Since this research pursued the case study method, qualitative interviews and participant observation, the two most common techniques for data collection of qualitative studies (Bryman, 2008), were then applied to capture the field data from the case-study areas. There are two common types of qualitative interview, unstructured and semi-structured, in contrast to the predominance of structured interviews in quantitative studies (Bryman, 2008). In this research,
semi-structured interview techniques were applied to collect opinions from at-risk communities and key informants such as architects, while the unstructured or open-ended interview techniques were used for focus group discussions. The unstructured interview was used to capture perceptions and opinions of the group discussion participants towards the openable issues raised by the research
questions, such as the household situation, housing conditions, drivers of vulnerability, and unsafe methods of housing construction, or possibilities for improving disaster risk reduction at the household and community levels.
Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions are the two most effective techniques widely used by qualitative researchers to collect field data (Hennink et al., 2011). In accordance with Maxwell (2005), questions for qualitative
interviews and discussions in the present research were not only based on three theoretical themes identified in advance (through the literature review) but also attributed to the actual situation of the case-study areas, to investigate other issues
96
related to housing development but not yet discussed or adequately mentioned in previous studies.
In each case study, ten semi-structured interviews with ten households, five with external support for housing reconstruction (donor-built) and five without outside assistance (self-built), were conducted, followed by two open-ended group discussions with the local representatives and local builders, fifteen persons per group, who were previously involved in the reconstruction process. The themes and questions for household interviews and focus group discussions were similar in content but different in the way respondents were questioned, due to the different backgrounds and levels of awareness of each group of respondents. The purpose of these household interviews and group discussions was to capture household-level and community-level information on housing vulnerability, the potential to build disaster-resilient housing, and how the research themes related to the context.
In addition, in each case, one official from the district authority in charge of disaster management of the district and one built-environment professional from the reconstruction implementing agency were approached to conduct key
informant interviews. These key informant interviews were aimed at gaining the government’s and expert’s points of view towards the drivers of housing
vulnerability and how housing resilience could be improved. Capturing
perceptions and viewpoints from various groups of stakeholders towards disaster risk reduction for housing offered a better understanding of the current housing situation in disaster-prone areas of Central Vietnam, assisted the examination of the research themes in the real context of this region, supported the interpretation of human behaviour and interactions on housing construction, and enabled the determination of core issues for future housing developments.
In addition to the semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions mentioned above, observation of housing conditions and people’s activities and interactions surrounding their houses was undertaken, to add more information to the dataset and to complement points or issues that were insufficiently discussed or not mentioned in qualitative interviews. Observation is an essential tool in collecting qualitative data, along with in-depth interviews and focus group discussions (Hennink et al., 2011). As found from the pilot fieldwork, in early 2013, there were often some points that were not adequately addressed or even not
97
shared in qualitative interviews, especially information related to physical conditions of housing and settlements. Therefore, this research employed observation techniques, as a complementary tool, to assist the qualitative
interviews, through photographing, hand sketching, and field noting, to record the data observed from the site.
The observation techniques above also supported the identification of silent norms and values of physical and social settings (Hennink et al., 2011), such as the linkage between the building structure and levels of risk exposure, or between socio-economic constraints and the ongoing vulnerability. In this research, objects for observation were the settlement patterns, the architecture, and construction of the surveyed houses, technical elements and details, and people’s activities and interactions around their house and within their neighborhood. This supported the interpretation of the data collected from the qualitative interviews, and helped provide further information and details on housing vulnerability and safe construction practices that were addressed in a limited way or not mentioned in qualitative interviews and discussions.
Moreover, a quantitative survey of the qualitative interviewees was also conducted at the same time as the qualitative interviews, to consolidate the appropriateness and applicability of the research themes to the real situation.
Several quantitative questions were added to qualitative interview sheets, to collect quantifiable data on the qualitative issues, to check the correctness and reliability of qualitative responses from participants. This was a complementary tool, alongside in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, to fully capture the field data and enable a reliable analysis of qualitative data afterwards.
In addition to the collection of field or primary data above, this study also
employed the technique of documentation to collect secondary data on the studied issues. Written deliverables such as project reports, working papers, policy briefs, governmental documents, maps, or other publications relating to DRH, were carefully examined and analysed to provide further data for answering the research questions posed by this project.
To check the understandability and appropriateness of the interview questions to local respondents, a pilot fieldwork was conducted in a case-study site in Central Vietnam, called Loc Tri Commune. Specifically, one focus group discussion, five household interviews, and two key informant interviews were conducted in this
98
commune to see how people understood the interview sheets, what points or questions needed to be revised, and whether the data collection techniques were appropriate to the real situation. This pilot fieldwork allowed a revision of all interview themes and questions before conducting the fieldwork proper afterwards.
There was only one major challenge faced in the real fieldwork. This was the language barrier in interviewing the ethnic minority people in Ia Broai Commune, who used a language (Gia Rai people’s language) that is different from the
national Vietnamese language. However, this challenge was tackled by using a local translator who came from the community, was deeply understanding of local housing conditions, and had been used to translate for several aid projects.