Teoría sociocultural de Lev Seminovich Vygotsky

In this section about data collecting procedures, I present the data collecting tech- niques and how I deployed them. The techniques include document review, in-depth interviews, participatory observation and a structured questionnaire. I present some of the problems I faced when collecting data.

Document review

A document review was the main data collecting technique in the understanding of the RNE-DRDPs as manifestation of the modernising development discourse. At the district headquarters, there is a documentation centre where district documents are kept. The key documents that I consulted include, among others, the Identification

Study for a Netherlands-Tanzania Rural Development Programme (URT/RNE

1986), a document prepared by the URT and the Netherlands and the Policy of the

DRDP in Tanzania (RNE 1998), a document prepared by the Royal Netherlands

Embassy (RNE) to guide its interventions in the RNE-DRDPs. Other documents that were used, such as the Evaluation of the District rural Development Programme and

the Formulation of Future Netherlands Support to Decentralisation and Local Development in the ‘ex-DRDP’ Districts: Evaluation Report, Vol. 1, final Report

(DGIS/URT 2004) and the Poverty, Policies and Perceptions in Tanzania: An

Evaluation of Dutch Aid to Two District Rural Development Programmes (IOB

2004) are additional documents to complement the two key documents.

The choice of the two documents was purposive. The Identification Study for a

Netherlands-Tanzania Rural Development Programme (URT/RNE 1986) was im-

portant for it contained the key elements that were considered central in considering an intervention in the cooperation. This document shed light on the ground data, how areas of intervention were reached, and perspectives from which interventions were to be done. The Policy of the DRDP in Tanzania (RNE 1998) was a framework for operation. It was like the “Disk Operating System” (DOS) to guide practical interventions. Other documents came in as supplements and enhancers of these documents.

In-depth interviews

The in-depth interviews were conducted with the district officials at the district headquarters, the Dutch RNE-DRDP Insiders, some at the district headquarters and some by email, and the key informants in the catchment area of the YFEC. The district officers included the civil servants and the councillors at the district. They gave data about the RNE-DRDPs in general and BDRDP in particular on different aspects of the modernising development discourse and organising practices. The Dutch Insiders included people who had worked with the Netherlands government in Bukoba and some officials who had worked with the RNE-DRDPs. They also gave data about the RNE-DRDPs in general and BDRDP in particular. The key informants in the catchment area of YFEC provided data on the different aspects related to organising practices. I organised a few interviews via email to some Dutch RNE-DRDP Insiders because of lack of possibility to physically meet the res- pondents due to reasons of distance; some key respondents from the RNE-DRDP offices had already moved away from Tanzania by the time I needed to interview them. There are not less than 30 interviews which were conducted between August 2003 and December 2006 whose views are presented in this study. The names of the categories of respondents are Dutch Insiders, District Officials, Village People, and the Development Organisations Insiders.

Focus group discussions

All the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted in the catchment area of YFEC in order to understand the organising practices of the village elite and the village people through involvement in the participation processes in development interventions. Between July 2004 and April 2006, 5 FGDs were conducted with the average 6 respondents per FGD.

Participatory observations

This data collecting technique was used in three particular occasions. The first occasion was about observing the physical state of the YFEC and the feelings of the people about it. The physical state of the YFEC meant the appearance of the project; this was crucial for building impressions about the project for gauging how it was functioning. The observation was based on the surrounding of the YFEC, including the demonstration plots, buildings, what physically takes place in the YFEC, ani- mals, and the people found in the place.

The second occasion was about attending a participatory planning meeting at Ward level in order to get insights on how planning processes took place with the

village people. This meeting took place in August 2003. The third occasion was about attending a workshop in March 2006 in which there was a presentation of the findings of the baseline survey to different farmers’ organisations. Among the res- pondents of the baseline survey and the forum to which the findings were presented were the members of a development organisation, Tujiendeleze Non-governmental Organisation (TUNGO), an organisation that is central in the analysis of local politics in chapter seven on issues about the organising practices of the village elite.

Structured questionnaire

In order to obtain the feelings of the people about the presence of YFEC, a structured questionnaire was devised and administered to the people around the YFEC. I needed to establish whether people felt that the project was theirs or not, and to see more areas for further enquiries in the study. The questionnaire contained the following questions: Do you know where YFEC is? Do you know what YFEC deals with? How many times have you visited the YFEC? For what reasons did you visit it? How do you assess the work of the YFEC? At random sampling, farmers from 30 households around the YFEC were selected as respondents with an as- sumption that as farmers they were supposed to be direct and first beneficiaries of the project.

Thus, the major data collection methods were basically the traditional methods of document review, in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, observations, and a questionnaire. A combination of multiple techniques and respondents was for pur- poses of suitability for data collection on the one hand, and on the other hand, for purposes of triangulation, which became crucial in order to avoid the presentation of the viewpoints of the elite only, as issues of participation and local politics are linked with power issues in the communities.

Encountered difficulties

Before I conclude this section on data collection procedures, let me point out some related difficulties I encountered. Generally speaking, the tone of the field research was enshrined in a conversation that I had with one of the key respondents at the beginning of the research:

You told me that you have to do research with BDRDP. It is a good thing. But how come? People who do researches on these programmes are wazungu2 because it is their money! Or they are the ones who sent you for this task; and if so you should be very rich! But you have a long

2 _{This is a common word used to mean “European”. It originates from a Swahili word kuzunguka, meaning}

going around. The Swahili people used to see the Europeans moving around and that is why they came to call them people who go around “wazungukaji”, in short, “wazungu”.

way to go because it will not be easy here: the Dutch boss is not an easy man; he has no time; our council is not simple with that chairman: it is enough that the he feels that you are not with him, and you are thrown out. Hey, but we have a resource centre with some key reports: the Mulangira3 can assist you! And if you go to the village, there are many people who have been there. They will think you are one of them dealing with the same stories. (Int.DO1.Bkb. Sep2002)

This was the first statement I was told about my research by one of the people who was later to become my key informant. When I presented myself for the first time at the Bukoba District Headquarters as a researcher, I found this person at the reception of the District Advisor (DA). After introducing myself, he took me outside and expressed his small enthusiasm with these words, which were the welcoming words in the field research. I was caught up between going ahead with my study on BDRDP or changing to something different. I decided to go ahead, but devising some ways to get data. My first strategy was to use this person as a “connector” to the people I would like to talk to in the District. I had discovered that he was very knowledgeable of the District and the BDRDP. Slowly by slowly, I discovered that my concentration was more on the aid recipients rather than the donors because at that time the donor’s side was difficult to access and I would understand some bits and pieces about the donors through the aid recipients.

In most cases, appointments with leaders and officials were difficult to make. One of the reasons for the difficulty was the perception that the leaders and officials had about researchers as spies, who must, therefore, be avoided. I had incidences where- by I made appointments with, for instance, the leaders of TUNGO. The officers said that they were busy and gave me an appointment after work hours, but there was nobody in the offices. I fixed another appointment which never materialised because these officers had another meeting. Discussing this situation with one of the workers in the organisation, he told me:

They never wanted to meet you. The first time you made an appointment and you missed them they thought you would give up and not come back again because you had tight schedules. It is not true that we had any meeting; they just did not want to meet you. You see we have problems with our organisation: our leadership is weak and we are doing things the way we want. The fear is always that you researchers are going to report us to our donors; we already have enough problems with them. (Int.TI3.Bkb.Jun2006)

There was poor documentation and knowledge of where the documents where kept. I was advised by the District that if I wanted all the documents of the BDRDP (after failing to get them at the district), the best place would be at the RNE, where a

3 _{Mulangira means one from the royal clan. When someone is said to be so, it connotes behaviour as well:}

copy of all documents is supposed to be kept. When I went there, I was advised to go back to the district because that all the documents were found there.

Another difficulty has been the establishment of a workable rapport with the Dutch officials dealing with the RNE-DRDPs, especially at the RNE. I got some responses that blocked me from having data. For instance, I had answers such as the following: “I do not have much time for you; the best place to go is at the district”; “I am no more working in Dar es Salaam, I cannot help”; “I know much about your questions, but I am bound by rules of confidentiality”; and so on. Again, with the Dutch official at the district, I hardly got time because he was busy and he would always direct me to the district officials. This official told me when I presented myself to him as a researcher and one of my case areas being BDRDP:

You are welcome in the district. … we are too busy; you have to know this from the beginning of your research. I have little time for you. But there are many officials here who have worked with BDRDP; they should be able to help you. There is a Resource Centre. … What I know is that we are concluding the programme in a year’s time. I do not have much to say because the programme is already in the hands of the people. We are busy. … The less you can deal with me, the better. … Just in case there is any document you do not find in the Resource Centre, you can always get one at the Embassy in Dar. (Int.DI1.Bkb.Sept2003)

This was the general attitude of some DRDP officials: they always avoided me because they were busy; they always referred me to something or someone else, and; they always referred me to more “right people”, instead of they themselves being available. As I researcher, I felt I was a problem to such people. With this attitude, my data collection shifted more and more into finding out issues from the recipient’s side, other than the Dutch donor’s side.