Recompensas Determinar las recompensas y

Martin B., Kevine D., and Desmond P. (2006:21-462) suggested that qualitative research makes sense in situations in which it is difficult to say what the variables are, which ones are important, or how to measure them? In such cases, engaging in the kind of open-ended, inductive exploration made possible by qualitative research is indicated.

Kumar R. (2005:57-58) describes that in qualitative research the issue of sampling has little significance, as the main aim of most qualitative inquiries is either to explore or describe the diversity in situations, phenomenon or issue. You can, thus, select even one individual as your sample and describe the aim of your inquiry. Qualitative research methods helped to find answers to the research questions of this study such as ‘how do loan interest rates exclude the poor from microcredit services’?, ‘how and why are loan interest rates determined by different microcredit providers?’, ‘what influence do loan interest rates have on the microcredit social mission’?, ‘what

is the correlation between loan interest rates and financial sustainability’?, etc.

4.7.4.1 Qualitative sampling design of this study

Sampling utilized in qualitative research, is less structured, less quantitative and less strictly applied than in the case of quantitative research (Sarantakos S. 2000:156). Furthermore, Rubin A., and Babbie E. (2001: 399) rightly stated that field researchers’

attempt to observe everything within their field of study; thus, in that sense they do not sample at all. In order to satisfy the qualitative data collection and investigation of observation and deep interviewing, this study employed non-probability sampling design almost without exception.

4.7.4.2 Qualitative sampling procedure of this study

Sarantakos S. (2000:156) clearly described that sampling in qualitative research was relatively limited, based on saturation, not representative, the size not statistically determined, involving low cost and not being time consuming. It can thus be inferred that in qualitative investigations non-probability sampling is used almost without exception. Sarantakos S. (2000:156) adds that in qualitative studies non-probability sampling methods are generally utilized and, in particular, theoretical or purposive sampling techniques rather than random sampling are used.

The qualitative data of this study involved non-probability sampling techniques, which are mentioned below.

a) Purposive sampling

This study employed purposive sampling procedures, which is one of the non- probability techniques in qualitative research in drawing a sample from DECSI, LMFI, AMFISC, SCSC, and ERCS micro credit officers.

b) Snowball sampling

Babbie E. (2001:180) points out that snowball sampling has particular application value in qualitative research since it is directed at the identification of hard-to-reach individuals. Furthermore, he described that in snowball sampling, the researcher collects data on the few members of the target population he can locate, then seeks information from those individuals that enables him to locate other members of that population. This study used snowball sampling mainly to collect data from non-clients who applied for microcredit services, because it was difficult to reach them.

4.7.4.3 Qualitative data collection of this study

Cathermin T. (2000:35-36) points out that there are two types of qualitative research: the depth interview and the group interview. The depth key Informant interview is unstructured (there is an interview guide but no questionnaire), of variable length (but may take up to five hours), and may be extended into repeat interviews at later dates

(for example, to find out how individuals’ perspectives change in response to some experience or event in their lives). The second method is the focus group, which consists of a group discussion or group interview between four and 12 people (eight being optimal) to discuss the topic of concern for one to two hours with the guidance of a moderator.

In order to address the objectives of this study, in-depth interviews collected primary data from clients about their experiences regarding the effect of loan interest rates on the supply and demand of the microcredit scheme. As recommended by different scholars, in-depth interviews for this study were carried out using unstructured and semi-structured interview approaches. Unstructured or in-depth interviews are a flexible way of encouraging respondents to share their thoughts on a particular issue.

The researcher’s role was to be as unobtrusive as possible, to introduce a theme or topic and then let the respondent develop his or her own ideas. Moreover, in-depth interviews afford participants an opportunity to express themselves fully on issues that they would not openly reveal in focus group interviews

This dissertation employed both types of qualitative research, which are the depth interview using key informant interviews, and group interviews through focus group discussion. The details of each are below.

a) Key informants

Kumar R. (2005:57-58) points out that the choice of the entire sample rests upon the choice of individuals at the first stage. If they belong to a particular faction or have strong biases, the study may be biased. It is also difficult to use this technique when the sample becomes fairly large.

Consequently, this study employed 7 key informants from the sampled microcredit providers who are directly involved in the microcredit services and knowledgeable about the research topic. Furthermore, the key informants of this study were selected using purposeful sampling. Sample distribution of key informants of this study was as follows:

Table 4.3: Sample distribution of key informants Sample elements Key Informant Remark 1 Regulated

DECSI 2 One each from wereda coordinators

LMFI 1

AMFISC 2 One each from wereda coordinators

SCSC 1

2 Unregulated

ERCS 1

Total 7

For the best interest of this study, the key informant’s depth interview employed in- person interviews using a guide.

The in-depth interview of different key informants answered some of the main research questions such as ‘how the interest rate is set in their respective microcredit institutions and why’, ‘how loan interest rates encourage demand for clients’, ‘why some households are involved in microcredit service while others are not’, ‘perceptions on amount of loan interest rates’, ‘possible solutions in relation to loan interest rates and the demand of clients’, etc.

b) Focus group discussion

Morgan, D.L. (1997:6) defines focus group discussion as a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher. Furthermore, Neuman W. L. (2004:11-300) describes that the focus group has a special group discussion setting. The procedure used is that a researcher gathers 6- 12 people in a room with a moderator to discuss a few issues in a discussion that usually lasts about 90 minutes. Focus group should be homogenous, but not include close friends and relatives. In a typical study, a researcher uses four to six separate groups. Claire B., Craig Higson S., Ashraf K. (2008: 43-143) suggests that the success of this technique depends in large part upon the skill of the group facilitator.

In order to satisfy the heterogeneous nature of the sampled population, such as geographical location, membership status, and legal status of microcredit providers, this study planned to conduct seven focus group discussions (five FGDs from clients

of sampled microcredit providers and two (from non-clients), each consisting of eight homogeneous respondents (in terms of clients and non-clients). According to Cathermin T. (2000:35-36), eight is the optimal number of FGD respondents suggested in most literature.

Due to the homogeneous nature of clients and non-clients in both urban and rural areas, this study conducted four FGDs (two each from urban and rural) through a snowball sampling selection of FGD members, especially for the selection of non- clients, that included clients from all sampled microcredit service providers with gender consideration. The distribution of FGD members among sampled microcredit providers considered the volume and coverage of each actor who were not included in personal interviews. This helped avoid duplication of respondents and it increased the number of respondents.

The FGDs was focused on the main research questions including ‘why some households are involved in microcredit service while others are not’, ‘reasons for their preferences of microcredit institutions’, ‘perceptions on setting loan interest rates’, etc. The FGD guide was formulated and pre-tested in one FGD. In order to focus on the interest of the topic, the researcher, who provided enough freedom for respondents to steer the conversation, guided all FGDs.

4.7.4.4 Qualitative Data Analysis of this study

Microcredit interest rates are often compared with those charged by both commercial banks and excessively subsidized lending organizations. Such comparisons are inappropriate (Nimal A. 2006:2-7). In order to solve this problem, this study used both independent and inter-actor comparisons. In the case of independent comparisons, data from each sampled microcredit provider versus their own clients was examined using the direct and indirect socioeconomic performance or indicators of the clients before and after participating in microcredit during 3-5 years. On the other hand, the study examined data based on inter-actor comparison, ‘peer-group’

comparisons of credit service providers with similar mission, objectives, and characteristics, etc. This helped to compare the effect of loan interest rates on clients

of similar objectives and types of clients on repayment rate, default, and economic benefits that influence the graduation of clients from one or another schemes to satisfy their progressive demand.

The analysis of data generated by the focus groups and key informants was mainly a simple descriptive narrative that sought to generalize findings in terms of the group or individual key informants using terms such as most, very few, and the majority. The content of the discussion was examined relevant to its particular implication for the research question that emphasizes the reliability and replicability of observations and subsequent interpretation on why something was said. Furthermore, the content of the FGD discussion and key informants was examined as to the meaning and its implication for the research questions at hand.