EXTRACTOS DE LA LEGISLACION CHILENA SOBRE EL PROBLEMA QUE NOS OCUPA

Participant observation is a traditional tool used by some of the earliest anthropologists includ- ing Bronisław Malinowski in his research on the Trobriand Islands (Taylor et al., 2015). Qual- itative research is concerned with how people think and act in their everyday life. Participant observation is a method used by researchers to access information and gain understanding by interacting with informants in a natural and non-intrusive manner (Rossman and Rallis, 2012). According to Taylor et al. (2015), participant observation constitutes ‘blending into the woods,’ that is, grasping an understanding of the research setting. Through participant obser- vation, the researcher is able to understand a subject`s actions by observing through daily observation. After a year of using this method, the researcher comes close to getting the in- sider’s point of view (Hume and Mulcock, 2004).

I participated in the everyday lives of the farmers and had the opportunity to ask for the reasons behind some of their actions which I observed. This was routinely done at all the vegetable sites that were visited. After observing farmers’ everyday practices, questions were asked through interviews and focus group discussions for a better understanding and also to get their perspectives. For example, through participant observation, it was clear that urban agriculture was male dominated in this study area and I wanted to know why. Using participant observation proved to be a great eye opener, as it gave me insight into the agricultural prac- tices of the people and interviews conducted later deepened my knowledge of this practice.

3.4.3.3 Focus group discussion

Focus group discussions are carried out ideally in groups of 6-8 persons (Liamputtong, 2011). The aim of such a tool is to generate conversation with many persons in order to generate a variety of opinions on a particular issue (Cyr, 2016). It also provides a broad array of experi- ences, perspectives and an opportunity to ask for an explanation to responses or ideas raised (Morgan, 1996). Focus group discussions (FGD) are considered by Smithson (2000) as social events which yield data through interactions with a group of individuals making the information greater than the sum of its parts. Interactions in groups yielded different meanings and under- standings, which was better understood after in-depth interviews were later conducted.

Focus group discussion also gives an idea of how different people understand phenomena and it also helps to mitigate problems of clarity (Moravcsik, 2014). For example, a question could easily produce two different answers, with each answer justifying the answer. Probing this further can produce information which is relevant to the research. This method was useful at explaining why some farmers choose different actors or institutions in their search for re- sources or why they used a particular discourse instead of another. A weakness of FGD is that some individuals react differently in public than they do in private. Some “exaggerate, minimize or withhold experiences” (Hollander, 2004: 626). This implies that group dynamics do shape how individuals react to questions (Farnsworth and Boon, 2010).

Figure 3.5: During and after focus group discussions in some vegetable sites Source: Author’s fieldwork 2014/15

I carried out focus group discussions in all the vegetable sites in urban and peri-urban Tamale, as seen in Figure 3.5 above. These discussions focused on specific thematic issues and were followed up by an in-depth interview with some of the farmers later. Focus group discussions was a great source of information on contesting issues inherent in urban agricul- ture, and it gave me a different perspective on how farmers gained and maintained access to land, water, and seeds. In using this tool, I identified many technologies and questioned why and how they used one technology and not another. For example, during a focus group dis- cussion with farmers at Gumbihini, I learnt that the Urban Agricultural Network and the Savan- nah Agricultural Research Institute researcher had provided them with pipe borne water, drip irrigation, improved seeds, and compost. They preferred pipe born water which was easy to use and efficient unlike the drip irrigation and improved seeds which were technical, and of which they got limited support from the donors after these technologies were introduced.

Three sets of focus group discussions were carried out. The first round of discussion was to understand the general agricultural practice of vegetable farmers and their social rela- tions and networks. The second set of focus group discussion was carried out to measure the surface area of urban and peri-urban vegetable fields in the past six years, to triangulate and validate data from interviews which indicates that land used for vegetable farming has contin- uously been shrinking over the years. The last set of focus group discussion was participated by female vegetable farmers and the goal of the discussion was to understand how they got access to lands for farming and how they maintained control over it. In addition, I also wanted to know how they were first introduced to farming on irrigation sites.

Table 3.3: Focus group discussions conducted during fieldwork by the researcher Focus group discus-

sions

Area Numbers

General farm prac- tices

-Choggu -Forest reserve -Fooshegu -Buipela - Stadium area -Sangani -Zagyuri -Jekerayili -Kambonayili -Dufa -Nyanshegu

-Kpenni -Gumbihini new dam

-Gumbihini old dam – Gumbihini waterworks area (VRA)

15

-Nyanshegu -Sahapelgu -Dufa -Kambonayili -Jekerayili -Daitoyili -Fooshegu -Sangani -SSNIT -Gumbihini old dam -Gumbihini new dam

–Gumbihini waterworks area (VRA) -Tunaayili -Fuo

Women -Golinga -Gbelahigu 2