PEDAGOGÍA BASADA EN LA INTELIGENCIA EMOCIONAL

Primary data collection methods derive from the methodology in the research design. Thus, this study‟s constructionist interpretation of livelihoods required qualitative methods to obtain the real life experiences in the Lihir context. In phase one primary data collection was done in Kunaie 1 & 2 villages, and Putput 1 & 2 villages. While in phase two data was collected from Matakues, Komat and Samo villages, including the employed Lihirians, busisness people, politicians and personals from government agencies. This section presents the type of interviews and observations which ideally suit the overall aim of the study.

2.5.4.1 Interviews

According to Chase (2005:642), an interview is a conversation, the art of asking questions and listening. It produces situated understandings which are grounded in specific experiences. Hatch (2002) explains that qualitative researchers use interviews to uncover the meanings behind the participant‟s actions and experiences. Indeed, as stated by Fontana and Frey (2005:698), the focus of the interview in qualitative studies is to encompass the hows of people‟s lives (the constructive work involved in producing order in everyday life) as well as the whats (the activities of everyday life). In essence, the most common method of generating data in qualitative study is through interviews, because the ontological position of the qualitative researcher suggests that people‟s views, understandings, interpretations, lived experiences and interactions are meaningful properties of the social reality which one‟s research questions are designed to explore. Secondly, the qualitative researcher‟s epistemological position suggests that a legitimate way to generate data on these ontological properties is to interact with people, to talk to them, to listen to them and to gain access to their accounts and articulations (Mason, 1996:39). Interviews also revealed the things researchers cannot directly observe. Central in Patton‟s argument is that researchers cannot observe thoughts, intentions, and behaviours that happened at some previous point in time. Researchers have to ask questions in order to elicit these things from the interviewees (Patton, 2002:340).

2.5.4.2 Interview Methods

There are various methods of interviewing: structured interviews, unstructured interviews, open-ended interviews, active interviews, and semi-structured interviews (Liamputtong and Ezzy, 2005:56). Literature suggests that structured interviews are more suited to survey

interviews sit somewhere between fixed questions and forced responses surveys, and open- ended and exploratory unstructured interviews which have no fixed interview schedule (Minichiello et al., 1990:88).

Unstructured interviewing can provide greater breadth and depth than other types, given its qualitative nature. This is because it is flexible in approach and the content of the interview is shaped by what the respondents tell the researcher. It is more like a deliberate conversation than a questionnaire (Fontana and Frey, 2005:705; Davidson and Tolich, 2003:136). Semi- structured interviewing, on the other hand, involves having some defined questions, themes or prompts in mind (or written down) when going into the interview situation, but modifying the interview agenda as it progresses to take account of things that are said. Both types of interviews can be seen as purposeful conversations. They can be the most appropriate forms of interview early in a study in order to sort out the key issues. As key issues emerge within the study, more interviews can be conducted (Minchello et al., 1990; Patton, 1980). Because most qualitative research is inductive, it is assumed that all relevant questions are not known prior to the research. It makes use of the assumptions of grounded theory that attempt to build up understandings of general patterns and important issues through the process of interviewing (Minichiello, et al., 1990).

Nevertheless, in-depth interviewing is a conversation with a specific purpose between a researcher and an informant, focussing on the informant‟s perception of self, life and experiences in their own words. It is the means by which the researcher gains access to live experiences of the informant (Minichello et al., 1990:870) In-depth interviews in qualitative research emphasises that meanings are continually constructed and reconstructed in an interaction between the researcher and the interviewee (Fontana and Frey, 2005).

The primary method of interview used in this study was the unstructured method as it provided greater breadth and depth, given the qualitative nature of the study. In addition, it is flexible and the content of the interview is shaped by what the respondents say. Accordding to Fontana & Frey (2005:75) unstructured interview is like a deliberate conversation rather than a questionnaire type answer process. However, in ten cases the semi-structured type interview was employed in order to pursue particular issues that were unclear, which had stemmed from either the unstructured interviews or observations.

Interviews in this study always began with shaking of hands, introduction of names, and appreciation of the interviewee‟s settings. This was followed by a loose question about their environment, the weather, and other general issues to put people at ease and in a relaxed mode. In most interviews in the villages, interviewees offered betel nuts as a way of welcoming the author to their homes. Chewing of betel nuts adds to the interview atmosphere, putting the researcher at ease, to start the interview.

In the villages, the most common question used in starting interviews with ordinary village men or women was, “What did you do yesterday?” This was followed by the why question. For a leader of a social group, the common leading question was, “What is the purpose of

your group?” or “Why did you form the group?” For a businessman or woman, “What is the biggest challenge in doing business on Lihir?” In using unstructured interviews, it is very

easy to go out of focus. However, it is important to keep the line of questions in pursuit of issues. It is also important to follow with why and how questions to yes or no answers. Most of the interviews were done in Tok Pisin, the local common language. However, there were a few cases where the interviewees were able to fluently express themselves in English.

There were cases that the real identity of the interviewees, in terms of their primary roles and livelihood activities, were not revealed until towards the end of interviews. In a few cases, their primary livelihood activities and their identities were revealed through the process of triangulation. For example, an interviewee who was sampled as an ordinary villager was in fact a small village businessman, as he was involved in selling petrol and kerosene in his village. This was his prime livelihood activity; he is single and did not have a yam garden. In other cases, further probing uncovered multiple income strategies, especially amongst women interviewees.

Most respondents were probed for their life history, household activities and consumptions, major events, and shocks, responses, challenges, reactions to their contemporary lives, and how they foresee their future. There were cases where the husband and wife were interviewed together. No attempt was made to separate the couple, bearing in mind that the data given could easily be influenced by the presence of the other. Contrary to the notion that women are shy and not outspoken in the Melanesian culture, a few wives dominated the interviews in the presence of their husbands. Most interviews ended with questions such as, „What would be the

constructed during the field work and, at times, inevitably popped up during the interview process. There were cases where the semi-structured interview method became handy, especially in zeroing in on specific issues that needed clarification. In this case, the questions were prepared with prompts before conducting the interviews.

2.5.4.3 Observation

Observation is the fundamental base of all research methods in the social and behavioural sciences (Adler and Adler, 1994:389) and is the mainstay of ethnographic research (Werner and Schoepfle, 1987:257). Even studies that rely mainly on interviewing as a data collection technique employ observational methods to note body language that lends meanings to the words of the interviewees. For qualitative observation to be meaningful, it has to occur in the natural context of occurrence among the actors who would naturally be participating in the interaction, and follows the natural systems of the everyday life. Observers carefully observe in an effort to acquire participant‟s knowledge about what they do and the meaning of what they do within their natural setting(Patton, 1990:202; Angrosino, 2005:729). Based on these views and assumptions, and besides the unstructured and semi-structured interview techniques, observation was also an integral part of this study. Observation involved recording what the author sees in the physical environment during the interviews including the physical activities that people are involved in. Information obtained from observation led to formulating prompts for semi-structured interviews; thus, an effective way of triangulating observations. In some instances in this study, these observations had kick started conversations with interviewees, and inescapably led to active interactions. For example, physical structures such as permanent houses, a well-maintained road, power lines and reticulated water supplies indicated a generally high standard of living in villages near the Township and the mine site. On the other hand, leaking water taps and the bad state of some of the houses were indicative of different stories which were uncovered through in-depth interviews.