METODOLOGÍA UTILIZADA PARA LA APLICACIÓN DE UN MODELO DE

The literature is divided on the most appropriate analytical methods for studying - qualitative, quantitative and mixed - the role of cooperative societies in urban and rural areas across the globe. Some researchers support a particular method more than the others. However, the researcher has earlier justified the use of the mixed methods for this study in section 4.3.1 above. As a result, data collection was based on this premise and analysis was carried out using the mixed method which combines both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The adoption of the appropriate technique for analysis is based on the source and methods of gathering the data. Since this study made use of cross sectional data derived at one point in time through interview, focus group discussion and impact survey questionnaire, this could be analysed using any or all the

Page | 109 methods – qualitative, quantitative and mixed – identified in the literature. The use of quantitative and qualitative methods (mixed methods) is adopted for the analysis but with more emphasis on the qualitative approach since Yoshikawa et al. (2008: 351) noted that “divergent findings from quantitative and qualitative methods do not necessarily represent a “problem” with the data”. However, a qualitative approach allows participants to tell their stories in their own words.

The responses from the survey questionnaires are presented using simple percentages in tables. Further quantitative analysis was carried out using the SPSS statistical package for chi-square tests for independence - used in comparing the relationship between two categorical variables based on cross tabulation tables. An independent sample t-test was used to evaluate statistically significant differences in means between the two groups. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed where the t-test result is statistically significant. The ANOVA is to determine the demographic variables that contributed significantly to the result while the standard effect size was used to determine the relationship that exists between the dependent and independent variables from the t-test result. Furthermore, the data derived from the interviews and focus group discussions were reported and analysed qualitatively using tables, content analysis and quotation – in their words – as necessary.

4.10 Summary and Conclusion

This chapter has evaluated the research methods used for this study, data collection techniques and the process of data analysis. It explained the steps taken in conducting the research which included the ways and manner in which the study was undertaken with special emphasis on the actions taken before, during and after the field work. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods were identified as appropriate methods for conducting impact assessments of the role of cooperative societies on the members. However, the mixed methods was adopted for this study because it entails the use of quantitative and qualitative methods: it therefore combines the advantages of both methods and

Page | 110 reduces the limitations of using any of the single methods. The data collection tools used for this study was adopted from the AIMS/SEEP assessment tools developed by Nelson (2000). This was achieved using cross sectional data with concurrent study – where the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the study were undertaken simultaneously. Data collection for this study was made possible through personal interviews, impact survey questionnaires and focus group discussions. These data were analysed using simple percentages, content analysis, quotations, chi-square test, independent sample t-tests, ANOVA and standard effect size.

The next three chapters – chapters five, six and seven – contain the results and findings of this study. Since more than one tool was used to determine the role of cooperative societies in rural finance, the following chapters are devoted to each level of impact so that the results, findings and discussions on each impact level are examined within the same chapter. Impact at the individual level is determined qualitatively with the use of FGDs and interviews which are reported in chapter five. Chapter six and seven focus on household impacts and enterprise level impacts respectively based on quantitative methods as they contain the results, findings and discussion of the impact survey questionnaires.

Page | 111

Chapter Five

Relationship Between Cooperative Societies and Individuals

5.1 Introduction

Qualitative research analysis in conjunction with quantitative analysis is expected to bring about holistic understanding of human beings in the subject area. Issues such as comment, feeling and emotion that may not be fully covered quantitatively can be examined qualitatively. The qualitative analysis “captures what people have to say in their own words and describe their experience in-depth” (Nelson, 2000: 3-4). The qualitative tools for this study were in-depth interview and focus group discussion (FGD). They focused on how members have used savings and loans services provided by the cooperative over the years. This includes individual comments on what they like and dislike about the program.

In order to report the result of the interview vis-à-vis FGD as accurate as possible, the researcher makes use of two main qualitative analytical tools. The key words-in-context (KWIC) and classical content analysis as used in previous studies (Falaiye, 2002; Larocque et al., 2002). Both methods do not require specialised software, but they are based on the interview and FGD notes and transcription of tape recording of issues discussed during the field work. The “KWIC is a helpful tool to utilise when there are specific words that are of interest to the researcher” (Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2007: 566-567). The classical content analysis shows the number of times some key words are used during the interview and FGD. Classical content analysis “is most useful when the researcher is interested in the frequency of the theme” (Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2007: 576). The researcher modifies this approach to show both the frequency and percentage of respondents that used the key words during the study. The responses are reviewed and grouped into common categories for clarity of ideas and easy presentation of results. The researcher provides some key words as used by the respondents in addition to the “in their own

Page | 112 word” comments (in italics) that provide statements credited to the respondents. The use of more than one analytical methods for the analysis will enable the researcher to enrich the quality of data by triangulating the result. This will enhance the researcher’s efforts and eventually bring credibility and acceptability to the research findings. Discussion of result made use of both the FGD participants and interviewees’ view to draw conclusion on the proposition. These conclusions are discussed in the light of the study’s theoretical underpinning. This is further compared with previous studies and in relation to the implication of the result for rural finance. The fifty four unregistered cooperative societies used for this study offer two types of services namely savings and loan. The savings cannot be withdrawn unless if a person ceases to be a member of the cooperative. Savings is an integral part of the program because it serves as the basis for which loans are given. Loans are given to qualified members in multiples of their savings.

This chapter is the first of the three chapters that present the results, findings and discussions on the research objectives. It is divided into nine sections. The next section explains the demographic information of the interviewee using membership duration. Section three covers interviewees’ demographic information using the two types of members (loan and no-loan) as the basis. Section four focuses on focus group discussant demographic information, while section five discusses the impact of participating in a cooperative on individuals. Impacts traceable to savings are considered in section six. Section seven contains impact based on loan. General impact as to members’ satisfaction is covered in section eight, while the last section is the summary and conclusion of the chapter.