fieldwork.
3.3.2.1 Sampling procedures
Purposive sampling known as theoretical sampling, where participants are selected according to criteria specified by the researcher and based on initial findings was used (Gorra 2007). Purposive sampling was implemented because women participants were grouped according to their marital status which was relevant to this particular research question which investigated women empowerment through land reform. The sample size was fixed at 61 women participants prior to data collection. Although this study used mixed methods, it was guided largely by qualitative approaches that do not necessarily seek representativeness to achieve statistical generalisability, however it aimed to explain and sometimes predict phenomena based on empirical data. It was believed that such a sample stratified by women’s marital status provided a balanced understanding of how land reform programmes were affecting women empowerment, hence their livelihoods options and choices. A purposive sample was not statistically representative but represented what Chattopadhyay and Seddon (2002) call authentic experiences of individuals and households in order to suggest more general patterns, trends and tendencies so as to complement data from the interviews.
During data collection the snowballing sampling approach was implemented in the field. Snowballing sampling – also known as chain referral sampling – which is considered a type of purposive sampling was implemented during data collection in order to further identify women participants and key informants. In this method, participants or informants with whom contact had already been made (especially headmen, women participants, councilors, village committee members, etc.) used their social networks to refer the researcher to other people who could potentially participate in or contribute to the study. Snowball sampling was used to find and recruit “hidden women participants and key informants,” who were not easily accessible to the researchers. Table 6 show that a proportionally representative sample stratified by women’s marital status could not be achieved at the conclusion of data collection although 61 women were interviewed.
58
Table 6: Sample distribution by women’s marital status
Marital status Total Per cent
Widowed 32 52%
Married 22 36%
Divorced 6 10%
Never Married 1 2%
Total 61 100%
Women participants were initially identified through village headmen. Before fieldwork could commence in each village, the headmen were approached, the purpose of the research was explained and permission to conduct the research requested. The village headmen were also asked to assist in identifying the targeted households with women who suited the criteria of the research especially the widowed, divorced and those who had never been married before. Village headmen were helpful in identifying the targeted households because part of their responsibilities included keeping registers and looking after the welfare of households under their jurisdictions, and were actively involved in the actual land allocations. Further, most of the headmen knew other relevant key informants who played prominent roles in the villages, particularly on issues around land reform programmes and thus they were requested to identify them as well. Thereafter, a snowball approach was used to identify additional respondents through probing the interviewed respondents. Relatives, family and friends also assisted in identifying the targeted households as well as key informants.
Once the list of the targeted households and relevant key informants was drawn, each one of them was then approached; the purpose of the research explained and their permission to participate in questionnaire driven interviews was requested. Respondents who agreed to be interviewed duly completed a consent form (Annexure E, F and K) expressing their willingness to participate. Questionnaire driven interviews were successfully conducted with 61 women respondents. Interviews using structured and semi-structured questionnaires were also conducted with 19 key informants: eight (8) government officials, one (1) chief, one (1) councilor, one (1) village chairlady and eight (8) headmen. It was believed that although the sample was not proportionally representative when stratified by women’s marital status the sample size provided sufficient information that could provide insights into women’s livelihoods and could be generalised nationally and to the Southern African region.
3.3.2.2 Case study
A case study provided in-depth understanding of a single case. The case study approach was strongly associated with the interpretivist or constructionist philosophy (Stake 1995, Yin 2003), and it was implemented because it examined a phenomenon in its natural setting, employing a multitude of methods of data collection to gather information from one or a few entities (groups of people or organisations) (Van Niekerk 2005). The case study was
59
considered by Benbasat et. al., (1987) to be viable for three reasons: it was necessary to study the phenomenon in its natural setting; the researcher could ask “How” and “Why” questions, so as to understand the nature and complexity of the process taking place and; research was conducted in an area where few, if any, previous studies had been undertaken
A case study approach was conducted in this research in order to get detailed information of the households in Sub-division A of Clonmore Farm. This approach allowed the researcher to explore individuals and organizations, simply through complex interventions, relationships, communities, or programmes (Yin, 2003) and it supported the deconstruction and the subsequent reconstruction of various phenomena. Crabtree & Miller (1999), further argued that this approach afforded close collaboration between the researcher and the participant, while enabling participants to tell their stories. Through these stories the participants were able to describe their views of reality and this enabled the researcher to better understand the participants’ actions (Lather, 1992; Robottom & Hart, 1993). Data came largely from documentation, archival records, interviews, participant observations and transect walks (Yin 1994, Zucker 2009).
The main limitation of the case study was that control was minimum as the extent to which the researcher could determine and influence activities was very low. Jones (1985) attested that its weakness was based on its limited ability to contribute positive support to theory. One of the common pitfalls associated with the case study approach was that there was a tendency for researchers to attempt to answer a question that was too broad or a topic that had too many objectives for one study (Baxter and Jack, 2008).
Sub-division A of Clonmore Farm was purposely selected firstly because although similar studies have been carried out in Zimbabwe (Mandizvidza 2009, Scoones et. al. 2011, Mutupo 2011, etc.), we could find no such study had previously been undertaken in Mberengwa. Secondly, its geographical proximity (about 12 kilometers) from the researcher’s place of origin - Cheshanga village where the researcher had been resident since 1982 allowed for easy access. The researcher had beneficiary family members resident in the farm (mother, and two brothers including a number of members of the extended family), enabling easy accessibility. The researcher was well known and shared a long history with some of the beneficiaries resident in Sub-division A of Clonmore Farm, hence got cooperation from the respondents. However, this situation may have discouraged respondents from providing accurate information because of high level intrusion into their privacy by a well-known local person who may not be trusted to keep the information confidential, which would not be the case if the individual was a stranger.
60