Limitaciones del estudio

CI is distinguished from the other interview methods, by the way; participants are chosen. CI deploys interviewing participants (end-users and local committee members, leaders, local NGO/government workers) as these varieties have diversity of characteristics with some differences between them (Jepsen & Rodwell, 2008). Having known that the characteristics of end-users and water committees play a role during the process of hand-pump maintenance, this determined selecting the respondent as it was important to tap their knowledge of hand-pump maintenance. Interviewees chosen were those who were willing to share their views about the research topic. The scrutiny of participants with expert knowledge were based on those who were familiar with hand-pumps projects and how they were introduced, implemented and how maintenance plans were carried out, if any. The researcher asked the project team, the village chief, and the health staff for a list of knowledgeable women and men and water committees capable of sharing their opinions on main issues that influence hand-pump in the villages. Compilation of this list also ensured the nominated represented those from areas where hand-pump projects were discontinued, operational or failed. The researcher aimed to ensure the compiled list of potential participants who were likely to know most about rural water projects management (Rao & Perry 2003). The persons identified to be most

129

knowledgeable were interviewed first and then the next most knowledgeable but with different demographic characteristics or opposite project outcome (operational or non- operational). Only a few people were selected initially who were then asked to recommend others. This process was vital in ensuring that the sample grew as the study went on as seen in snow ball sampling.

A snowball sampling technique is important or appropriate when the study is about a small specialized population of people who are knowledgeable about the topic (Patton, 1990, Rao & Perry, 2003). Yin (2009) refers to purposive or snowballs sampling as a type of non-probability sampling, whereby a researcher deliberately decides who to include in the study on the basis that, those selected are able to provide the necessary data required for answering the research question. Another part of sampling process is the careful selection of the first interviewee as first snow –ball. In this case, the first interviewees directed the researcher to others who were familiar with the hand-pump maintenance. The researcher did this with support of Health Surveillance Assistants, who are the lowest cadres of government health personnel in the villages.

Once interviewees were identified, the researcher explained the nature of the research, process and interview schedule. Explanation was made why they were going to be interviewed, the nature of interview, selection process, confidentiality, and contact details of the researcher(see Appendix 3 and 4 pages 291-293 ). It was also explained that the interviews could take an hour or two to reach the level of detail required to identify maintenance key issues. The process consisted of rounds of interviews, with each round of three interviews in order to maximize the obvious difference in the opinions of three participants. The subsequent interviews were scheduled so the participants come from variable project outcomes (operational or non-operational). .

130

The aim of conducting CI was to explore the respondent's knowledge about understanding of project operations, reasons behind hand-pump maintenance or failures, what they perceived as different levels of success or failures and what could have been a better way to manage rural hand-pumps. The aim was to reduce bias hence the key study respondents (end-users or health committees) were asked a general question which was later modified. Prior to conducting CI, the study planned specific steps to be taken as summarized in Table 21 below:

Table 21: Convergent Interviews Steps

Activity Explanation of Roles

Step 1 Train Co- researcher The researcher and co- researcher worked parallel

to each other then met to compare results so as to reduce bias

Step 2 Conduct Pilot Study

Step 3 Define the Target Population Included other internal and external stakeholders

such as: pump end-users, local committees, health centre staff, project staff, chiefs, and community project staff. These gave advice on sampling and choice of cases and also gave feedback to the researcher on study pitfalls

Step 4 Conduct CI Interviews Probed, asked to tell more, content free

interviews done

Step 5 Interpret CI Interview Similar to Glaser (1994) used coding process :

respondents words or phrases or clarifications to form pump- maintenance categories

Step 6 Compare CI Interviews Compared notes with other co-researcher. Noted

areas of similarities, disagreements in data collected. Weighed agreement against the disagreements.

Step 7 Recycle until Saturation Returned back to step 5 to recycle till two

successive interviews did not provide any more new information then moved to next stage

Step 8 Report Compiled report on the findings from the

interview in terms of pump- maintenance themes or categories identified

Source: Chisenga, 2014 (adopted from Rao & Perry, 2003 )

There are advantages associated with following the CI steps in the above Table 21. The main advantage of CI is that it is easier for end-users and the local committees to initiate them discuss without bias (Rao & Perry, 2003). Imagining the researcher used leading question like, ‘tell us the project success or failure factors of water projects

131

in this village?’ Such questions would probably make the end-users to state more of

the negatives things because they could be expecting something better. In the same way, the local committees are likely to state more positive because they do not want to be associated with any failure in their water roles in the village. Hence to reduce such bias a neutral, non-leading content free question was ideal including the question design and wording.