This research employed a mixed methodology approach to achieve the objectives of the study.
In addition, the need to produce reliable and valid findings in this research made it necessary to employ a mixed methodology which is the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The use of mixed methodology makes it possible to corroborate the research findings, overcome the limitation of a single methodology and increase the credibility of the research findings. According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2007: 5) “mixed methodology involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction and collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and quantitative data in a single study or series of studies”. Its central premise is that it provides a better understanding of the research problem.Tashakkori and Teddie (2010: 5) define mixed methodology as studies that are products of the pragmatist paradigm and that combine qualitative and quantitative approaches within different phases of the research process”. In addition, Creswell and Plano Clark (2007: 5) describe mixed methodology as:
a research design with philosophical assumptions as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology it involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and quantitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use of quantitative and
qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems that either approach alone.
The mixture of qualitative and quantitative elements in research “helps in illuminating people’s lives and the larger contexts in which they are embedded” (McLaffefferty, 1995: 440).
However, this methodology is not without its shortfalls. I, therefore, took such weaknesses into cognisance.
There are several types or classifications of mixed methodology designs given by Creswell, Clark Plano, Gutmann and Hanson (2003), Sandelowski (2000), Creswell (1999), Morgan (1998) and Patton (1990), among others. However, there are five common mixed methods research designs that can also be put into two groups and these are concurrent mixed methods designs (triangulation design, and embedded design) and sequential designs (explanatory, exploratory and sequential embedded design). The purpose of a triangulation design is to obtain different but complimentary data on the same topic (Morse 1991: 122) so that the researcher will be able to understand the problem in detail. The design “is used when the researcher wants to directly compare and contrast quantitative statistical results with qualitative findings or to validate or expand quantitative results with qualitative data” (Creswell et al, 2003: 263). The embedded research design is a mixed method design “in which the data set provided supportive, secondary roles in a study primarily on other data type” (ibid: 58). Creswell (2006:67) notes that “the premises of this design are that a single data set is not sufficient, that different questions need to be answered, and that each question requires different types of data”. A sequential explanatory design starts with the collection and analysis of quantitative data and then moves on to collecting and analysing qualitative data. Finally, interpretation is done using both quantitative and qualitative results. In addition, a sequential exploratory design starts with the collection and analysis of qualitative data followed by the collection and analysis of quantitative data. Finally, both sets of data are interpreted and analysed but with the qualitative data being collected first.
The last but not least design is the sequential embedded design. This starts with qualitative data before intervention, followed by quantitative intervention and then after intervention the qualitative comes in again and finally interpretation.
In this study, a sequential explanatory design was employed where I started with the collection of quantitative data (administered through a questionnaire) followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data (although qualitative data were the dominant methodology). Data analysis was guided by both quantitative and qualitative findings. A questionnaire was administered the first time my research assistant and I went to Muzarabani. Analysis started as soon as I had finished administering the questionnaire. In the overall interpretation, I sought to find the points where the two sources of data would converge and diverge. Below is Figure 3.1 to show the above discussed mixed method designs.
Figure 4.1: Concurrent Mixed Methods Design
Figure 4.2: Sequential Design Source: Creswell 2008:26-27
The Explanatory Sequential design is a type of mixed method approach used in this study.
Under this design I started with the collection and analysis of quantitative data. I then collected and analysed qualitative data.
Qualitative methodology enables one to have a critical understanding of residents’ perceptions on floods and droughts, the coping strategies adopted by vulnerable groups and the relationship between Social Capital and the residents’ resilience to these disasters. This is also supported by Creswell (1994) who purported that the qualitative approach considers residents’ values, beliefs, thoughts and context in generating inter-subjective meaning and this enabled me to understand lived experiences and realities.
4.2.1: Qualitative Approach
Qualitative approach is defined as “an approach for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (Creswell, 2014: 4). Generally, it is “a means of exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. According to Mishra (2016: 1), “qualitative research is a research understanding phenomenon, exploring issues and answering questions. It is a generic term for investigating methodologies described as ethnographic, naturalistic, anthropological field or participant observer researcher. It encompasses the importance of looking at variables in their natural setting in which they are found”. The process of research involves emerging questions and procedures, data typically collected in the participant’s setting, data analysis inductively build from particulars to general themes, and the researcher making interpretations of the meaning of data” (Creswell 2009: 4).
The qualitative approach (interpretivist paradigm) is used because “it reflects a much lower degree of control over the research context and subjects involved” (Burns and Burns, 2008:
18). This is because the world is socially constructed and subjective and people are affected and react differently to disasters in the same community. Thus, the method stresses “the validity of simple meanings of events not in a fixed entity but a variable that can only be discerned through the analysis of multiple understanding and meanings held by different persons” (ibid:
8). The method makes it possible to gather and analyse information conveyed through language and behaviour exhibited in natural settings. It captures expressive information not conveyed in quantitative data about “perceptions, values, needs, feelings and motivations that underlie
behaviours at an individual level” (ibid: 9). That is, information was solicited from the individuals themselves on how they deal with floods and droughts. Furthermore, Burns and Burns (2008: 19) note that “qualitative research enables the researcher to immerse her or himself in an environment to discover meanings, conventions of behaviour and ways of thinking important to an individual in a group”. Thus, in this study I immersed myself into the community of the subjects of my study so as to gain a detailed understanding of how they are affected by floods and droughts and challenges faced by the vulnerable groups as well as how they are coping.
Understanding social capital and social networks required an in-depth participation of the research participants. Thus, under the qualitative method, the research made use of the Participatory Rural Appraisal Approach (PRA). This is an approach that involves methods that enable rural people to share, enhance and analyse their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and act and to monitor and evaluate and reflect (Chambers 1994: 953). PRA methods are in fact art of action research and it utilises a wide range of techniques that include observations, storytelling and diagrams. The methods involve local community as active participants and outsiders mostly as facilitators. Only few methods of PRA were used in the research and these are story telling during transect walks, observation and focus group discussions among others.
PRA enabled me to have a better understanding of system dynamics and appreciate the interlinked factors influencing livelihood diversification. Information that was provided by community members such as the elderly, women and child heads was cross-checked with the statements from community leaders and ward government officials. The approach was used to involve people in the processes that affect their livelihoods and empower them in dealing with external factors. During focus group discussions livelihood profiles, timelines, seasonal calendars and community maps were being drawn by women and the elderly. PRA methods are premised on the assumptions that local people possess adequate knowledge of their environments. PRA helped me to overcome the bias created by meeting only more accessible and well -to do individuals or groups in search of quantitative data, whilst missing more qualitative and in-depth information.
However, the qualitative approach has its own loopholes such as being time consuming and tiring. In addition, analysing qualitative data was very difficult because I had gathered more information (more than what I was expecting) which became difficult for me to synthesize. If not recognised and dealt with, this may render the research findings unreliable. With this in
mind, I used both qualitative and quantitative approaches so as to increase the validity, credibility and reliability of the research.
4.2.2: Quantitative Approach
The study employed the quantitative method because it quantifies the problem by generating numerical data or data that can be transformed into useable statistics. In the present research, the quantitative approach was used to obtain a general understanding of the magnitude of the problem (floods and droughts), to understand the role of social networks in enhancing people’s resilience to floods and droughts and to have a general understanding of the basis of people’s resilience to these disasters. However, the quantitative approach has limitations in that it does not provide detailed information about people’s resilience to disasters. Accordingly, the findings from this method were corroborated with those from the qualitative approach to increase the reliability and validity of the results.
4.3: Data collection tools