METODOLOGÍA UTILIZADA EN NUESTRO ESTUDIO

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND FIELDWORK

This chapter focusses on the methodology used in the fieldwork component of this research. Using semi-structured interviews, the purpose of the fieldwork has been to assess the various levels of governance that exist in the Choiseul Bay area of Choiseul Province, and determine what forms of political hybridisation have occurred between them.16

The material obtained during the fieldwork has been analysed in Chapters 6 and 7 and then used in Chapter 9 to support the argument that hybrid political orders do have the potential to offer a great degree of political legitimacy than currently occurs under the existing constitution.17

In terms of its structure, this chapter commences by explaining why semi-structured interviews have been used to explore the relatively complex phenomenon of governance in Choiseul Bay and then how the semi-structured interview schedule was used to interrogate core dimensions of political hybridity, as described in Chapter 2.

Ethical issues concerning this research are discussed in some detail as are the procedures used in the collection and analysis of field data. The chapter concludes with reflections on the process of undertaking the fieldwork.

Epistemology, research methodology and methods

Epistemologically, this research has been undertaken from a constructivist perspective insofar as it recognises that political realities are socially constructed.

16

See Chapter 1 - thesis research question 1: What forms of political hybridity have evolved previously, and exist currently at local levels in Solomon Islands?

17

See Chapter 1 - thesis research question 2: Within the context of the proposed Federal Constitution, do models of political hybridity have the potential to offer a degree of political legitimacy than exists under the current constitution?

76

As such, it seeks to reflect upon the “complex process of institutional evolution and transformation” that has evolved in Solomon Islands (Hay, 2002, p. 47). Theoretically, the analysis is interpretive in its approach and in this respect has sought to look for the “culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life-world” that exist on Choiseul with respect to village governance (Crotty, 1998, p. 67). Methodologically, ethnographic research methods have been used to examine Solomon Islands culture and the relationship between this and political behaviour. The methods used here involved semi-structured interviews as well as observation (Gray, 2004).

Positionality

Undertaking research from a constructivist perspective implies that the role of the researcher in that construction is central. I was, thus, mindful of my own position which was that of both an insider and an outsider. Although a stranger to many of the younger villagers, I was known to the more senior folk from the time I had conducted earlier research in Nukiki in 1991 (see Chapter 5). I had also maintained contact with village friends and revisited Nukiki twice in the intervening years.

The insider aspect of the relationship was especially helpful as it gave me a certain degree of credibility and access to village and provincial leaders, both male and female, who were the focus on my interviews. However, for those to whom I was not known I was a senior male outsider and I can think of at least two occasions when this may have been a little daunting for the interviewees. Had I focussed my research on younger, emerging leaders for example, my ‘status’ as an outsider may also have been problematic and yielded research results quite different from that gained by focussing on established forms of leadership and governance.

Semi-structured interviews

Qualitative research methods offered the opportunity to explore the relatively complex social phenomena of governance in Solomon Islands (Stewart-Withers, Banks, McGregor, & Meo-Sewabu, 2014). Within the realm of qualitative research, semi-structured interviews were assessed as being an appropriate way to explore this phenomena in an orderly, partially-structured and conversational manner (Longhurst, 2010). A particular advantage of semi-structured interviews is that, while they have some degree of pre-determined order, they do have sufficient

77

flexibility “in the way issues are addressed by the informant” (Clifford, French, & Valentine, 2010, p. 105). In other words, semi-structured interviews also provide opportunities to pursue ‘unexpected lines of enquiry’ should they arise during the interview (Grix, 2004), as well as probe and explore new pathways which, while they may not have been originally considered, could help meet the research objectives (Gray, 2004). This flexibility and informality, I had learnt from previous research experience, was particularly appropriate at community level in Solomon Islands insofar as interviews could be conducted in a non-threatening, conversational and informal manner.

My intention, during the fieldwork, was to interview participants who were associated with one or more ‘levels’ of governance that existed in the Choiseul Bay area. These levels of governance were defined as follows:

1. Inter-clan governance (village governance within kin groups – both customary and institutional. e.g. chiefs, elders, village church, village school);

2. Local intra-clan governance (organisations that govern across kin groups (organisations that govern across kin groups. e.g. church bodies, provincial high school board, Lauru Land Conference of Tribal Communities, etc.);

3. Provincial government (governance across all kin groups).

In these interviews I explored the political interaction that existed between the provincial institutions of state and the customary institutions that underpin, and exercise considerable influence in Solomon Islands society. From this, forms of political hybridity were identified according to the schema devised by Clements et al (2007) (see Figure 1, Chapter 2).

The schema developed by Clements et al (2007), describes a continuum showing different types of governance possible in hybrid political orders. Using this as a foundation, a semi-structured interview schedule was developed prior to entering the field to assess village leadership and governance structures in order to determine:

78

1. whether particular customary institutions act as substitutes for state institutions;

2. whether there is an overlap between modern state approaches to governance and customary governance (complementarity);

3. or, whether some state approaches to governance conflict with customary approaches.

(See Appendix 4 – Village Semi-structured Interview Schedule)

The interviews were primarily with participants in local organisations involved in local governance. These participants included chiefs, village elders, church leaders, school committee members and members of women’s groups, provincial government officials and elected members of the provincial government. Interviews were also conducted with provincial leaders from elsewhere in the province as well as with several leaders operating at a national level (see Appendix 5).

Research ethics

Official ethics procedures

Ethics approval is a mandatory requirement prescribed under the Massey University Code of Ethical Conduct (2015)18 so well prior to undertaking the fieldwork component of this thesis I submitted my research proposal for peer review by the Massey University Institute of Development Studies in-house ethics committee in order to determine whether, or not, it presented an ethical risk. As a result of this review a number of changes to the proposal were recommended, these being: a clearer and more defined procedure for obtaining informed consent; an undertaking to fully brief research assistants on the need to maintain absolute interviewee integrity; and a commitment to holding a focus group19 with local

18

Massey University Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations Involving Human Participants, 2015.

19

A focus group was not specifically held with community members but because I was living in Nukiki village itself, there was a constant dialogue between myself and the research participants as I sought to interpret the information they were providing me.

79

community participants to invite feedback on the research findings. These recommendations were duly incorporated in the proposal and a Low Risk Notification was issued by Massey University Human Ethics Committee on 31 August 2011 (see Appendix 1).

The major ethical principles applied to this research were established by the Massey University Code of Ethical Conduct (2015), these being:

x respect for persons;

x minimisation of harm to participants, researchers, institutions, and groups; x informed voluntary consent;

x respect for privacy and confidentiality; x the avoidance of unnecessary deception; x avoidance of conflict of interests;

x social and cultural sensitivity to age, gender, culture, religion, social class of the participants;

x justice.

Well prior to the commencement of the fieldwork a senior village spokesperson in Nukiki had been approached to see whether he would act as my research assistant20 and also whether he would assist me to gain permission to conduct research in the village. This person had assisted in facilitating my earlier 1991 research in Nukiki and was pleased with the outcomes of this. He agreed to help me and approached the chief of the Siropodoko tribe to seek consent for me to undertake further research. This was duly granted. Subsequent to this, the Premier of Choiseul Province (who I knew) was also approached through a New Zealand Volunteer Service Abroad Legal Adviser who was working for the Provincial Government at the time. The Premier was very supportive and expressed an interest in the objectives of the research. Once support had been gained from key stakeholders in both the village and the provincial government a formal research application was made to the Solomon Islands Government. The resulting Research Permit was issued on 24 January 2012, one week after my arrival in Solomon Islands (see Appendix 2).

20

The research assistant was briefed prior to the commencement of fieldwork as to the need to maintain interviewee integrity. Maintaining this integrity was not an issue during the fieldwork as all interviews were conducted by myself alone having been arranged by the research assistant.

80 Informed consent and confidentiality

Once I got to Nukiki I was living amongst the people so much of what I was doing was discussed during our daily conversations. Villagers had also been made aware what I was doing through the church notices, a system whereby people were kept informed of events in the village through announcements in the church. Because Solomon Islands has an oral culture, and social transactions are conducted on this basis, it was very important to take time to stori (talk) with people who I met. Not only was this enjoyable and informative, it also provided the opportunity to inform people as to the intent of my research. For those who consented to be interviewed these discussions created the opportunity for interview participants to establish specific rules and boundaries regarding the use of their information. Throughout the field research only two interviewees wished to remain anonymous.21

The written consent forms (see Appendix 3) required by the University Ethics Committee (in 2011) were treated with a great deal of suspicion in Nukiki and there was a marked reluctance by most to sign them. Being a predominantly oral society it was far more culturally appropriate to tell people what the research was about, what I intended to do with it (which was write a ‘book’), and then ask if they were happy for me to take notes of our conversation. All were very happy for me to do this.22

Leadership is an important issue in Solomon Islands and to become a local leader, or chief, is no small matter. In many respects, the currency of power is information and the knowledge necessary to exercise this power is guarded quite carefully. Information, for example, is not shared freely. As a consequence, I was mindful that care needed to be taken during the interview and write-up stages of this research to ensure that information gathered was not presented in a way that could compromise or disadvantage those who provided it. In short, the ethical principles described earlier were strictly applied. I was also mindful, however, that what I was being told may not always be accurate. To counter the possibility of this I used triangulation techniques to get a ‘fix’ on the information from two or more other

21

Interviews were also conducted in Taro, the provincial headquarters (see Field reflections), where the same procedure for gaining informed consent was used.

22

Most ethics committees now recognise that it can be culturally inappropriate, or detrimental to the well-being of the participant, to expect consent to be given in writing and accept that, in these circumstance, verbal consent is more appropriate (see Scheyvens, 2014)

81

sources (see Robson, 2002). See also comments on the ‘data saturation point’ in the next section.

Data collection and analysis

Interviews

The starting point for the field research was Nukiki village where, obviously, it was very helpful that I was known and had members in the community who could provide additional research assistance in terms of arranging accommodation, transport and interviews. Being reasonably familiar with the village governance structures, as they were in 1991, was also useful.23

Once in the field I found that the semi-structured interviews provided a useful starting point, particularly as a checklist for establishing the village leadership structure, determining who the decision-makers were, and what decision-making processes occurred. Relatively early on, however, it became clear during interviews that there were other relevant pathways, not covered in the semi- structured interview schedule, which needed to be probed and explored. This was very stimulating and I simply followed these leads,24 conducting as many interviews as were necessary to attain a level of consistency in the information I was being given - in short, until I started hearing the same stori from different interviewees. At this point I had reached what is termed the ‘data saturation point’ in qualitative research (Morse, 1995). By the time I reached this stage in the interview process I had ceased using the semi-structured interview schedules as a basis for my interviews except as a checklist to make sure I was being consistent in my approach, and that I remained true to my original field goal of determining what levels of political hybridisation occurred at a local level.

23

Once the initial interviews had been conducted in Nukiki I relocated to Taro, where further interviews were undertaken. The alternation between Nukiki and Taro was undertaken twice during the fieldwork.

24

Commonly known as snowball sampling, one or more individuals are identified from the population of interest. Once they have been interviewed they are then used as informants to identify other members of the population who can provide relevant information (Robson, 2002).

82

In all, 47 interviews were conducted comprising 36 males and 11 women. The ages of interviewees were not recorded but as leadership and governance was very much the focus of the fieldwork, the majority of those interviewed were middle-aged and had gained positions of influence within their respective communities.

Recording Information

Fieldwork in Solomon Islands can be a fairly rigorous exercise if it is conducted at village level. Although logging roads do exist on Choiseul, access to most villages is by sea and this usually involves a wet, and often rough, canoe trip where there is a very good chance that most of your equipment will become thoroughly saturated. Other than solar panels for low powered electrical lighting and the occasional generator, there is seldom a reliable source of electrical power in the villages (see also Borovnik, Leslie, & Storey, 2014). While electricity-dependent devices such as dvd players, cell phones and laptop computers are now starting to be used, I was unsure what existed in Nukiki village prior to entering the field as communication with the village was intermittent, at best. Consequently, I decided to keep things simple and adopted a low ‘low-tech’ approach to data collection and set out with a good supply of notebooks and hard-covered school exercise books which were to be used as my primary means of recording interviews and other information.

As was the case with my earlier research on Choiseul in 1991 (and subsequent community forestry work with the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Conservation), most interviews were conducted in pijin so the process of talking, taking notes and discussing to and fro matters I was unclear on, was a good way of conducting interviews. The whole process became a two-way discussion which is very appropriate in this cultural context. As soon as I could after the interviews I would transcribe the interview notes from my note book to the exercise book, effectively creating a field journal. This also gave me the opportunity to reflect on the issues covered in the interviews and whether or not there were still gaps in my knowledge that needed to be addressed. Periodically, I would also spend time recording my observations on various issues in the village, or particular events that provided insights into village society. These in-field observations proved to be particularly useful during the analysis stage of this study but also, at the time, assisted in shaping the direction the research was taking. These observations were, in fact, part of an iterative process that enabled me to “move back and forth between data collection and analysis” (Stewart-Withers et al., 2014, p. 75) and, as

83

such, the field journal became useful for scanning, or the ‘first cut analysis’ of my data.

I did, however, take a digital voice recorder with me in order to provide a backup record of my interviews that could be transcribed or referred to for clarification (see Drever, 1995). In the field I began by asking interviewees if I could record them on my voice recorder but, as had been my experience 21 years earlier with a tape recorder, the villagers were clearly very reluctant for me to do this. Banks and Scheyvens (2014, p. 167), note that recording conversations “can be as intimidating for some as writing it down.” In an oral, kin-based culture such as exists in Solomon Islands, information and knowledge are the currency of power (White, 2004b). As a consequence, information is guarded carefully (see also M. F. Smith, 2002) so having one’s spoken comments digitally recorded could, potentially, be much more compromising than notes of your comments written by someone else.

I made extensive use of a digital camera in the field, cataloguing all photographs as they were taken. As was the case in 1991, photographs were an integral part of this research, creating a useful visual data base, both for this study and future research. As with the interviews, permission of participants was gained before photographs were taken.

Analysis of data

While the ‘first cut’ analysis of my data was undertaken in the field, a much more detailed analysis was commenced once the fieldwork was completed. Immediately, on returning to New Zealand, I prepared a summary of my preliminary findings in order to ‘capture’ the impressions I had gained from my field experience25 _while

they were still fresh in my mind. Once this was finished collation of the field journals began. Each interview was numbered and the key points of each interview