Consejo de Administración

Qualitative methods are more suited to the study of multifaceted socio-political problems than quantitative methods (Castellani, 2014). The techniques that a qualitative approach can employ provide a richness and depth to data that quantitative methods can lack. Qualitative methods are better able to appreciate social diversity and social interaction to explore complexity and multiple

realities. The primary reason for using purely qualitative methods was because they allow me to answer the research question in the most effective way, which is driven by a need to understand why transformation is happening, not just what is transforming.

Qualitative methods lend more effectively to capturing and dealing with subjective experience (Morgan and Drury, 2003), which is required to explore how groups and intergroup conflict is understood. Quantitative methods can examine general trends and patterns to establish why an event or process is happening, but they are less suited to investigating causes and motivations behind change. Johnson and Christensen (2010:430) maintain that qualitative methods allow a researcher to respond to changes during a study (particularly during fieldwork) more effectively than quantitative methods. Qualitative methods also provide flexibility and allow adaptation, to react to changing contexts. For example, the difference in situation between Nepal and

Mozambique required varying some of the interview questions slightly to reflect the different dynamics, such as questioning into the reasons behind the renewed fighting in Mozambique.

Another advantage of qualitative methods is that they provide a richness of data that can be used to ‘vividly demonstrate a phenomenon to readers’ (Johnson and Christensen, 2010:430). One of the objectives of the research is to inform more effective problem solving in other contexts. Qualitative methods allow for the gathering of detailed data to use as examples to help illustrate findings in the subsequent data chapters, adding depth to the argument. Additionally, Johnson and Christensen (2010:430) highlight that qualitative methods are more apt to

explore dynamic processes, such as this study, looking at transformation in intergroup conflict over time.

A mixed methods approach would have been feasible. A quantitative questionnaire, for example, could have listed a number of variables that

respondents chose and rated as factors influencing transformation in relations. Or, score how positively or negatively group conflict is viewed in terms of violence or non-violence. This would allow for a much larger sampling than was possible using qualitative methods alone. There were two principal reasons for not employing a quantitative approach, though, using techniques like

questionnaires. The first was an issue of access. In both countries infrastructure outside of urban areas is not well developed and much of the population live in remote rural communities. This would have made large-scale data collection very difficult. I also lacked in-country knowledge and contacts, which raised concerns around how effectively I would be able to organise, distribute and gather large amounts of questionnaires. Secondly, it was a decision made based around the type of data that I wanted to collect. Quantitative methods can provide detail of what transformation is happening, but I wanted to probe deeper into why transformation is taking place and qualitative techniques are much more suited to accessing this type of information.

3.3.1 Research techniques

A dual approach was employed to identify and obtain data. The two methods used are document analysis with semi-structured interviews. Data sources were collected and organised around a case study approach, based on the peace processes in Nepal and Mozambique. Additionally, I conducted a pilot study to test the research design. The reason for adopting multiple research techniques was driven by two factors. First, that qualitative data reliant on one research technique is more vulnerable to claims that inferences may be questionable or incorrect (Bryman, 2008:112). Employing multiple techniques to investigate the same phenomena allows for what Kopinak (1999:170) calls convergence: cross- referencing different data types to improve reliability and validity. Research is

strengthened through the use of complimentarity, providing multi-layered information.

Second, the research requires an analysis of how understandings of conflict change over time. Interviewees can be asked about the past, but responses come with the caveat that they will be coloured by time. Responses given today may be different to those the same respondent would have given during the civil war, immediately after its ending, five, ten years after and so on. I had to find a way to develop an understanding of the transformation process that was more

reflective of different timeframes. To do this, I used a variety of documented sources, sampled from across the post-civil war years. The number of documents and interviews collected, along with sampling techniques and analysis methods, are described in Sections 3.5 and 3.6. Here, I consider the reasons for using document analysis and semi-structured interviews: their advantages and limitations.

3.3.2 Document analysis

A document analysis is a ‘systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents—both printed and electronic’ (Bowen, 2009:27). Documented sources are widely used in qualitative research and can serve a variety of

different functions to help develop a researcher’s appreciation of a problem topic (Barrientos, 2007:113). Documented sources were used in two ways.

First, a wide variety of secondary documented sources were used to develop an understanding of the context of the civil wars and peace processes in Nepal and Mozambique. Conflict transformation requires appreciating the history of the relationship between conflicting parties as well as the conflict itself. Documented data on the civil wars and peace processes allowed me to develop an historical appreciation of both contexts to help inform a better analysis of post-war dynamics and factors influencing the transformation process. The types of documents I reviewed were journal articles, newspaper articles, academic books and reports produced by a range of organisations working on peacebuilding, as well as historic factual books. These document sources are instrumental in the

case study descriptions found in the following chapter. Secondary documents mainly took the form of academic materials, using the writings of other

researchers to gain insight into the appropriateness of the research question to the case studies. Some of these secondary sources are also used to support findings in the empirical chapters.

Second, primary documents are employed as a key source of data for the

analysis. The data contained within documents can be ‘examined and interpreted in order to elicit meaning, gain understanding, and develop empirical knowledge' (Bowen, 2009:27). I sampled documents that gave a representative range

covering the post-civil war years. As far as practically possible, I tried to match documented sources to the individuals or organisations that I interviewed. For example, if I interviewed a particular political party member, I searched for documents where the same individual was expressing views on peace policies and intergroup conflict at different points over the post-war years. Matching sources this way was intended to provide consistency and accuracy in whose understandings were being analysed over the post-war years.

There are a number of reasons why a document analysis is appropriate for this research, aside from the practical reason of needing a way to look at the

transformation process over extended periods. Denzin (1970) talks about the merits of document analysis as a complement to other research techniques. They can be used to compare and corroborate other data sources, as in this research with semi-structured interviews. Document analysis is also suited to qualitative case study based research, as it provides a way to gather a wide range of

different forms of data on a specific case which can produce a rich picture of what is going on (Yin, 1994). Additionally, as the focus of the research is not just to analyse what transformation is taking place in intergroup conflict, but why, Merriam (1988:118) says that ‘documents of all types can help the researcher uncover meaning, develop understanding, and discover insights relevant to the research problem’. The types of documents and sampling techniques are described in detail in Section 3.5, but include newspaper articles, press statements, published reports, speeches and recorded interviews.

There are a number of risks attached to document analysis (Denzin, 1970). They can produce large volumes of data that can make research unwieldy and time- consuming. Sources can be representative of particular views and interests so there is need to be careful of sampling to avoid bias. Researchers are restricted to what data already exists and documents may not contain personal thinking or reflections making them unhelpful in research seeking to investigate how people understand a particular subject or issue. Each of these concerns is addressed in the way that I have approached the data gathering and analysis, which has operated on the principle of trying to be as open in scope as possible while being efficient in the management of the data.

3.3.3 Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviewing is widely practised in the social sciences and is noted for its suitability in obtaining qualitative data (Yin, 1994; Woodhouse, 2007). Because of the research’s concern with understandings and experiences of conflict, semi-structured interviewing presents an appropriate vehicle for exploring the nuances and subjectivities this type of research entails because it provides for structured dialogue while leaving scope to explore informant’s views, unfolding in a conversational manner (Longhurst, 2010:172). Interviews were conducted to a standardised set of questions (see Appendix A). These questions kept informants focused on the central themes (Yin, 1994), while the openness of the technique allowed room for individual respondents to be

explorative in their answers. Semi-structured interviewing also affords flexibility to individualise the interviews by picking up on interesting points and

observations to be able to probe more deeply through impromptu follow-up questions. In Mozambique, for example, several questions were asked beyond those in Nepal to reflect the differing contexts and allow greater appreciation of the nuances of each case. Where possible, background research was conducted on interviewees beforehand to aid the interview process, and to tailor questions, but also to allow more effective use of impromptu questioning.

Semi-structured interviewing as a method has some limitations. Rubin and Rubin (2005:170) identify two main issues. Interviews can produce large volumes of data that can be unwieldy and difficult to interpret meaningfully. How I effectively managed the large volumes of data is addressed in the data analysis section. Also, there can be issues around interviewer bias and

interviewee reliability. Researcher positionality and bias is addressed in Section 3.7.

In terms of reliability of data, there is always risk that interviewees are not honest in their responses, misinterpret the research objectives, do not understand questions as intended or tailor responses to the interests of the researcher, telling them what they want to hear (Norenzayan and Schwarz, 1999:1011; Diefenbach, 2009:875). This can lead to miscommunication and irrelevant or misleading data. This issue is particularly pertinent to studies where research is being conducted in countries unfamiliar to the researcher: people are being interviewed in a second language, or translators are used. These risks are covered in a later section that discusses the use of in-country support. The types of interviewee, how they were selected and where interviews took place are discussed in Section 3.5.1.

Many of the interviews were conducted in English. Research assistants acted as translators where interviewees spoke little, or no English, which was

predominantly in the villages. Issues and barriers that arose due to working with translators and how they were mitigated against are discussed in Section 3.5.2. Sechrest et al., (1972) talk about a range of problems that can arise when interviewing and translating in cross-cultural contexts, particularly where the language spoken during the interview is not the first language for the

interviewer or the interviewee. In both Kathmandu and Maputo, the majority of interviewees were competent in English so that I did not have to use translators. Levels, however, varied between respondents, which raised some difficulties that I had to guard against in order to ensure data was as accurate as possible.

The two common problems that I was faced with were interviewees who were unable to convey accurately in English what they wanted to say, and

misinterpretation due to accents.

There were several techniques I used to mitigate against these risks. Only a small number of interviews (six) were unaccompanied. If an interviewee struggled to find the relevant English, the research assistant (who spoke excellent English) was on hand to translate. If a response was unclear, or I unsure as to what an interviewee was trying to say, I would ask them to repeat, or relay my

understanding back to them and ask them to confirm if my interpretation was correct. Finally, all interviews were recorded. This means I could listen back to interviews and on a couple of occasions, where I was unsure of the language or meaning behind what was being said, I returned to the interviewee to clarify those points.

3.3.4 Pilot study

A pilot study of two-weeks was undertaken in Nepal. I had a month to deliberate and reflect on the observations and findings to make any necessary amendments before the main fieldwork began. The pilot was functional in that it was designed to test specific premises and components to ensure they were practicably

operational (van Teijlingen and Hundley, 2002). Maxwell (2005:58) says pilots give researchers insight into an understanding of the problem by those situated within the context, ‘if you don't understand (the views and perspectives of the subjects), your theories about what is going on will often be incomplete or mistaken'. The pilot, therefore, was intended to test my ideas around the research question, the gaps in the literature, theoretical framework and

methodology. I consulted a range of academics, policy officials and practitioners working on a variety of aspects of the Nepali peace process.21 _{The general}

consensus that emerged from the pilot confirmed that there was a need for the research and that the conceptual framing and proposed methodology would

21_{Ten interviews were conducted in total. They consisted of three domestic peacebuilding NGOs, one}

foreign government aid official, two civil society leaders, two politicians, two academics specialising in the peace process and one military advisor.

provide a suitable means of exploring the research question. As a result, no significant changes were made.

Conducting the pilot also provided a number of practical benefits. It offered an opportunity to have ten test interviews to trial questions and practice interview technique.22 _{The pilot also helped with optimising fieldwork in unfamiliar}

environments by developing a network of in-country contacts to aid data collection, identify suitable interviewees, improve recruitment, build relationships and rapport with potential respondents and source reliable locations for possible site visits (van Teijlingen and Hundley, 2002). A crucial issue in research that uses extended in-depth interviews is developing trust quickly between researcher and participants. Creating a rapport can greatly aid reliability of information, making respondents more likely to be open and honest in their answers (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006:316). This is particularly important where the topic of an interview may be sensitive and involve personal reflection, such as experiences of conflict. Establishing good relationships with trusted gatekeepers who could provide access to interviewees was a primary activity of the pilot study.

A pilot was conducted in Nepal only due to timing and financial constraints. However, I sought out a number of associates within the UK who had extensive experience of working in Mozambique and knowledge of the peace process as a way to test the appropriateness of the research before doing the fieldwork.23