Muestra, trabajo de campo y el proceso de análisis

The study used the mixed method approach comprising of quantitative and qualitative methods. Myers and Barnes (2005) observe that the use of qualitative approaches to data collection raises ethical concerns due to the inevitable physical contact between the researchers and human subjects, and the disclosure of the participant’s identity. Scholars, therefore, emphasize that ethical considerations need to be taken on board when conducting such studies, and regard this as a good scientific practice (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016). Since this research deals with human beings, it was essential that the researcher understands the ethical and legal responsibility of conducting research (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006), particularly because the researcher was entering the private space of participants (Silverman, 2000).

The researcher, as Creswell (2003) notes, had to fulfill the obligation to respect the needs, values, rights and desires of each informant during the research process. To achieve this, Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest few issues for consideration before, during, and after conducting a research study. These include: informed consent (study content and intentions explained to participants before their participation is elicited), harm and risk (possible risks explained to participants), privacy and confidentiality (hiding identities of participants), and lastly, honesty and trust (truthfulness in presenting data).

5.5.1 Informed consent

Since the research was to be conducted on people and in a community, as Christians (2005) suggested, the researcher was obliged to explain the purpose of the research

consent from participants is the most crucial aspect of the research process. The researcher requested for permission to conduct the research in the selected study area after he has been granted ethical clearance by the University of the Western Cape. The researcher explained the contents and intention of the study to the Manzini Municipal Council and kaKhoza (the now called Mhobodleni Township) ‘Local’ Authorities. Since this research involved interaction with participants on sensitive issues of income, expenditure and access to food, among other confidential issues, all that was explained before permission was granted. The researcher also ensured that potential participants are also fully informed on what the research is about, its desired outcomes and what it required of them before their input was solicited. Respondents were given an information letter and a consent form which they signed after reading its contents.

Majority of participants consented to take part in the survey by signing the form given to them by the researcher and no participant took part in the study without signing the consent form. Some respondents, however, had mixed feelings about signing the consent form. By signing this consent form, they felt like they were now compelled to continue participating in the survey even when they did not feel comfortable to proceed and had a strong desire to terminate the interview for any reason. There are also those respondents who felt signing the consent form would identify them, thus to them this contradicted the pledge of anonymity which was clearly spelled out in the consent form. Participants were asked to append their signature in consent form to taking part in the survey, how the researcher made it his responsibility to keep on emphasizing that no response will be linked to any signature and to emphasize that participation in the research was strictly voluntary with no form of coercion and that they still reserved the right to withdraw from the research at any stage and for any reason whatsoever.

5.5.2 Harm and risk

In this research study, the researcher assured respondents that no participants were put in a situation where they might be harmed physically or psychologically as a result of being part of this research study (Trochim, 2000). Permission to capture the interviews (in-depth case studies) using a voice recorder was sought from participants. All participants who did not feel comfortable being recorded were not recorded, but instead notes were taken by the researcher during interviews. No researcher was tape

recorded without his or her knowing and without his or her permission either. A participant’s decision not to be recorded was respected and no form of coercion and intimidation was used to force respondents to unwillingly accept recording. In this way, the researcher was able to minimize the risk of harm. The researcher also took the responsibility to clarify that this study was purely academic and not linked, in any way, to food aid programs, to avoid raising false hopes among respondents.

Moreover, Swaziland is a culturally sensitive state and traditional society, thus the researcher had an obligation to observe the culture and tradition of the study area and to ensure that societal values are maintained. Since the researcher was familiar with the place and local culture, it became easy to abide by the local culture as expected. One way was to ensure that an appropriate dress code was used throughout the data collection process. In the Swazi culture, every male visitor has to announce himself as he approaches every homestead and household and must do so until someone attends to him. The researcher made sure that this practice was maintained throughout the data collection process since this is regarded as a sign of respect in the Swazi culture. Also, the researcher ensured that his hat (used to protect against scorching sun) was removed every time he entered any homestead as per the Swazi culture. Being familiar and practicing these traditions resulted to a peaceful research experience which was free from threats, cultural conflicts and intimidation.

5.5.3 Privacy and confidentiality

Right to privacy was observed throughout the research process, that is, from the data collection stage to the final product of the research. The researcher ensured that all respondents were given the right to decide on a quiet and segregated place where the interviews could be conducted. This was done, not only to minimize interruption during the interview process, but also to ensure that respondents are away from relatives and family members who might influence responses. This also ensured maximum concentration during the interviews. As a result, no one was allowed to listen to the conversation during and after the interviews, except the researcher. All recorded (and written) interviews remained under the careful care of the researcher and all completed questionnaires were kept in a safe place where only the researcher had access.

Pseudonyms were used throughout the report, whenever the gathered data was reported. The careful observation of confidentiality and anonymity issues throughout the interviews and data collection process gave participants confidence to provide research data truthfully without fear. The researcher ensured that any personal information about the respondent that might make it easy to identity him or her and hence link him or her to the collected data was not captured during the interviews. The researcher made it explicit that the collected data will not be used for any other purpose, nor will information be shared that reveals their identity in anyway