potential of each case to aid the study in developing qualitative insights into social life being studied (Taylor and Bogdan, 1998).
4.4. Data Collection and Analysis
4.4.1. Primary Data
Survey respondents, KIs and FGD participants were the primary data sources for this study. Survey questionnaire, in-depth interview, FGDs, life history narratives and direct observation were the instruments used to collect the primary data. Thus, intra (both closed and open-ended questions) and inter-method (questionnaire, KIs, FGD and observation) data collection techniques were employed for the study to collect the necessary information. During the fieldwork, quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously, but in the case of qualitative data, two additional rounds were made to crosscheck results acquired and to overcome some of the limitations faced during the first and second rounds of qualitative data collection.
Survey Questionnaire: The primary data from household survey were collected using
questionnaires. The questionnaires were composed of both closed and open-ended types of questions and covered various issues: demographic and socio-economic characteristic of respondents; livelihood assets, strategies and shocks; perceptions about climate variability, coping and adaptive strategies; and issues related to household vulnerability to food insecurity. The researcher, six enumerators and three supervisors, all speaking the local language conducted the survey. The enumerators were first trained by the researcher about how to present and explain each question to respondents. They were also advised to inform each respondent the purpose of the survey before starting the actual interview. The interviews were conducted by going to each interviewee‟s homestead. The time to interview households, took from one to one and half hours. Early morning, late afternoon and Sunday (the whole day) were convenient times for the interviewees. A total of 210 questionnaires were distributed and 201 questionnaires were returned, nine questionnaires in the Kolla zone were not correctly filled and hence excluded from the analysis. The
71 numbers of questionnaires returned were thus, 70 from Akbet (Dega), 70 from Mesqench (Woina-Dega) and 61 from Safda Giorgis (Kolla).
Key Informant interview: The researcher made in-depth interviews with twelve key
informants selected purposely. In-depth interviews covered such issues as future food security of households, land degradation and crop production scenarios, the relationship between climate change and crop production, issues related to land tenure security, land management practices, extension services, nonfarm activities, main household incomes and information related to physical capital and social relations and networks. The key informants selected were district expert of food security, heads of households, district agriculture expert, district health expert, district education expert and experts from local and international NGOs working in the study area. The checklists prepared were semi- structured and flexible. Taylor and Bogdan (1998) pointed out that in-depth interview is non-directive, semi-structured and non-standardized open-ended interview, but the checklists were not too open to manage. The checklists were used as probing and information beyond the already prepared semi- structured questions were collected during the in-depth interview periods. In-depth interviews were held near to homesteads of interviewees, at their farmlands and in some cases at elevated grounds to observe the general conditions of the study area. The average time taken to interview key informants ranged from 60 minutes to 120 minutes. Key informants were not forced if they were not interested to complete the interview. For example, one key informant from Kolla agro- ecological zone was not able to complete the interview period and the researcher accepted his unwillingness to be interviewed. During interviews, the four interview principles were employed: letting people talk, paying great attention to interaction, being sensitive to cases raised and being nonjudgmental. With the awareness of key informants, tape recorder was used (also for recording life history narratives and FGDs) to get time to listen and to have eye contacts with participants.
Focus group discussion: FGD was an important method of data collection during the
72 this study to get detail information about household asset ownership, climate related hazards, trends of crop and livestock production and households‟ coping/adaptive strategies. The discussions were used to investigate problems of food insecurity and associated factors. FGD allows participants not only to speak for themselves but also to negotiate their shared views. Checklists were used to guide discussions and allow participants to state their own experiences. During the discussion, with their consent, tape recorder was employed to record the necessary data and to have eye contact with them. Thus, in this session, the writer was a moderator and facilitator. The distinguishing feature of group discussion from other interview methods is that the former is an argumentative type that helps to get detail information on issues under discussion. The problems encountered during FGDs were that some group members‟ tendency to dominate the discussions. The researcher as the group leader had tried to motivate all participants to take active part in the discussions.
Life history narratives: Life history7 narratives of individuals whose livelihood
circumstances are typical and representative of communities to share their experiences were selected purposely. The case history participants were heads of households. They were asked to tell their personal histories, experiences, challenges they faced in their lives particularly during food crisis times. For this, three households (two male- headed and one female-headed) were purposively selected to narrate their life experiences in relation to livelihood assets, climate change and coping/adaptive strategies, population pressure and land degradation scenarios. The convenient places selected were around their homesteads and in their farmlands to describe the sequence of events they observed in their lifetimes. The time for the discussions took on the average two hours.
Direct observation: Personal observation was employed to get some information about
the problems under investigation. Observation is a systematic process of recording behavioral pattern of participants, objects and occurrence without questioning the participants (Creswell, 2009; Maree, 2010). Direct observation helped to have a better
7 Life history include personal experience, mental and social conflicts, crises, adjustments,
73 understanding of the various phenomena under investigation. Some of the phenomena observed were marketing activities at market places, settlement patterns, agricultural activities (planting, weeding and harvesting), private and communal grazing lands, water points, natural resources degradation, water-harvesting techniques, available wild fruits, various social and cultural occasions and rituals relating to feasts, wedding and funeral ceremonies. Besides, enumerators were also tasked to report conditions of road infrastructure, water-harvesting techniques, management status of farmlands, vegetation distribution, housing conditions, health and school facilities, availability of water, communal and private grazing lands, and availability of fruits like highland apple and other relevant information.