Participatory social mapping

62 3.7 Data Collection Procedures

Household heads constituted the main respondents for this current study. Participants were visited in their households for discussion meetings done through the use of interview schedules.

There were explanations and probing as was considered necessary. Interview answers were filled in the interview schedule. Observations were carried out soon after the interview discussions. Data on detected phenomena were recorded in the researcher‟s memoir. Features observed comprised the sizes of the farming land, family possessions, the type of dwellings in the homestead, the type of food grown during the past season, the foodstuff vended at the nearest market, the types of food available in the household, the prices of food items at the markets, the adjacent water source and the presence of water in the family (Appendix 8).

63

group of people with regards to a phenomenon. The tool tells stories, bring out conversations, and show the way of living of the people through maps.

Mapping has been commonly used to depict the spatial distribution of various features within a locality. Participatory social mapping introduced the visual presentation of mental processes shaped by local knowledge and experiences without necessarily including the geographic distribution of the features represented. Even though spatial distribution is sometimes not factored in, participatory social maps depict relationships, culture, history, trends and associations experienced by the people constructing it.

Over the past years, there has been a wide spread use of participatory mapping in different regions of the world in social research due to the richness of the data collected in this manner (Coberrt, 2009). This is regardless of the presence of spatial maps. Spatial maps show the geographic distribution of various features across an area and are usually drawn to scale.

Participatory social maps contained metaphors which allowed the representation of culture, traditions and local history, which could not be easily represented by spatial maps. Developing and bringing out the understanding of participatory social maps was done in a participatory manner, which ensured generation of shared knowledge. Participatory social mapping was more engaging and the process allowed innovation particularly in FGDs that included semi or illiterate participants. It gave participants the space to make meaningful contributions to the subject under discussion. The process also gave participants an opportunity to reflect on their thoughts, feelings, realities and experiences.

According to Coberrt (2009), there is urgent need to evaluate participatory maps to ensure that they represent the views of a community. Unlike other kinds of mapping, it is challenging to determine if the information displayed on a participatory social map is complete or accurate.

This is because the information represented is not constant, for example, in the case of participatory spatial mapping or seasonal mapping where particular features occur at the same time or place. Participatory social mapping focuses on the views of the participants that cannot be labelled as incorrect or inaccurate.

3.7.2.1 Materials used for participatory social mapping

Successful social mapping is facilitated by the availability of appropriate resources for the process. There is no generic list of resources needed but this study made use of basic and easily adaptable resources. The exercise was carried out at Chibuwe centre hall in Chipinge district. Stationery used included A1 flip charts, coloured markers, sticky tape, pens, pencils,

64

participatory social mapping guide, voice and video recorder. Participants were encouraged to use any other material which they deemed necessary.

Participants were supplied with a lot of stationary and this gave them room for innovation. They were also allowed to use other materials beyond the stationary availed by the research team.

Such material included sticks, stones, leaves and papers. These materials were used to illustrate preferred coping strategies of the participants who drew the maps.

The venue of mapping sometimes determines the resources needed. For instance, for one focus group that conducted social mapping outside the hall, a flipchart stand was used. The group that conducted discussions inside the hall attached their charts to the walls. Additionally, the venue was conducive for the discussions because sufficient space to accommodate all participants was available. Furthermore, the venue for this study was conducive as the households always hold their weekly meetings there.

Planning for participatory mapping considered the people who participated and their context.

According to Peck et al. (2015), the context is vital because it gives a problem a meaning. Not so much can be done accurately without understanding the operational context. Likewise, context is important in determining appropriate materials that work better with the people under given circumstances. Thus, the material selected adapted to the needs of the participants and their capabilities. This was particularly important when considering the participatory mapping guide and literacy levels of the participants. The mapping guide clearly outlined the purpose and the activities that were carried out and it was written in the Ndau language that participants understood. Facilitators played a vital role in clarifying the research question and the mapping process. Facilitators were well trained and had a clear understanding of their role in the participatory mapping process. Facilitators minimised interference in group discussion and this enhanced active participation and interaction among the participants.

The use of voice recorders and video cameras was done after getting consent from the participants. Coberrt (2009) postulates that sometimes, participants feel very uncomfortable to be recorded whilst engaging in discussions. Clarification of the reason behind the recording helped to avert any fears. Voice recording during participatory mapping process complemented field notes and verbatim quotes were easily picked during map analysis.

3.7.2.2 Procedure for participatory social mapping

In the current study, participants were residents in Chipinge District. They comprised both male and female adults and youth who were divided into mapping groups according to age and social

65

class. Groups were made up of between four and twelve participants depending on the number that turned up. Small groups were opted in order to ensure an enabling environment for participation. Large groups are often affected by side-lining of the opinions of the more introvert participants. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (2005) shares the same sentiments that small homogenous groups produce better results in participatory mapping exercise. The process of group participants was the same as the one used for focus group discussions.

Three groups engaged in participatory mapping to produce three social maps that represented the coping strategies devised to address food shortages in Chipinge District. One of the participatory maps is presented in Chapter 5. The participants decided on how their map represented their view. Facilitators worked with the groups to go through the instructions after which they stepped back to allow the discussions to be done freely. However, the facilitators monitored the proceedings from time to time. After drawing the maps, participants were given time to share their products with the rest of the group in a plenary session. During the presentations, interpretations given by the group to their maps were recorded. Follow-up questions were asked so as to get clarity on the map features.