Although the household was the main unit of analysis, data was collected at community and institutional levels because these affect what happens at the household level. It was therefore important for the investigation to cover some key community events, actors, organisations and institutions within the larger environ of the in-depth study community.
In-depth interviews were conducted with key informants at the community level to provide expert information on data being sought. In the same manner that I complemented household data with transect walks and observations, I did the same at the community level. According to Diccico-Bloom and Crabtree (2006), key informants are selected for their knowledge and role in a setting and their willingness and ability to serve as translators, teachers, mentors and/or commentators for the researcher. They should have knowledge relevant to the study, be willing to share this knowledge, communicate well, and be unbiased or able to reflect upon their own biases. If appropriately situated in a social and community context, key informant interviews also render the opportunity to explore multiple positions on community relations pertaining to a given issue.
Therefore I selected the key informants for my study based on various categories which are: social position/standing (for example, selecting religious leaders); roles or responsibilities (for example selecting the farmers’ chairperson, village heads and community representatives); and social cultural embeddedness based on their roles and age (for example, in selecting elders). The assumption on age in my study was based on the idea that those who have lived many years have heard, experienced and seen a great deal. A snowballing sampling technique was only used in isolated instances when the AGRITEX officer at Kagande (ward centre) referred me to a farmer who won the 2014 Agricultural Show and when one spiritual leader referred me to a leader in another church.
Therefore the 17 community key informants comprised 4 elders (selected on the basis of age only), 2 elders who participate in traditional ceremonies including those for rain, 4 spiritual
34
leaders (those who pray through Vadzimu (ancestral spirits) and those who pray through Jesus)1, 1 farmers’ leader, 2 outstanding farmers who won the 2014 Agricultural Show competition, 2 village heads and 2 community representatives2. Questions (see Appendix 4) included asking key informants to identify community concerns in relation to climate components or parameters that have changed, how these have changed, how they characterise the changes, what they attribute the changes to, what has happened to livelihood strategies in the ward and what the community members have done or are doing to offset livelihood challenges (adaptive strategies). In addition, a ward map was also obtained from villagers in ward 3.
I also conducted 10 interviews to gain expert information from stakeholders from government departments and NGOs working in the district. These operate at both community and sub- national (district) levels. The stakeholders were: the District Administrator; 2 AGRITEX officers3, 1 Livestock Production and Development officer, 2 Veterinary officers4, 1 officer from the District Development Fund (Water Division) and 1 health worker at Charewa Rural Health Centre (RHC). I interviewed stakeholders from both a local and international NGO working in the area which are COMMUTECH and Plan Zimbabwe (Mutoko Sub-Unit) respectively. Aspects covered in the key informant guide (see appendix 5) that guided interviews with these these stakeholders included agricultural practices and associated changes; vulnerability and livelihoods in the district; natural resources management and risk reduction in agriculture.
Additionally, a participatory method was used through several informal group conversations that were conducted with farmers and key informants. These were not planned but more of random encounters that I strategically utilised to discuss various issues. The groups comprised 3 or 4 elders depending on their availability. These conservations served three main objectives. Firstly, I deliberately used these conversations to seek clarity on some issues raised in key informant interviews and questionnaires as well as aspects that l observed about the landscape during my
1
I used this analogy to avoid using the dichotomy of traditional versus modern religions.
2 These are commonly known as CR, and were selected to represent their villages in NGOs projects.
3 One was at district level and one based in the ward.
35
transect walks. I had my first and second group conversations on the 17April 2014 at Kagande Primary School where I met elders who had come for the United Methodist Church Easter prayers and 18 April with elders who had come to the same school for Independence Day Celebrations. From there I took advantage of various events and opportunities to have conversations with elders until I finished my fieldwork. Secondly, I used the informal discussions to establish an agricultural calendar (presented in chapter 6) crucial for understanding the livelihoods system of the ward as well as getting a detailed profile of the study site.
Thirdly, it was in these repeated group conversations that participatory wealth ranking was also conducted and the information fed into the wealth categories used in the survey I conducted at the household level. The variable of wealth was imperative as studies have established its influence on adaptation. Wealth ranking is a simple, participatory research tool that evolved from the 1980s alongside the growth of participatory rural appraisal (Guijt, 1992). It has been widely used in research to advance qualitative understandings of patterns of social differentiation within communities and to complement survey techniques. The method involves a group of local informants discussing what they mean by the term wealth in ways that tease out the multiple meanings.
In the local ChiBuja language in ward 3, wealth means upfumi and this is associated with assets such as cattle, food production, type of homestead and family well-being (like ability to send children to school and ability to hire labor). A person without wealth is therefore anotambura (one who suffers) and is called murombo (a person without anything). Therefore, insights from these conversations together with those from key informant interviews were used in designing the questionnaire for the study. After the questionnaire administration, four categories were extrapolated from the data, namely, vanowana (better off), vari pakati (middle) vanoshaya (poor) and vanoshayisisa (very poor).
36