Metodología

According to Flick (2014), qualitative data analysis refers to the classification and interpretation of linguistic material, leading to the formulation of explicit and implicit structures of social meanings, in order to describe real life issues. Therefore, the main aim of analyzing qualitative data is to describe a phenomenon in greater details and ultimately get to understand and best interpret human action and behavior. Flick (2014) further notes that qualitative analysis would have achieved its goal if it has managed to compare various cases, and finally make generalizable statements about the issue being investigated.

Qualitative data analysis for this study draws mainly from the Grounded Theory, whose aim is to explore social interactions and processes by means of organized procedures so to help understand the phenomenon under investigation (Strauss & Corbin, 2009; Punch, 2013). According to the pioneers of this theory, Glaser and Strauss (1967), data is collected to generate social theory, rather than to verify or prove existing theories. As Lacey and Luff (2009:9) rightly note, “theories would be ‘grounded’ in rigorous empirical research, rather than produced in the abstract”. Strauss and Corbin (1998)

clarifies that the grounded theory approach is distinct from other approaches to qualitative data analysis in that it emphasizes on theory as the final output of research.

Advocates of the Grounded Theory regard respondents as being central to the emerging research outcome in any given research. Thus, this adopted research approach allowed food security challenges and effects of drought on access to food to emerge from the sampled respondents of kaKhoza. Furthermore, the means through which the respondents from the study area cope with the drought situation in their quest to access sufficient food was also well captured. The grounded-theory approach to data analysis helped uncover crucial information on the various ways through which kaKhoza residents are affected by drought and how they grapple with the drought-induced food insecurity challenges in the urban setting.

The audio taped data generated from the 30 in-depth interviews was transcribed using

the constant comparative method14_{. This was done until a ‘theoretical saturation’ was}

reached where no new ideas and insights were emerging from the collected data. All qualitative data generated from different sources was processed and analyzed using qualitative techniques. Qualitative approaches entailed employing a thematic ordering and systematization of the information generated. According to Guest et al. (2012), thematic analysis emphasizes pinpointing, examining, and recording patterns or themes within data. Themes are patterned across data sets that are important to the description of phenomena and are associated with a specific research question. The themes then become the categories for analysis.

Thematic analysis was performed, as Saladana (2012) recommends, through the process of coding where common themes of day-to-day life experiences of kaKhoza residents were identified and examined in relation to the context, meanings and circumstances faced by kaKhoza residents with regards to access to food in the context of the drought situation in the study area and country, in general. The researcher

14 _{In this method, data collection and analysis happen simultaneously and in stages. The researcher}

collects, analyze and constantly compares current and past analysis to check for relationships. More and more data is collected and analyzed until a more clearer picture of existing relation among variables is gathered (Parry, 1998; Lacey & Luff, 2009).

followed six phases: familiarization with data, generating initial codes, searching for themes among codes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes in order to create established and meaningful patterns from the gathered data. Among the important themes identified for analysis were issues of food transfers, sources of food used by the urban poor, food prices and issues of access to food, as well as coping mechanisms employed by kaKhoza residents in an effort to remain resilient in drought conditions.

The researcher also had to ensure, as far as possible, that the results are valid and reliable. Creswell and Miller (2000) emphasize the importance of ensuring validity in research by noting that it does not just give strength to the qualitative investigation but also ensures that the account or findings are accurate from the perspective of the researcher and end users (participants and readers). It is important to note, as Creswell (2014) has also observed, that validity in qualitative research carries a different connotation from that which it carries in quantitative research. While in quantitative research the term denotes the applicability of results to new settings and samples, to the qualitative inquiry it means that the researcher checks for the accuracy of findings by applying certain ‘validity checks’ procedures (Gibbs, 2007). The degree to which these procedures are consistent across different researchers and projects alludes to the reliability of the qualitative results (Gibbs, 2007).

Different scholars use different terms to refer to validity in qualitative research: terms such as authenticity, trustworthiness and credibility (See Lincoln & Guba, 1986; McGregor & Murnane, 2010; Creswell & Miller, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Morrow, 2005; Lincoln et al., 2011; Neuman, 2014). Credibility is the internal consistency in research which is mainly ensured through rigor and accurate communication of the method used to ensure that rigor (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Creswell (2014) recommends the use of multiple approaches in ensuring validity or credibility in qualitative research. Credibility in this research, as Lincoln and Guba (1985) recommend, was ensured mainly through the use of persistent observation, triangulation and peer debriefing, among other things.

with key informants, e.g. retailers) and focus group discussions. These two methods were supplemented with observation. These sources of data were later converged and main themes were then established. Creswell (2014) claims that converging different sources of data (triangulation) adds to the validity of any given research study. This finds support from other scholars such as Blaikie (2000), Yin (2003) as well as Scandura and Williams (2000) who also perceive the use of triangulation as one best way to overcome problems of bias and increase validity of findings. Patton (2002) and Brannen (2005a; 2005b) advance the same argument by maintaining that triangulation enable comparison of data and leaves it to the discretion of the reader to decide if data from one set corroborates those from another, and in the process, the research findings are validated.

For the purpose of peer debriefing, the researcher combined two strategies. One was presenting the research to Masters and PhD students (University of the Western Cape) and the other one was giving a printed document for review to a colleague and PhD student (University of Swaziland). Both groups were given an opportunity to ask questions about the study, particularly the qualitative aspect of the study. From these two strategies, the researcher was able to get good feedback on issues that needed clarification, elaboration and interpretation so that the account would resonate well with other people, not just the researcher alone. This strategy is considered by Creswell (2014) to add validity to the research study since it involves an interpretation of the research outcome beyond that of the researcher.

True to Creswell’s observation, the researcher had to make additions and throw more light by clarifying certain issues which he had initially thought were clear but proved to be vague to other researchers (peers). In other cases, the researcher had to go back to the data for further analysis to show certain relationships and uncover patterns that were crucial in clarifying unclear relationships to the achievement of the study objectives. For example, the researcher had to use statistical techniques such as the product moment correlation to show relationship between drought and crop yield, crop yield and food prices and how these can influence access to food.

The researcher also had an honor to have his entire project reviewed by a human geographer and expert in the field who acted as an external auditor. The feedback from the review became very useful in shaping the research study. The reviewer, with her expertise and technical orientation, helped to enhance the overall validity of this study as she looked and raised issues of accuracy of transcription, level of analysis and rigor, relationship between the data and research questions, selection and running of appropriate statistical tests and results interpretation and presentation. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) have rightly noted that the role of external auditor is similar to that of a fiscal auditor, likewise, specific questions were asked to which the researcher had to respond in order to clarify unclear issues pertaining to research design, methodology and results interpretation, resulting, overall, to a better quality research.

The researcher also made use of the member checking criteria, as recommended by Creswell, where follow-up interviews were conducted with some of the respondents at kaKhoza. During these follow-up interviews, participants were also given an opportunity to comment on the research findings. Creswell (2014) allows that a researcher may take back some, but not all, the semi-polished major findings when doing member checking. Lincoln and Guba (1985:314) regards member checking into the research findings “the most critical technique for establishing credibility”. Among the major themes that were selected for follow ups were issues of access to food, especially with regards to food sources and the effects of food prices on access to food.

During the qualitative data collection, it appeared that the steep increase in food prices during the drought period was the major issue of concern for most respondents in kaKhoza, which was also reflected on the increase in the patronization of informal food sources which offered ‘better price’ options. The researcher, therefore, was much interested in finding out how the situation was, after the drought condition had normalized. This is the time when the country saw a decline in food prices across all regions. The researcher also wanted to capture respondents’ experiences in relation to food sources following the bumper harvest in the 2016/17 farming season in the country, which responded to the above-average rainfall received countrywide.

The researcher also spent prolonged time in the field, not only during the follow-up visits, but also during the whole data collection process (both qualitative & quantitative data collection exercises). Since the commencement of data collection in June 2015 which marked the beginning of the data collection process until the finalization of data analysis in August 2017, the researcher has been making frequent visits to the study site. In this way, the researcher was able to get details about the people and the study site which helped in understanding their vulnerabilities to the impacts of drought resulting to a more credible narrative account of their drought experiences.

Researchers such as Creswell (2014) agree that the accuracy or validity of research findings is partly a function of the experience the researcher has with the participants in their natural setting. The insight to the study setting allowed for rich, thick description during the communication of the research findings, ultimately making the results richer and more realistic. Creswell (2014) notes that the use of thick description is quite instrumental in increasing credibility in research since it ‘transports’ readers to the study setting and consequently gives the discussion an element of shared experiences.