Given the research focus on the interpretation of meanings associated with fair trade in the local context, the overall data generation method was qualitative; and the suggestion of Yin (2009, p. 37) that “one of the most important sources of case study information is the interview” was followed. This method has been particularly appropriate given the recognition that qualitative interviewing offers the opportunity to “explore the points of view of our research subjects” (Miller and Glassner 2004, p.
127) – especially in terms of the meaning and perceptions that they have with regard to the world (Silverman 2005, p. 96). Qualitative interviewing is congruent with a critical realist epistemology as it allows the researcher to gain insights into both the interviewee’s “ontological subjectivity” and the “epistemically objective” causation behind their interpretations53.
Specifically, the investigation employed semi- structured, ‘elite’ or ‘key informant’
interviews with individuals identified to be either personally influential or who represented institutions that were contributing to the interpretation of fair trade (see interview list of respondents in Appendix 7). These highly knowledgeable individuals are useful interviewees as they offer rapid insight while at the same time showing specific and often technical knowledge of an issue (Aberbach and Rockman 2002, p.
672). Where these individuals are concerned, semi-structured interviews are considered useful as the stream of questions remains fluid rather than rigid (Rubin and Rubin 2005, p. 233), thereby offering a “guided conversation” (Yin 2009, p. 106) which can, in theory, be more directed by the interviewee than the interviewer.
However, this is not necessarily a given, and, for this reason, questions must be carefully planned.
It is often considered important to use open ended questions and to phrase prompts in the most general terms possible, especially at the beginning of an investigation (and during individual interviews), in order to allow respondents to guide the exploration of the subject of interest (Robson 2002, pp. 233-234). This is not to say that more
53 For an explanation of ontological subjectivity and epistemic objectivity see footnote 45 in this chapter.
86 specific questions should not be asked for more specific issues, and as the data gathering process develops, more specific questions can be used to triangulate different specific elements of individual testimonies (Robson 2002, p. 238).
Yin (2009, p. 87) suggests that researchers must ask questions at two levels: those asked of the case as a whole (level 2) and those directed to specific interviewees (level 1). This is important because, although a researcher will have an idea about how events might have unfolded (level 2), the actual questions posed to interviewees should not betray this thinking. In the case of this investigation, while it was specifically of interest if the Fairtrade Foundation’s Town scheme had influenced Local Authorities, more general questions were asked about why certain interpretations and practices had been followed. In making this distinction, it is important to prepare an interview schedule of questions to frame the individual interviews with informants (Wengraf 2001, p. 63). Such pre-planning helps to ensure that the correct language is selected (either to be appropriately understandable by informants and suitably technical in the case of specialist respondents), that good use is made of limited access to informants and that the discussion remains focused on the subject of research interest.
Semi-structured interviews were used for the majority of informants and, in most cases, they can be described as formal events as it was necessary to make prior appointments with the individuals concerned (the nature of all interviews is noted in Appendix 7). However, when time was spent in the farming community in Malawi, the farmers themselves were interviewed in a more structured style in order to gather a more general but robust impression of practices and governance arrangements.
Being in Malawi for eight weeks also facilitated a more participatory style of research.
Specifically, accompanying one of Imani’s consultants responsible for assisting the project, as well as members of NASFAM management and membership on several occasions, allowed for the development of deeper relationships with various informants. In particular, the nine-hour drive from Malawi’s capital, Lilongwe, to the AGM held in the Northern region of Karonga, facilitated a building of trust and understanding with Imani and NASAFM representatives – especially since the period was punctuated by two flat tyres, which favoured team work and ‘male bonding’ over
87 mechanical discussion as well as some ‘hard earned’ Greens54 at the end of the day.
Similarly, research within the farming community relied very much on travelling around with the cooperative’s two Field Officers. As a result, an extended amount of time was spent with these men and their driver, including social time out of the hours of the working day.
In this respect, data generation in Malawi also included simple direct observation (of the involvement of Imani Development, the AGM, and the practices of NASFAM’s Field Officers). To some extent this observation offered other sources of data that were useful in triangulating oral testimony from interviews. For example, delivering seed to farmers in the field allowed the observation that scales were indeed used by NASFAM to ensure fair and accurate measures, as well as the fact that farmers expected the process of seed distribution to be correctly documented. This was particularly manifest in one case where the Field Officers were required to return to a previously visited village as its inhabitants complained that their allocation of seed had been based on the wrong number of members. Such direct observation can provide significant assistance in overcoming the “Observer’s Paradox” (discussed below), as unlike interviews, it is not mediated by the prior interpretation of other individuals (Robson 2002, p. 191). These more embedded relationships that were developed with some informants were useful in building rapport and trust for oral discussions, but also allowed the opportunity for a continuous process of informal interviewing. The degree to which this contributed to the triangulation of data is discussed in more detail below.
The final method for assembling the necessary data was the collection of physical and digital (including webpages) documentary material. These documents were used to critically appraise the material obtained in interviews – a process which proved of particular importance in examining the interpretations of fair trade that had been adopted. Access to the documents submitted by all the Scottish Local Authorities who had obtained Fairtrade status by 2010 was particularly important in this regard.
Documentary data cannot be accepted as value- free, as these are often framed by their
54 “Greens” are the colloquial term for the standard variety of Carlsberg beer (owing t o their green glass and label). Other Carlsberg brands include “Brown”, “Super”, “Elephant”, and a speciality beer launched for Christmas, called “Christmas”.
88 producers often with a particular audience in mind. However, the status/nature of documents is also important, for example, as government policy can be treated as carrying more influence than one-off interviews – which are more representative of individual/subjective, rather than institutionally inter-subjective, interpretations.
Likewise, documents which compose governance standards of private governance frameworks (such as the Fairtrade Foundation’s Town Scheme) are useful when compared with informants understanding and knowledge of what such schemes contain.