Anexo 3 Influencia de los factores post cosecha

Gaining access to the research setting and participants is critical to the completion of any field study and this entails getting approval and maintaining it throughout the duration of the fieldwork. Institutions are often reluctant to grant access to researchers due to concerns about the intentions of the researcher/study, how their presence could disrupt normal operations, how and what the findings will be used for. Siwale (2015) observed that the presence of researchers could raise fear of scrutiny which often makes institutions apprehensive. To mitigate against any unfavourable situation, institutional gatekeepers (top management officials) are saddled with the responsibility of screening a researcher’s proposal in the light of its benefits and threats to the organization and participants before approval is granted (Wanat, 2008).

The process of negotiating access begins with identifying and fostering relationships with influential gatekeepers (Feldman, et al., 2004). In this study setting, the influential gatekeepers were directors and the CEO of the Better Livelihood Centre (microfinance NGO) based at the headquarters of the institution in Lagos, Nigeria. My first contact was with one of the directors about eight months before my planned visit to the site. This was made possible by an acquaintance of mine who happened to have met the director at an informal gathering. Realizing that his contact was essential to my

109 | P a g e research, my friend initiated the process of introducing me to the director. Researchers have found that negotiating access to the research site and participants could be less difficult if they have personal contacts with the site (Gray, et al., 2004; Patton, 2002). This was particularly true in my case and because I was referred by a friend, the director was friendly and quick to offer to assist me in gaining access. More so, due to the initial informal introduction to the director, I was able to speak to him (over the phone) and discuss permission to conduct research, bypassing the bureaucracies of having to go through layers of formal communication hierarchy.

After the initial communication (emails and phone calls) with the director, the researcher maintained communication with the director until the visit to the site. The follow-up communication helped re-enforce cordiality and rapport. It was during these discussions that the researcher was advised on the most suitable time to visit the site. He (the director) had argued that it would be beneficial to the research if my visit is scheduled at periods when the organization’s activities had peaked within the year and when all the influence gatekeepers would be available to give consent to my research proposal. This gave me access to many respondents and saved time and the cost that would have resulted from waiting for any key contact person who may have been unavailable. Upon arrival in Nigeria, a face-to-face meeting was held with the director to kick-start the process of meeting other influential gatekeepers. It took 2 weeks to get an appointment to meet and present my research proposal to a selected group of top management personnel such as directors, divisional managers, the research head and the head of the risk. The first meeting was well received by all the officials present due in part to the director’s expression of credibility for the research. The support of the director may have stemmed from his genuine love for research especially given that he was also completing a PhD program during this period. The researcher believes that other gatekeepers supported the research because it resonated with the mission of the organization to reduce poverty by empowering women. The second meeting was held the following week, and it was at this meeting that all the logistics of travelling to the site and meeting with the respondents and the staff was finalized. At this point, I was informed that a circular would be sent to

110 | P a g e divisional and branch managers providing instructions to co-operate with me in collecting data for the research. The fieldwork began in May 2016 and ended in November 2016.

The researcher noticed that upon receiving the authorization to go into the field, members of staff of the organization were very helpful especially with granting interviews and access to service users. Although the organisation was happy to hand out manuals and annual publications, they were reluctant to provide access to certain information such as the volume and range of disbursed loan, repayment rates, and borrowers’ information. The researcher assumes that this behaviour may be due to the lack of information or the fact that the information was too sensitive to release. The assistance from the staff was particularly helpful in locating remote communities where the poor road network is normal. They acted as lead guides, helping the researcher to navigate easily through difficult local terrains and their presence provided credibility for the research. Staff members also provided vital information that helped the researcher to purposively select the sample of participants for the focus group interviews. For instance, branch level staff provided the researcher with a list of the groups of women borrowers who were currently receiving loans from the organization. The divisional and branch managers were particularly helpful in granting the researcher access to interview loan officers who were often in the field with borrowers. As reported in many studies, (Ahrens, 2004; Bryman, 2016; Robson & McCartan, 2016) negotiating entry is not a onetime event but a continuous activity throughout the duration of the fieldwork. Negotiating access to the service users became necessary after the top gatekeepers had given their consent. Yeboah (2010) observed that the first contact with service users constitutes an important act of negotiating access. The researcher met the groups (women borrowers) for the first time in the company of the staff members of the organization such as the divisional managers, branch managers and credit officers. The presence of staff members was to draw attention to the fact that the researcher had prior approval to conduct the research. Their presence also provided a calm atmosphere, allowing service users to respond in a friendly and welcoming manner. Staff members commenced the introduction by chanting the

111 | P a g e slogan of the organization and the women responded “Prosperity”. The researcher observed that the chant of the slogan helped to foster a sense of belonging amongst the women borrowers and reinforces the notion of a united front against poverty and deprivation. Staff members would then proceed to introduce the researcher and to solicit cooperation from service users for the research. Reeves (2010) urges researchers to realize that the mere presence of staff members is not enough to appeal to participants to cooperate fully with the research. Therefore, after being introduced, the researcher took the time to explain the research, its purpose and the possibility of how the findings could inform management decisions on improved services for them. This helped participants gain an understanding of the purpose of the research and the nature of their participation in the study. After which the researcher asked participants: “Are you happy to continue your participation in this research and for me to carry on with the data collection?” and their response was a resounding “yes”. Getting the ‘OK’ from the women borrowers implied that the approval to cooperate with the researcher had been granted. Once the negotiation of access to the field was completed, data collection constituted the next phase of the research.