Since this study sought to generate new information and perspectives regarding land appropriation, this question will help participants look through land appropriation from a global perspective. This question aimed to solicit and recommendations that could be used to address global land grabs. All the research questions will be answered by all of the research participants through the use of guided interview questions (see Appendix C).
Other definitions
Laws
In this study, a law is any instrument that has been passed by the Kenya National Assembly (Parliament), and subsequently consented through signing by the President of the Republic of Kenya, and is then a recognized instrument and the law of the land. The laws that will be reviewed are those that were related to land ownership, control and access, land subdivision, land registration, and land transfer (see page 22 paragraph 2 for list of documents).
Decrees
Decrees are formal and authoritative public pronouncements that are translated and implemented by the national government as law. In the Kenyan context, presidential decrees are presidential pronouncements that are enforced regardless of whether they are legally binding or not. The decrees that this study reviewed were decrees that were made by the first president Jomo Kenyatta from 1963 to 1978, Daniel Arap Moi from 1978 to
2002, Mwai Kibaki 2002 to April 2013, and the current president Uhuru Kenyatta 2013 to present as they relate to land appropriation and land ownership.
Sample
The places and people that constituted the sample for the study were carefully considered. Miles and Hubberman’s (1994) criteria were critical to the selection process. Feasibility, and richness of information, and relevance to the land appropriation and acquisition phenomenon were the largest influences on the sample choice. The two counties in Kenya selected for the study were Narok and Kajiado.
Participants
The participants for the study were volunteer participants. The volunteer participants from these two Counties were selected because they provided the “thick description” required for a case study about land appropriation. The participants for this study were pre-selected. The preselection was based on both inclusion and exclusion criteria. To be considered as a participant in this study participants were required to meet the following criteria: 1) the past and present involvement in Maasai land issues; 2) affected directly or indirectly by land appropriation; 3) they have worked or currently work with government departments that have a relationship with land related issues in Narok and Kajiado counties; 4) reside or have relatives who live in the two counties; 5) volunteer to participate in the research, and 6) have access to a phone. The exclusion criteria for potential participants were 1) do not live nor have families who live in the two counties;
2) have no past or present involvement in Maasai land issues; 3) have not been affected in any way by laws, policies, and decrees that relate to land, 4) have no access to a phone.
While the researcher had a list of fifteen volunteer participants during the initial stages of developing the research proposal, the list changed in the number to sixteen as well as the research participants due to the dynamics on the ground. Five of the initial participants recommended other people as replacements due to their new roles in the new Kenyan political dispensation where an election will be held in 2017, and they have political ambitions and hence have limited time to participate. Three participants also dropped because they were newly appointed to government jobs, and four could not make the time because they have enrolled in graduate school. All the participants were given an opportunity during the initial phone calls to suggest other sources of information that will help in the research.
In total, the researcher was able to interview sixteen participants during the data gathering stage of the research. Table 3.1 is a demographic distribution of the research participant and their current roles and responsibilities. The demographic distribution of the participants was 6 of the participants were from Narok County; 5 were from Kajiado County; 2 were from Non-Governmental Organizations; 2 were from government institutions that deal with land issues, and where one was from academic research institutions who is considered a subject matter expert. Female participants for the
research accounted 4 of the participants, while male participants accounted for 12. All the research participants could express themselves both in English and Maa languages.
The ages of the participants ranged between 35 years to 80 years (See Table 3.1). According to the research findings, 25% of the participants were conversant of events that led to Maasai land appropriation and alienation in the past, 98% understand the current events going on now regarding Maasai land appropriation and alienation. Regarding the issue of what needs to be done about Maasai land appropriation and alienation, the participants gave varied views. Further, 45% percent of the participants said that the implications of the Maasai land appropriation and alienation case would inform policy on the ongoing global land grabs. Of the 16 participants, 12 participants accepted that their identities could be revealed in the research. The remaining four research participants opted not to have their names disclosed. As per the IRB requirements, the participants were given the option to either decline or accept to be disclosed and therefore the researcher respected the wishes of those that declined to have their names disclosed in the thesis. Apparently, this new list generated very useful data that this research would have missed if the respondents were not part of the research.
The time difference between the United States where the researcher resides and Kenya where the interviewees lived changed the mode and timing for interviews. The phone interview sessions which were planned to take one hour for each interviewee were divided into four sessions of between twenty to thirty-five minutes each for each
participant. Literate participants opted to validate the data through written statement, while the illiterate participants validated the data through phone interviews (See Table 3.1).
Table 3.1
Research participants
Participant Current role
Resident County/ Constituency represented
1 Jackson
Shaa The chairman of Narasha Maasai community. He has played a big role in advocating for land rights for people being evicted to create room for
geothermal extraction in Narok and parts of Kajiado
Narok County
2 Rahab
Kenana Formerly program Officer with Oxfam and a leading environmental justice activist in Narok Narok County 3 John
Kisimirr A renowned Maasai journalist and currently leading a Maasai rights group called Engape Emaa which is involved in human rights activities in all Maa speaking counties in Kenya
Kajiado County
4 Fredrick
Kamakei A recipient of the Mandela presidential award and an active member of the Maasai human rights civil society group that has been involved in drafting the Community Land Bill
Narok.
5 Julius
Lemanken Has worked for World Vision for over 10 years and has been involved in land rights activities in Narok Narok 6 Dr. Lotte
Hughes An acclaimed researcher and the author of the book “Moving the Maasai” and many articles on cultural and political issues in Kenya
Subject matter expert/Academic 7 Vincent
Ole Ntekerei
Olentekerei as he was commonly known was among the first Maasai elites, a great historian who has extensive knowledge about the history of the Maasai, their land loses, the impacts these has had, and a respected elder who was before his demise a member of the Maasai Council of Elders
Narok
8 Moses Ole
Marima Was the Member of Parliament from 1969 to 1974. He played a big role during the immediate post- independence government by asking the then Kenyatta government allow the Maasai to buy back land from the White settlers but the Maasai were denied the opportunity. He has served in various positions in government and currently a member of the Maasai Council of Elders
Participant Current role
Resident County/ Constituency represented
9 Lemayian
Ole Taiko Lemayian is a member of Elangata Wuas group ranch. He is also the director of Kenya Community Based Tourism Network. He has been instrumental in advocating for the rights of members of Elangata Wuas group ranch for equal distribution of land and other natural resources
Kajiado
10 Clement
Nachuru A member of the Kenya National Land Commission (NLC) Government 11 Michael
Tiampati The national coordinator for the Pastoralists Development Network of Kenya; an accomplished journalist with several publications on land rights and a founder member of Maa Civil Society Forum
NGOs
12 Daniel
Salau Member of Maa Civil Society Forum and an Official of a local Maasai NGO Kajiado/NGO
13 P1 Department of Lands Government
official/Kajiado 14 P2 A widow who was denied land after the husband
died Kajiado
15 P3 A woman whose husband sold all the land Kajiado 16 P4 A male working for an international finance
institution based in the USA International Development Financier
The participants for this study were pre-selected. The preselection was based on both inclusion and exclusion criteria. To be considered as a participant in this study the
participants were required to meet the following criteria: 1) past and present involvement in Maasai land issues; 2) affected directly or indirectly by land appropriation; 3) they have worked or currently work with government departments that have a relationship with land related issues in Narok and Kajiado counties; 4) reside or have relatives who
live in the two counties; 5) volunteer to participate in the research; and, 6) have access to a phone. The exclusion criteria for potential participants were: 1) do not live nor have families who live in the two counties; 2) have no past or present involvement in Maasai land issues; 3) have not been affected in any way by laws, policies, and decrees that relate to land appropriation; and, 4) have no access to a phone.
Data collection
This research used the three procedures as recommended by Yin (1994) which are: 1) preparing for data collection; 2) carrying out semi-structured interviews, and document review; and, 3) validating information from the semi-structured interviews by conducting phone interviews as a follow-up. These phone calls were made to a selected number of participants to validate the themes that emerged from the data analysis. The sources used for the study included a review of relevant laws, policies, and decrees, and semi-
structured telephone interviews with written comments from literate participants to validate the data from the interviews. An initial phone call was made to each of the volunteer research participants to inform them of the research proposal and the intended objective of the research.
An informal cultural approach was used in the form of an open discussion commonly known by the Maasai as “news eating.” During this call, both the researcher and the participant asked open questions that led to a common understanding of what the research entailed. The researcher also used this opportunity to seek other possible sources of information related to the research from the research participants.
Data collection instruments
Semi-structured telephone interviews
Several authors (Hill et al., 1997; Hill et al., 2005) recommend the use of 8 to 15 interview participants for qualitative research studies. Fewer participants are needed when more than one interview is conducted per participant, or when the group of participants is particularly homogenous. Due to budgetary, time difference, and travel constraints the researcher used 16 participants for this study. Participants for the study were pre-selected from individuals from Kajiado and Narok counties, government officials, and members of NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) that have been involved with land related issues in Kenya. The data was collected during the months of January, February, and March of 2016.
The semi-structured telephone interview is a qualitative research method used in the social sciences. An interview guide was prepared by the researcher to use in conducting the interviews. The interview guide was an informal grouping of topics and questions that the interviewer asked in different ways for different participants. The interview guides helped the researcher focus the interview on the themes at hand without constraining them to a particular format. This freedom helped the researcher to tailor the questions to the interview context or situation, and to the research participants. To obtain critical information about factors that contribute to Maasai land appropriation, and bearing in mind that most of the participants are Maasai, semi-structured interviews were the most appropriate data collection tool (See Appendix C).
Semi-structured interviews were used in the study to solicit responses that were analyzed using a content analysis approach to answering the research questions, and to unearth new information about the phenomenon of Maasai land appropriation and
acquisition. Semi-structured interviews were chosen for this study because they provided the opportunity to generate new information and data.
Due to the time difference between Kenya where the interview participants lived, and the United States where the researcher is based, the researcher had to agree on the specific times and dates that were convenient for each research participant. Most of the interviews were done over the weekends when the research participants were available over a period of three months, and the research participants responded from the location they were at the time of the call but the data provided was about the Counties they represented.
Each interviewee was contacted by phone with a description of the project and why they were being asked to participate in the interview. The call was also used to give an overview of the project, and reason they were selected to take part in the project. During this call, the researcher and participants set dates and times when the next call would be made. The second call was made to answer research question one and two. The third call was made to respond to research question three and four, while the fourth call was made to pre-selected participants to validate the themes that emerged from the data analysis. The selection criteria for the pre-selected participants who participated in the fourth call was based on the content of their transcripts and the richness of knowledge they had on the research subject.
Participants were given an opportunity to ask questions for either clarity about the content or content of the interview tools. The participants were found through personal knowledge, and through asking the pre-selected people if they knew other sources and people who knowledgeable about Maasai land appropriation.
During the phone calls that were quite informal and followed a naturalistic pattern, the snowballing sampling was used to give the participants an opportunity to make suggestions regarding further sources of information and other people that may have more or other details about the phenomenon being studied. Where the participants felt inadequate in information or were not comfortable with the subject, they were allowed to suggest other people. During this process, the researcher took notes of what the
participants were expressing regarding either their willingness to participate, other people, and sources of data.
Where a participant suggested another person, the researcher requested the participant for their contacts and used the same process of reaching out to the new prospecting participants to inform and seek consent. Where the participant did not have the contacts of the persons they referred to, the researcher requested that the participant contacts the person and gives the researcher a call once they have made contact, and the other person agrees to be contacted by the researcher, the researcher made a call and to inform the new participant about the research and seek consent. Since most of the research participants knew each other, all the suggested participant contacts were
obtained by the researcher and followed the same phone protocol as he did for the rest of the research participants (See Table 3.2).
Table 3.2
Sequence, duration, and purpose of phone calls
Calls Duration for each participant Purpose for the call
1 Between 20 to 35 Minutes Introduction of the research project Project description
2 Between 20 to 35 Minutes Research questions 1 & 2 3 Between 20 to 35 Minutes Research question 3 & 4
4 Between 20 to 35 Minutes Validating themes that emerged from the research The interview structure applied in this research permitted spontaneous comments; however, where issues of interest were not spontaneously described by the respondent, the researcher utilized prepared probes which directed the participants toward these issues. This structure allowed the interview participants freedom to connect, correct, rephrase for understanding, and digress to related topics.
The Maasai people are very oratory and using semi-structured interviews was culturally appropriate as data was collected through a storytelling process guided by the semi-structured interviews. The advantage of using semi-structured interviews for this study was based on the fact that most of the research participants were the Maasai, who are very verbal. Thus, as part of their culture telling stories made semi-structured interviews a culturally appropriate tool for data collection. This also enabled the researcher to obtain in-depth information as opposed to using other instruments that required literacy skills. In total, there were 58 calls made to all the research participants. The questions used in the semi-structured interviews are in Appendix C.
The semi-structured interviews took into consideration the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects recruited to participate in research activities. This study
was conducted under the auspices of Clemson University by adhering to Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements (see Appendix A). The researcher obtained approval from the Clemson University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Before collecting data, the researcher called all participants to brief them about the research and to seek their participation. Once they accepted, the researcher used the same call to get consent from each of the research participants.
Data management
Interview data were collected using an audio recorder and were transcribed and stored in a password protected electronic document. Since the study possessed no threats to the participants and the researcher, all the transcribed data were stored by the
researcher and accessible to the research participants and other stakeholders who may want to use the information for awareness raising and for influencing policy. While the research posed no threats, some participants requested that their identities be concealed for personal reasons.
Transcription of data
Telephone audio digital recorder was used to record the interviews. The recorded telephone interviews were transcribed verbatim by the researcher, including any nonverbal or background sounds. The transcription of the tapes was an intensive and time-consuming process. If interviewer or interviewees mispronounced words, these words were transcribed as the individual said them. The transcript was not “cleaned up” by removing foul language, slang, grammatical errors, or misuse of words or concepts.
The researcher stored all the transcribed data, and with permission of the participants, thee data were accessible to all the research participants as well as other stakeholders who might want to use the information for awareness raising and for influencing policy.
Data analysis
Case study data analysis involves a spiraling, iterative and cyclical process that proceeds from more general to more specific observations (Creswell, 1998; Palys, 1997; Silverman, 2000). Qualitative data analysis involves the identification, examination, and