A population, as defined by Parahoo (1997: 218), is ―the total number of units from which data can be collected, such as individuals, artefacts, events or organizations‖. Another definition given by Polkinghome (2005: 140) describes a population as ―participants who can provide substantial contribution in filling out the structure and character of the experience under investigation‖. Following the above definitions of population, I, with the help of the local leaders to whom I had introduced myself (see sections 4.1 and 4.2 above), selected 50 participants, 25 from each of the two Samia communities on the Uganda-Kenya border, for both the individual interviews and the focus group discussions. I held five focus group discussions and each focus group had 10 to 12 members. Two of the groups consisted of people from the Ugandan side of the border alone, another two of people from the Kenyan side, and the remaining group of a mixture of people from both sides of the border. This was done to obtain the views of people from each side of the border first and then from the mixed group. The local leaders again helped me in organizing these groups and finding venues for the focus group discussions. The local leaders knew the participants and their schedules very well and thus knew the best time for the group discussions to ensure that their other programs were not interfered with. The local leaders also knew which venues were available and in which venues there would be minimal disturbances during the meetings. A total of 12 cultural ceremonies were also observed, six on each side of the border: two marriage ceremonies, one naming ceremony, one baptism, and two funeral ceremonies.
The participants in the study, the selected cultural ceremonies and the markets visited were obviously just a sample of all of those people that live in the two towns, all of the ceremonies
78
performed and all the markets held, respectively. I had to use a specific sampling procedure to select this sample, and I describe this procedure below.
4.6.1. Sampling procedure
Sampling, as defined by Flick (2011: 70), is ―a process of selecting subjects who are representative of the population‖. Therefore, as stated by Boeije (2010: 35), elements that are believed to have the information that is required for a particular study are selected intentionally from a defined research population. The selected participants, according to Polkinghome (2005: 140), should be those who have experienced the phenomenon under study and can thus provide the relevant information required by the researcher. What the arguments above mean for researchers like me is that the choices we make in our sampling will later affect our analysis of the data that we collected. Thus, authors such as Huberman and Miles (1994) observe that caution should be taken when deciding, for instance, whom to talk to where, when, about what and why, because these decisions place limits on the conclusions one can later draw. This means that the researcher needs to use sampling techniques that will lead to the desired data. In the same regard, Merriam (2002: 12) recommends that ―since qualitative inquiry seeks to understand the meaning of a phenomenon from the perspectives of the participants, it is important to select a sample from which most can be learned. This is called a purposive or purposeful sample‖.
In adherence to what the above authors advocate for, I used purposive sampling procedure to recruit participants in the two communities and to make the selection of the cultural ceremonies and markets that I observed (see section 4.6 above). I was also purposive when observing the linguistic landscape – for instance, I would look out for busy places in the towns, i.e. areas visited by most people (for instance, around the main markets in the two towns of Busia), so that I could see how the different languages that are spoken in these two communities are represented in public space. This idea of looking out for language use in public space around busy areas in the two communities means that, in a way, I purposively selected the linguistic landscape that I observed.
To compare data obtained from both the individual interviews and focus group discussions, I used the same sample, that is, the 25 participants from each side of the border. My aim was to check for accuracy and later perhaps make generalizations for the whole population. Involving samples consisting of members of the community, cultural ceremonies and linguistic landscapes was a way of triangulating the sample selection. Triangulation,
79
according to Polkinghome (2005: 140), allows accounts from different perspectives about the same experience and aids the researcher in recognising variations in how the phenomenon unfolds. While acknowledging that data collected from this sample may not necessarily reflect the average opinion or experiences of all possible participants, Boeije (2010: 35) asserts that this allows for rich analysis because participants are selected depending on the needs of the study. The participants chosen were of different ages and genders, and I was known to some before the interviews commenced. I describe the characteristics of these participants in the next section.
4.6.2. Characteristics of the participants who took part in the main study
As mentioned in section 4.6 above, 25 participants were selected to participate in both the individual interviews and focus group discussions on each side of the border. The ages of the Ugandan participants ranged from 20 to 83 years (see Table 1 below). Twelve were male and 13 female. As regards the relationship between me and the participants prior to the interviews, most of the participants were unknown to me at the onset of this study: I knew only five of the 25, three of whom were local leaders13 and two of whom were relatives of a friend of mine. These five people introduced me to the other twenty whom I did not know.
On the Kenyan side of the border, the ages of the participants also ranged from 20 to 83 years. Eleven of the 25 participants were female and 14 were male. In terms of relationship with the participants prior to carrying out the interviews, I only knew two participants. One was one of the local leaders and the other was a relative of my father whom I had met at home during a ceremony. This local leader introduced me to other local leaders and these plus the one relative of mine helped me to identify the other participants.
13
The local leaders are always known to people in the communities, because the members of the community need letters from them from time to time as the need arises. I thus knew some local leaders already for this reason. One of them is my father‘s uncle.
80
Country of residence
Gender Age Total
20-35 36-51 52-67 68-83 Ugandan Male 2 4 4 2 12 Female 4 2 4 3 13 Total 6 6 8 5 25 Kenyan Male 1 4 5 4 14 Female 2 2 4 3 11 Total 3 6 9 7 25
Table 1: Summary of characteristics of interviewed participants