5.6.3 Document Analysis
The second major qualitative research method employed in the study comprised of document analysis. According to Yin (2014:107) documentary evidence, plays an explicit role in any data collection in doing case study research. Documents have three main uses in case study research as per Yin (2014:107-108)
• They help to confirm and build up on the evidence attained from other sources.
• They help to garner new and specific details about a given subject.
• These documents can help to develop inferences about a given topic and give clues about topics to be investigated further.
For the purpose of the present study I conducted a detailed review of national as well as state level policy documents and mandates related to the bioenergy sector along with the international accords on environment of which India is a signatory. This analysis enabled me to understand the key policy imperatives/ behind the development of the bioenergy sector.
During the course of the fieldwork, I also reviewed documents related to administrative and organisational aspects of bioenergy projects in Punjab, environmental and legal regulations for setting up bioenergy plants, norms for setting up tariff rates and tax subsidies on biofuels as well as the names of organisations and key individuals investing in bioenergy projects in the Punjab province. These primary source materials were obtained from Punjab Energy Development Agency (PEDA), which is the nodal agency for renewable energy development in Punjab. 5.6.4 Focus Group Meetings
Focus groups are defined as a form of planned discussion in which a number of individuals, who have a community of interest, are interviewed in a group setting, in the presence of a moderator (Goldman, 1962: 63-64). The basic purpose of a focus group discussion is to create an atmosphere where all participants feel comfortable in expressing their ideas and opinions on a given subject in the presence of a moderator/ facilitator (Stewart et al, 2007). A typical focus group comprises of 6-10 participants because larger groups are difficult to facilitate and create problems in transcription
and analysis of data (Bloor et al, 2001, Litosseliti, 2005). The interviews are loosely structured on the basis of the topic guide, which covers the main areas of discussion (Litosseliti, 2005). However, there is still scope for unforeseen areas and discussions to emerge (Stokes and Bergin, 2006). Focus groups allow respondents to react to and build on the responses of other participants in the group and this synergistic effect of the group setting results in production of data and ideas, which are not possible in individual interviews (Litosseliti, 2005: 43). They generate a rich amount of data on different perspectives, beliefs, attitudes and experiences related to a particular subject, which enables the researcher to make important connections and identify subtle nuances in expression (Gibbs, 1997, Litosseliti, 2005: 18; Stewart et al, 2007: 42). Focus groups are considered useful in a multiple-method study as they help in collection group narratives on complex issues (Bloor et al., 2001).
Despite these distinct advantages, focus groups as a research strategy are criticised because the results obtained from focus groups are not generalisable due to the small number of participants, which may not be representative of the entire population (Gibbs, 1997; Bloor et al, 2001 and Stewart et al, 2007). However, other scholars believe that this criticism is unfair because the purpose of conducting focus groups is not generalisation, but illustration of a particular social phenomenon at hand (Litosseliti, 2005: 22). While the participants may not be representative of the entire population, they should be adequately representative of the phenomenon being explored. Bloor et al. (2001: 90) said that focus groups may not be the most suitable as a stand-alone research method, but these are particularly useful as an ancillary method. When focus group data is triangulated with data collected from other sources, it helps to clarify, qualify, extend or contest findings produced from other data sources (Bloor et al, 2001: 90).
In this research project I employed focus groups meetings as an ancillary method, along with document analysis and interviews with key stakeholders in the bioenergy sector. The number of focus groups to be employed in a research project is guided by the topic and the range of responses required in order to construct a holistic picture of the subject (Litosseliti, 2005). In this case four focus groups were conducted with local rural residents, who were end users of bioenergy. The primary objective of these focus group meetings was to gain feedback from village
communities as stakeholders in Punjab’s energy needs. The focus groups were centered on local energy issues and concerns, the key requirements of the community, people’s experience of bioenergy programmes being implemented in the state and their expectations from the bioenergy policies of the state government. Issues of energy access, proximity to the main town and the socio-economic profile of the villagers guided the selection of villages for the focus group meetings. The first two focus group meetings were conducted with residents of a relatively prosperous village Rauni, which was close to the near by town. The majority of the residents in the village were either farming/dairy households. These households had access to modern energy sources. A number of the interviewed households in this village were also beneficiaries of the biomass cooked stove initiative of the government. The other two focus group meetings were conducted in a remote village, Kotra Kaurewala, where a considerable section of the population still relied on traditional biomass. The interview participants comprised of men and women from agricultural labour households. These households formed the majority of the residents of this village. Agricultural labour households are the most deprived socio- economic group in Punjab’s rural community. They are economically poor and socially marginalised. These households have been working as farm labour since generations. They do not have any land of their own and live in small mud houses outsides the main village. These households are the worst affected by issues of energy poverty and access. A large number of households do not have access to modern sources of energy and continue to rely on traditional biomass energy for their energy needs.
Plate 5.3: Focus group meeting with women belonging to agricultural labour