ELABORACIÓN: Para el bizcocho:

Two Nepali research assistants were employed for this research. Both were male recent university graduates, in their early 20s, and from a high caste (Brahmin). The main RA employed, Dipendra Sapkota, assisted with arranging interviews in Kathmandu Valley and Solukhumbu, provided translation services during interviews, and was employed to translate and transcribe the recorded interviews once the fieldwork was complete. Originally, he was employed as the author’s language tutor, but his employment quickly evolved to RA. He was born and raised in Kathmandu Valley. He was an enormous asset for this research. His educational background was in microbiology; however, he was very quick to catch on to the jargon and themes related to DRR.

The second research assistant, Bishesh Gautam, was employed only in the field in Bardiya as Dipendra was not able to travel at that time. He was recommended through a personal contact at an NGO. Bishesh was a recent graduate of an MA in Rural Development and was from a prominent family based in Bardiya’s district capital city, Guleryia. His uncle was the elected Nepali Congress representative from the district in the Constituent Assembly. His family

connections in the district was an asset when requesting interviews. However, at times it was also was a liability. At some points, there was a sense that the participants were measured in their responses because of the RA’s family connections. However, his influence and ability to get interviews outweighed his positionality. His outgoing and upbeat personality made most people to feel at ease.

131

5.5.2 Ethics

Before entering the field, this research met all university ethical requirements. Internal research ethics approval was granted on May 13th_{, 2014. Throughout}

the fieldwork, all respondents were given information sheets about the research which included clear statements that participation was voluntary and at any time before, during or after, they could withdraw consent. This was typically reiterated again by the researcher. The researchers contact information was provided in the form of both a business card and included on the information sheet. Before starting the interviews, the respondents were asked to review and give informed consent. The respondents could choose to remain anonymous or consent for their identity to be disclosed. The majority of senior level bureaucrats chose to allow their identities to be disclosed, whereas, the majority of subordinate staff wished to remain anonymous. All political party members did not wish for their identities to be kept anonymous. Both the information sheets and the informed consent sheets were provided in either English or Nepali based on the

respondent’s preference. In total, 100% of respondents provided signed informed consent.

During the write-up process the wishes of the respondents were maintained. In a few instances, where the respondent had selected to be disclosed but their response proved to be a bit controversial or could prove problematic, the respondents identify was kept anonymous. The challenge of protecting

respondents is daunting. In many instances, the government respondent could be easily identifiable with minimal effort. This presented certain challenges as based on their ministry, geographic location, and/or job position they were prominent and could be easy to identify. In these instances, identifying features (project name, participant job title) were removed.

5.5.3 Positionality

Being a female researcher in a predominantly male environment was a non- issue for the majority of respondents. Women are poorly represented in the bureaucracy (Mahat 2003, Udas and Zwarteveen 2010), and rarely found in policy or executive levels. As Table 5-4 shows, only 12% of the respondents for this study were women, the majority of women respondents were found in the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare. In order to gain credibility, past

132

work history of the researcher (e.g. Canadian emergency management at the local government level) was used as an ice-breaker. Challenges faced working in the Canadian local government and trying to advance DRR were described, with an emphasis on the problems faced. The message that was conveyed was that this was a supportive research agenda that recognized the challenge of DRR as being universal and global. Often this was an effective way to bridge differences, and to create an understanding of a shared work space, albeit with contextual differences. It also led to credibility of the researcher as someone who was experienced and knowledgeable about not just disaster management but also government contexts.

Scheyvens et al. (2003) argue that positionality and “ethical issues which arise in relation to cross-cultural situations thus need to be considered and questioned seriously by all scholars pondering fieldwork in the Third World, and ethical principles should in turn inform all stages of research” (Scheyvens et al., 2003: 139). For the most part, the type of power relations described in most

development fieldwork texts, where the researcher held power over the

researched, did not seem to arise in this research. Perhaps this is because the research focus was not at the community level, but instead was focused within the government. The bureaucracy in Nepal remains a powerful and highly politicized institution. In several frustrating instances, it seemed as if the government officials held all the power to derail this research agenda by either ignoring interview requests or refusing to participate. On the third research trip, the government in power had changed and was taking a hard line against

‘foreigners’ who were openly critical of the government, particularly in the area of human rights27_{. This radically changed the power dynamic and led to the}

researcher becoming much more circumspect about her research activities, especially in light of the third fieldwork trip in the post-earthquake environment- an environment that was especially easy to be critical of government activities (or rather the lack thereof).

There was an instance were the relationship between researcher and the respondents became skewed and this was the result of not being explicit about the purpose of the fieldwork. This occurred in Solukhumbu District when a local

27 _{On May 2}nd, _{2016, Robert Penner (a Canadian who was living and working with a valid}

work visa in Nepal) was arrested and later deported on the basis of his Twitter activities. In particular, Penner was vocal about government abuses during the blockade.

133

resident mistook the researcher’s agenda for the possibility of a development project. Although he himself was not asked to be a respondent, he took it upon himself to offer help to the researcher. It was not until the end of the research trip that the misconception became apparent. It was explained to him that this fieldwork was only for academic purposes and no project or funding would follow. The lesson derived from this was that the researcher would always be perceived as able to access project funding- given the heavy reliance on NGOs in Nepal. This was less so at the central government level, where bureaucrats were used to working with UN and NGO staff. At the central level, this was a hurdle the researcher had to surmount- the fact that without project funding in hand, central government staff motivations to respond to interview requests were harder to gain.

5.5.4 Gaining Access

The hierarchical nature of Nepalese administration made gaining research permissions at times a complicated procedure and at others very

straightforward. The first set of interviews were conducted at LSMC in

December 2014, with the official request made through NSETs Deputy Director. NSET drafted a letter to the Executive Officer of the municipality, introducing the researcher as an intern, which satisfied all concerned because my affiliation and the responsibility for my actions was NSETs. The NSET letter was signed by the EO, which was my pass to commence research within the municipality. No challenges or problems were made throughout the month spent researching at LSMC.

Research permission for central government interviews was not as

straightforward. Again, NSET brokered the first two interviews with two key ministries- Ministry of Home Affairs, and Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development. Perhaps their consent to be interviewed represented a tacit consent and all that was formally required. It put the research on the radar of the two most active ministries in the area of DRR and if they had wished it to not proceed they could have stopped it if they wished. The reality of dealing with the central government was that to push too hard to gain proper central level

consent might have derailed the entire research agenda. It is likely the research would be stonewalled, either on purpose or through bureaucratic ineptitude. In

134

any case, no problems were encountered and thirteen ministries were interviewed.

5.5.5 Data Analysis

The process of data analysis closely followed that as outlined by Creswell (2009) in Figure 5-3.

Figure 5-3. Data Analysis Process

(Source: adapted from Creswell 2009: 185)

The first step was to transcribe the recorded interviews. The majority of interviews were transcribed in full. Transcribing was an on-going process that occurred both during fieldwork and at the university. Transcription was a lengthy, expensive, and time-consuming endeavour. As previously noted, the interviews were approximately 50% English and 50% Nepali. The primary research assistant, Dipendra, did all of the translating and transcribing of the Nepali interviews deemed most important, while the author transcribed the English recordings. The transcription software F5 was used for the transcription.

Interpreting the meaning of themes and descriptions

Interrelating themes and descriptions

Coding the data

Reading through all the data

Organising and preparing data for analysis

Raw data

Descriptions Themes

135

The next step of the data analysis process was a read through of all the data. In reality, the process of data collection was an iterative process and the

transcriptions had been reviewed as they were completed in order to consider the direction that the research was taking. However, once the fieldwork was completed a period of time was set aside for reviewing the transcriptions based on a broad categorisation. It was determined at this stage that the embedded units of analysis (see Figure 5-1) would be the different jurisdictions of the policy mainstreaming process, for example, a) the central government (transcriptions n=18), b) the district and local governments (transcriptions n=58), and c) the political parties (transcriptions n=9). The district and local government units of analysis were further broken down into sub-groups by jurisdiction (i.e. LSMC, District Development Office- Lalitpur, District Development Office- Solukhumbu).

The next step required the labelling (or coding) of the data. This was done manually and without the aid of computer software. This allowed for a more hands on process. Each embedded unit of analysis was labelled separately. Organising and structuring the labelling process was made easier through the data being collected through semi-structured interviews. Although there was room for digression, most interviews followed the same pattern of questions. Therefore, all transcripts were roughly organised in the same manner and around the key themes of the research.

For each embedded unit of analysis (later to become empirical chapters 6-8), a framework was created. Based on a thorough read-through of the interview data, each of the four sub-questions were either restated or reformulated to better reflect how the data presented itself. Each transcript was then reviewed in order to assess how the respondent answered the sub-question. Excerpts were cut and pasted from the transcript into the data framework (see Figure 5-4 below). Data was sorted by political party and colour coded by jurisdiction- Solukhumbu, Bardiya, and central level. This allowed the data to be easily compared and contrasted both within and across jurisdictions.

136

Figure 5-4. Example of Data Sorting Table

(Source: the author)

5.6 Reflections on Methodology

Rooting this research in a social constructivist paradigm was a critical

component for being able to address the research objectives and questions. In the absence of strong legislative authority and institutional processes it is mostly up to bureaucrats to interpret and implement policy according to their own motivations, enrichment, and beliefs. As discussed throughout this research, social learning is critical to this process. Cundill et al. (2014) were correct in their assertion that case-study research is ideal for studying the process of change through social learning. In addition, there is a long historical precedent of policymaking in Nepal being made on the subjective whim of the monarchy or dynasty autocrat. Evidenced-based, objective policymaking does not exist in the current Nepal government environment.

137

What is more, this research aimed to avoid a superficial understanding of the mainstreaming DRR dynamic in Nepal and drill down to uncover the real barriers preventing change. Using qualitative interview approaches allowed the scope for bureaucrats to frame the challenges and opportunities they faced and to discuss both mainstreaming and DRR as they understood it to be. Assessing documents produced by the GON and the political parties as social constructs shed light on the relationships between international organisations, the GON, and the

electoral voters. For example, the election manifestos (later discussed in Chapter 8) represented what the political parties understood could win an election; that they included content related to DRR was an indication that the political parties were responding to public, but more likely to external influences like the UN and donor initiatives. So too, the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Management (later discussed in Chapter 6) was produced with extensive consultation, but later revised by MOHA. That the National Strategy included global development buzzwords is itself a reflection of the relationship dynamic between supranational organisations, donors, and the GON.

Methods and methodology are only as good as the skill of the researcher

employing them, so it is useful to reflect not only on the methodology but also on how the researcher’s skills and confidence evolved over the course of this research. This thesis and its methodology is a reflection of a learning journey and much was learned through trial and error.

138