Tipología de conflictos comunitarios en el contexto urbano de Monterrey, Nuevo

As the data I collected in the field represents a ‘mixed methods’ approach (Doolittle, 2008), various techniques were employed to analyse and then integrate the different data sources. The discussion below outlines how this data was analysed, integrated, and the key themes extracted to present an informed picture of vulnerability to volcanic hazard in the Dieng Plateau.

3.3.1. Analysing fieldwork data

While my fieldwork involved a number of activities, semi-structured interviews formed the methodological foundation of my analyses and subsequent knowledge claims made within this thesis. Analysis of the interview data began in the field and continued after I returned to my home university. While in Central Java, interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed by my research assistant into Indonesian. I then translated these transcripts into English for the easy identification and organisation of themes. Use of the English transcriptions proved useful in the early stages of analysis; however, as I became more emerged in the data analysis process I increasingly returned to the original Indonesian transcripts as they captured greater nuance of key concepts. To ensure anonymity, all following ANU ethics protocols, all interviews were stored on my computer by number rather than name and these numbers are referred to throughout the text.

After translating the transcripts and reading over the interviews comprehensively and repeatedly, I began to identify key themes that were frequently raised. These included: the process of transmigration and resettlement of Dusun Simbar, cost of land surrounding active craters, past and present livelihood practices and agrarian change, livelihood outcomes and current livelihood pressures, local volcanic hazard mitigation practices, and knowledge of volcanic eruptions including local interpretations and response activities. I chose not to code the data and instead focused on commonalities between interviews. Word searches were conducted on each of the transcripts to highlight these commonalities, with the ultimate goal of situating key concepts within the literature on broader local and regional processes. Various quotes were extracted from the interview transcripts and have been inserted into the text as evidence of the knowledge claims I make.

I entered the data we collected during the household survey of Dusun Simbar into a comprehensive excel spread sheet, where it was checked for errors and summarised into the tables and figures that are presented throughout the coming text. This information includes data on land ownership status, the

size of landholdings, the frequency of crop failure, money lending patterns, and overall attitudes towards evacuation following eruptions. This quantitative information provided context to my analysis of vulnerability, land, livelihoods and local disaster knowledge presented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7. While the survey allowed me to corroborate some of the broad claims made by informants during interviews, the main findings of this thesis still draw predominantly from the more detailed, process-focused interviews held with local informants and observation of government officials.

Data obtained during the community workshop, primarily the ranking of local risks and the sketch map of hazardous zones, was compared to information collected during the interviews as well as PVMBG’s official volcanic hazard map to provide a useful insight into the local prioritisation of risks. This process allowed me to better understand and tailor later interview questions to reflect local views of risk, as opposed to risk as understood from the perspective of the BPBD or PVMBG’s hazard map. While the shortcomings of the data obtained during the workshop are discussed below, it nonetheless presented useful views on local understandings of risk that served to complement the interview process (see also Campbell, 2001).

As discussed above, participant observation proved most insightful in my dealings with the BPBD and once fieldwork was completed I relied on the notes I took after I observed their many community training workshops. These notes captured the conduct, presentation and informal comments made by the BPBD staff as well as attempting to document the level of participation and enthusiasm displayed on behalf of participants. I also collected their training materials, including presentation slides, and read relevant official documents such as Undang Undang 24/2007 on the National Disaster Management Law and Peraturan 1/2012 on the regulation of disaster resilient villages/districts. My observations, alongside these documents,helped to inform the picture of the BPBD I present in Chapter 7.

Baxter and Eyles, (1997, p. 505) argue that the qualitative research methodology requires a degree of creativity ‘to capture the richness of

context-dependent sites and situations’, and my analysis and explanation of key themes certainly followed this approach. However, validation of the data is also required to establish research rigour (Baxter and Eyles, 1997), and to this end I relied on triangulating my mixed methodology approach and the findings of other key literatures in the field. The results I obtained using each method (interviews, participant observations, community workshops and the household survey) were triangulated against the other to ensure a general consensus of ideas was found. For example, the risks listed during the workshop were raised again during focused interviews to ascertain their level of importance. Furthermore, mitigation measures, such as avoiding the fields during overcast weather were observed in the field as well as raised by informants during interviews.

After the key concepts crossing each of my data sources were identified, I then turned back to the literature and relevant theory pertaining to livelihoods and disasters in Southeast Asia. For example, when historical events were discussed, I drew on historical literature (i.e. Boomgaard, 1999) to validate elder’s knowledge. Other key literature that influenced my data analysis process included Rigg and Vandergeest’s (2012) edited book ‘Revisiting Rural Places: Pathways to Poverty and Prosperity in Southeast Asia’, Li’s analysis of Indonesia’s development programs (Li, 2007, 2011b), and literature pertaining to the hybridisation of disaster or local ecological knowledge (see Berkes et al., 2000; Nygren, 1999; Rigg et al., 2005; Schlehe, 2010; Shannon et al., 2011). I constantly moved between this theory and my data to substantiate, contradict or correlate my claims with the literature. This approach follows Lund’s (2014) assertion that researchers are constantly moving back and forth between the processes of observation, generalisation, abstraction and theorisation rather than following a linear path.

3.3.2. Data limitations

Despite my best efforts to demonstrate research integrity and thoroughness, there are still limitations to my data analysis process. While a personal

reflection on the entire research process is reserved for the section below, here I will discuss limitations associated with my site selection and the use of data obtained during the community workshop and household survey of Dusun Simbar. Firstly, I recognise that I intentionally chose villages within the Dieng Plateau that have been exposed to volcanic events in the past. The types of vulnerability I discuss throughout this thesis are therefore restricted to localities that are known to be hazardous. A different story may have emerged if I had focused on localities that are less frequently impacted by volcanic hazards.

I also recognise that my design of, and involvement during, the workshop meant that the outcomes likely reflect my research interests in natural hazards rather than an ‘objective’ representation of community views. By the time the workshop was held, I had built rapport with local informants and as many were willing to ensure I achieved my research outcomes they focused their discussions on local hazards, which they likely felt I would appreciate. In doing so, the opportunity to unearth new and unexpected views was minimised. Furthermore, the workshop reflected more of a rural appraisal approach (see Chambers, 1994) rather than participatory action research (see Gibson-Graham, 2005) and was therefore never likely to lead to the development of ongoing activities on behalf of the participants (see also Le De et al. 2015). This limitation was compounded by the fact that, in accordance with standard practice in Indonesia, I provided each participant of the workshop with uang saku (pocket money) to attend alongside a snack box. While this perhaps impinges on the ‘participatory’ nature of the workshop, in my circumstance, it could not be avoided or overlooked.

The final shortcoming to the data analysis process pertains to the use of the household survey data. McGruik and O’Neil (2010) posit that household surveys ‘provide more in-depth perspectives on social processes and context’ (p. 192); however, within this thesis the household survey was used predominantly as a means to contextualise the more detailed interview data collected in Dusun Simbar. The survey did not attempt to capture the nuance of livelihood processes, but rather provided context and background to the

socio-economic makeup of the hamlet. This data however, proved useful to triangulate certain claims, for example the relatively high levels of land ownership found in this particular hamlet.

The section above has provided an overview of the ‘mixed methods’ approach (see Doolittle, 2008) used to inform my case study of vulnerability, livelihoods and disaster knowledge in the Dieng Plateau. As the methodology that has produced this thesis has now been described, I will now conclude this chapter with a personal reflection on the fieldwork process.