This research was carried out using a qualitative approach which considers and compares several case studies. Although the research method used is qualitative, triangulation and interpretation were supported by information obtained from related documents.
4.3.1
Qualitative research
The qualitative method finds meaning from the view point of people living in real-life environments (Bryman, 2004; DeHoratius & Rabinovich, 2011; Malterud, 2001; Quinn Patton, 2002) while
quantitative methods investigate meaning using measurements or standardising data (DeHoratius & Rabinovich, 2011; Leppink, n.d). Because qualitative research is seen as an interpretivist strategy, it adopts social constructions of reality (Huan-Niemi, Rikkonen, Niemi, Wuori, & Niemi, 2016) rather than the objective reality of social facts (Leppink, n.d). Qualitative methods generally generate data as words (Bryman, 2004; Malterud, 2001; Quinn Patton, 2002) whereas data obtained from
quantitative methods are numerical (Leppink, n.d). This does not mean that qualitative data cannot be categorised and analysed using quantitative methods. However, in qualitative research, the researcher immerses herself or himself in the researched environment to collect data (Malterud, 2001; Quinn Patton, 2002). Because this method includes subjective elements, the researcher understands the social setting from the viewpoints of the studied research participants (Malterud, 2001; Quinn Patton, 2002).
Qualitative research using multiple case studies was chosen as the most appropriate methodology because of the nature of this study as descriptive, exploratory and explanatory. The descriptive,
descriptive and exploratory by nature because it tries to describe and explore the phenomenon of success or failure of CBMRM in communities and its relationships with the community’s social characteristics. In order to gain deep insight and understanding of the phenomenon under study in their natural environment, I adopt an ethnographic technique to gather data. Ethnographic
techniques are qualitative methods (Elmir & Schmied, 2016; Furuta, Sandall, & Bick, 2014; Konu, 2015) that require the researcher to be immersed in the social environment over a lengthy period of time.
Before I went out to the case study areas to collect data, I initially did a literature search about the phenomenon (CBMRM) and theory in order to educate myself. A presentation by Lazarides (Lazarides, 2010) called this initial phase ‘theoretical sensitivity’, which she borrowed from Barney Glaser’s early work in 1978, and it is significant because of the opportunity it presented for me. I predetermined that some case studies were examples of failed CBMRM and some were examples of successful CBMRM, and my reading of the literature shaped the questions asked in this research. Having followed a standard multiple case study approach which set out to compare three examples of CBMRM that use the same type of resource management approach, I recognised that the approach to implementing CBMRM in each community might be different and that the
characteristics of each community were different. This requires the researcher to have an adaptive strategy while studying the phenomenon in its natural environment because there were too many variables and also too few cases to undertake hypothesis testing research of CBMRM. Adopting an adaptive approach is essential because a researcher will never know what they will need prior to entering field research, so flexibility in the research design permits space for adaptive management of the design of the research and protocols, especially in unforeseen events.
4.3.2
Case study approach
By using a case study approach, an individual researcher is given a chance to conduct an in-depth study into one part of a problem over a small period of time (Bell, 2005; Yin, 1989). Kohlbacher (Kohlbacher, 2006) expanded that view by saying that a case study is used to study a specific phenomenon within a real-life environment, often with a specific purpose. Yin (Yin, 1989) explained that the justification for adopting a case study approach is to explore the boundaries between a phenomenon and the context due to existence of limited evidence and applicability of multiple sources of evidence. In addition, Kohlbacher (Kohlbacher, 2006) and Babbie (Babbie, 2001) described case studies to be appropriate because they are instrumental to deliver insight and broad
understanding of the phenomenon under study centring on process and discovery. Hence, it is justifiable to use a case study approach in this research because the focus is to gain insight and understanding into the relationship between the types of interventions that CBMRM advocators
used that may influence social behaviours of people in community to support long-lasting CBMRM. Yin (Yin, 1989) further described case study as a useful tool for analysis either using qualitative, quantitative, or triangulation methods.
Stake (Stake, 2000) and Thomas (2003) reported that researchers used a comparative case study to support the richness of their data. Multiple case studies offered more compelling insights and evidence (Burns, 2000) related to the phenomenon under study. It also offered the researcher a venue to make assessments about the phenomenon under study because of diverse views and possible triangulation. This research explores, describes and explains the phenomenon under study over different localities within the same area.
4.3.3
Case study design
Yin (Yin, 1989) have found that a case study design is made up of several parts. The different parts are as follows:
1) Research questions This was outlined in Chapter 1.
2) Proposals
To address the research questions, I proposed an inductive case study approach with selected possible theories (CBMRM and Co-management) with a focus on three case study communities. I carried out the field research with an open mind. Based on past experience, research proposals and human ethics committee application requirements, I proposed a set of interview questions (see Appendix A), to guide field interviews. These guiding interview questions were structured as open- ended questions with prompting questions attached to capture information given by research participants.
3) Unit of analysis
To address the research questions and to achieve the objective of this research, my focus is on three communities as case studies.
Geographical communities are the units of analysis in this research. The communities needed to meet criteria based on their potential to provide relevant information to meet the research
engage differently with the external supporters); (3) use different ways of working and intervention to mobilise participation at the community level, and (4) have diverse experiences (in terms of success or failure) in managing their natural resources.
Funa’afou, Fumato’o and Tauba (described in Chapter 3) were the communities chosen as meeting these criteria. Local knowledge was a factor in their being chosen.
As indicated in Chapter One, I am from Manaoba (Hatodea Village) and have previously worked for WorldFish (Solomon Islands based) as a researcher involved in CBMRM initiatives. From that
background I was aware of attempts to establish CBMRM approaches to marine resources in the Lau Lagoon. The three communities were selected because they appeared to have attempted to achieve CBMRM differently and with different outcomes. My initial understanding of the situation in each was as follows.
In 2008, a Conservation NGO (WorldFish) and The Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), started a CBMRM programme with two communities (Funa’afou, my proposed case study area was one of them) in Lau Lagoon, Malaita. Funa’afou is now an inactive CBMRM project. The CBMRM activities at this community ended after a 5 year project period. Tauba, on the other hand, started managing their marine resources on their own by the establishment of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) which has rules, but with no project funding or direct support from external partners. The MPA was going well for up to three years, however, it also appears to have ended. The third of my case study communities, Fumato’o, is currently working with the same NGO (Worldfish) that previously worked with Funa’afou community and they have an ongoing CBMRM activity. As discussed in Chapter Three, these three communities are related through social connections (e.g., ancestral ties, religion). Most ancestors of people in Tauba and Fumato’o also come from Funa’afou. There is a tribal system of ownership of fishing grounds in reef areas within these communities. Each community has several tribal groups with different levels of access rights, hence ownership is
complicated so often disputes arise between the different tribes. Decision-making structures and physical contexts vary between the three communities, but not to an extent that would render comparison inappropriate.