This contribution discusses the use of member checking in Tot, Kenya and Engaruka, Tanzania as enriching practices for both the researched and the researcher. By utilising a series of pamphlets produced in local languages, participants are able to see the result of their contribution to the research and give them a chance to have a second say by adding or rectifying what they would have reported earlier. In this way, member checking enables a researcher to realise any erroneous understanding of community practices under examination. Member checking is indeed far from perfect, but its employment improved the trustworthiness, transferability and confirmability of the study, writes Martina Angela Caretta

Caretta, Martina Angela

LSE Research Online

Editor 5/23/2014Challenging hierarchical research relations and improvingresearch trustworthiness: the use of member checkingblogs.lse.ac.uk /fieldresearch/2014/05/23/challenging-hierarchical-research-relations-the-use-of-member-checking/This contribution discusses the use of member checking in Tot, Kenya and Engaruka, Tanzania as enrichingpractices for both the researched and the researcher. By utilising a series of pamphlets produced in local languages,participants are able to see the result of their contribution to the research and give them a chance to have a secondsay by adding or rectifying what they would have reported earlier. In this way, member checking enables aresearcher to realise any erroneous understanding of community practices under examination. Member checking isindeed far from perfect, but its employment improved the trustworthiness, transferability and confirmability of thestudy, writes Martina Angela Caretta .According to McDowell (1999), feminist geographers are concerned with disclosing the existing connectionsbetween gender and space divisions. However, it is fundamental to bear in mind that using the backdrop of feministgeography does not mean the sole investigation of women’s situation (Hall 2002). This might seem a banalprecision but this is a common misunderstanding due to the quasi exclusive focus of feminist geographers onwomen. My study is based on the analysis of both genders’ conditions, presenting the relational and structuraldynamics of how men and women share spaces and labour practices, while possibly bringing in more voices ofwomen. Nevertheless, while the aim is not to solely highlight the position of women, their circumstances undeniablyemerge to be characterised by oppression, lack of power and unequal access to resources; thus, the relevance ofgrounding this study on a feminist epistemology.Feminist epistemology emerged in the 1980s as a critique of epistemology per se, normatively accounting for whatcan be considered knowledge and intending to be gender neutral, rational and objective (Cope 2002). A crucialelement of feminist epistemology is the attempt to overcome hierarchical exploitative relationships between theresearcher and the researched (Maynard 1994). The researcher strives to engage participants directly in theresearch process through a wide array of methods, e.g. participative mapping or focus groups mediated by localsthemselves. Among these methods is also “member checking” or “participatory checking” (Cho & Trent 2006). Thistechnique is aimed at respondent validation of preliminary findings, that is to say at improving the researcher´sconfidence in preliminary results and, when repeatedly used, at reaching trustworthiness of the research.Throughout my own research, I have used this method by utilising a pamphlet written in the local language (Swahili),which was shared with participants to reflect upon our previous encounters. The following section introduces the useof this method in details.My research took place in two small villages: Tot, Kenya and Engaruka, Tanzania. Both villages are located in dry-lands and have ancient gravity irrigation systems which have been subjected to historical and archeological studies,but have not been investigated for their current developments. By investigating their current use, the overall projectaims at assessing whether an expansion of those furrows systems have been taking place and what were thetriggers behind this. Within the project aim, my thesis takes a gender perspective and investigates the local genderdivision of labour in relation to small-holder irrigation farming. I have conducted six research visits to these locationsbetween 2011 and 2013. For the first three visits, I stayed a few days each time: I first took a preliminary look andsuccessively went back shortly afterwards to greet people, gather new impressions and collect survey data gatheredby research assistants. I did three extensive fieldworks in May-June 2011, January-Februart 2012 and July-August2013. I spent 3 weeks in each of the two villages, staying in the field roughly 7 weeks at a time. In total I spent sevenmonths in the field which is comparable to an average ethnography with the advantage of having seen thedevelopment and partaking in the changes within the two communities.1/4Tot, Kenya and Engaruka, TanzaniaParticipants discussing the pamphlet (Photo by Caretta 2012)In Tot and Engaruka, locals speak their indigenous idiom on adaily basis, but are also conversant in Swahili, being it theofficial language of both countries. Given that Swahili isunderstood in both communities, I chose to produce apamphlet, employed as a member checking technique. Theidea to use this method came from my colleague Östberg whodid the same during his research in the 1990s in Tanzania(Årlin et al. forthcoming).For my second extended fieldwork I took back to thecommunities a two-sided  picture-full pamphlet, which carriedpreviously gathered data, categorized according to themes(e.g. labour, crops and climate) and outlined with factsreported by men and women. During this fieldwork session itemerged quite clearly that Swahili was not being fullyunderstood or read by everyone in Tot, so for the finalextended fieldwork in July-August 2013 my assistant and interpreter translated the pamphlet into the local languageMarakwet. Most importantly, for this last fieldwork, two different types of pamphlets were produced for Tot (e.g.women´s role in agriculture, groups, food vs cash cropping) and Engaruka (e.g. agricultural practices enhancing soilfertility, groups, irrigation and expansion of the irrigation system) in order to complement the data on different topics.Several photos were included in the pamphlets so that analphabets could recognise familiar faces and recall thecontents following the images. Photo elicitation  is a key component of these pamphlets: pictures stuck more tosomeone´s memory than words especially where people are not exposed to an image culture. Pictures help peoplerecall better what happened the last time we met and elicit in them those memories about the past and what wentthrough since our last encounter (Harper 2002). Locals were given a copy of the pamphlet to bring home. Photosattracted family members’ attention helping the task of explaining the contents to them, while spreading theknowledge of the ongoing research and my presence in the community. Even pupils screamed my name in thestreets because they had read the pamphlet!Focus group participants and interview respondents werepresented with a pamphlet before beginning an interview inorder to get the conversation going. Starting off with thepamphlet was also useful to set the context of my research andto make people aware, in case we had not met before, that Ihad been around, knew their community and their agriculturalpractices. At the outset, people were informed either by me ormy assistant that the pamphlet contained information they hadgiven me in the previous year. Then, we would tell them that Iwanted to check with them whether I had correctly understoodwhat they had shared with me. If that was not the case, Iwanted them to rectify my comprehension. Lastly, we wouldask if they wanted the assistant to read or translate thepamphlet for them or they wanted to read it by themselves.Depending on the age of respondents and their level ofeducation the pamphlet was either translated in their nativetongue or the assistant would help their reading.Grasping the content was aided by the partition in themed sections with corresponding photos, which were referredto by the research assistants to further substantiate the reading. Respondents could follow by looking at their copywhile the assistant would use another one. Interruptions were frequent as respondents were commenting on both2/4Participants discussing the pamphlet (Photo by Caretta 2013)the photos and the facts presented in the pamphlet. Reactions to the content were of different nature, but almosteveryone had to add whether they were in agreement ordisagreement. They wanted to add details to the descriptionsof their labour routines, to underscore the role of men incultivation, to claim their gendered discourse of communityorganisational arrangements and most importantly to correctme.Administering the pamphlet revealed my erroneousunderstanding of their community practices. Through the lensof the respondents, it appeared that the data I had gatheredduring my first fieldwork session was describing labourarrangements and crops, which had profoundly changed in thelast ten years. In fact, people reported the discourse abouthow things should function in their community based ontraditional customs and crops that had been negotiated andreplaced by new ones. Coming to this realisation was certainly a fundamental turning point for my study because itmade me rethink my research aims and the way I was asking questions. Indeed there was an underlyingmisunderstanding between respondents and me: I wanted to know about the present and how they had gotten to thecurrent labour arrangements and crops and not about the past. Some people, particularly the older ones, had anegative impression about the current situation of their community and the new phenomena (i.e. climate change,cash economy, market connection) that were influencing their habits and customs and preferred to refer to theiridealised picture of the past. These breakdowns in understanding are a crucial element of discovery in the researchprocess and even though they might be dangerous in relation to the validity of our study, they also present greatopportunities to reach a deeper understanding of local dynamics (Crapanzano 2010).In the context of a feminist epistemologically grounded study, member checking was a particularly enriching practicefor both the researched and the researcher. Participants physically saw the result of their contribution to the researchand rethought through their first interviews. The pamphlet as such and the practice of researcher’s asking for theparticipants’ comments for improvement were perceived by them as the possibility of having a second say by addingor rectifying what they had reported earlier in order to give the most correct picture of the changes that had takenplace in their community. As a researcher it was challenging to simplify findings and exposing them in a short andstraight forward way in a new language. Moreover, given the novelty of member checking, no guidelines for itsmethodological processing existed and I had to come up with the modalities of administering the pamphlet myself,adjusting it time after time, making sure I was taking fully into account all the respondents’ comments. Nevertheless,the success of participatory methods should not be overestimated (Tsouvalis and Waterton 2012). Member checkingis indeed far from perfect, but its employment improved the trustworthiness, transferability and confirmability of thestudy because it gave “an accurate reflection of reality (or at least, participants ‘construction of reality)” (Cho andTrent 2006: 322) while facilitating a less hierarchical relationship between the researcher and the researched.ReferencesCarpiano, R. M. (2009) Come take a walk with me: The “Go-Along” interview as a novel method for studying theimplications of place for health and well-being. Health & Place 15(1): 263–272Cope, M. (2002) Feminist epistemology in geography. In Moss, P. (ed.) Feminist geography in practice: researchmethods. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 43-56Crapanzano, V. (2010) At heart of the discipline”: critical reflections on fieldwork. In Davies, J. and Spencer, D. (eds.)Emotions in the field: The psychology and anthropology of fieldwork experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress, pp. 55-783/4Harper, D. (2002) Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies 17(1): 13–26Cho, J. and Trent, A. (2006) Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research 6: 319–340Maynard, M. (1994) Methods, Practice and Epistemology. In Maynard, M. and Purvis, J. (eds.) Researchingwomen’s lives from a feminist perspective. London: RoutledgeMcDowell, L. (1999) Gender, Identity and Place. Understanding Feminist Geographies. Cambridge: Polity PressTsouvalis, J. and Waterton, C. (2012) Building “participation” upon critique: The Loweswater Care Project, Cumbria,UK. Environmental Modelling & Software 36: 111–121Årlin, C. et al. (forthcoming) Participatory checking and the temporality of landscapes: increasing trust and revelancein qualitative research. In Stump, D. and Isendahl, C. (eds.) Handbook of historical ecology and appliedarchaeology. Oxford: Oxford University PressThis work was presented at the Association of American Geographers AAG conference in Los Angeles in 2013 in asession about participative methodology. Similar works will be presented at the IGU conference in Krakow in August2014 at the session organized by the author within the Gender and Geography commission titled ” FeministParticipatory Methodologies: Creating Spaces of Inclusion?”About the AuthorMartina Angela Caretta  received her BA in Development Studies at the University of Padua, Italy in 2008 and a MScin Sustainability Science at Lund University, Sweden in 2010. She conducted her MSc thesis research in Kenya onmicrocredit schemes and climate change adaptation thanks to the Legal Empowerment of the Poor scholarship. Shestarted her PhD at the Human Geography Department at Stockholm University in 2011 and has since then spent 7months in the field between Kenya and Tanzania studying gender relations in smallholder irrigation farming . Herresearch project is financed by SIDA, Swedish International Cooperation Agency. “Current expansion and pastdynamics of small-holder irrigation farming in African dry-lands, measuring landscape, labour and climateinteractions” is the working title of the SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency) fundedinterdisciplinary research project that Martina’s PhD thesis is part of.  She is a contributor to her department blogFarmlands.Related PublicationsCaretta, M.A. and Börjeson, L. (2014) Local gender contract and adaptive capacity in smallholder irrigation: a casestudy from the Kenyan dry-lands. Gender, Place & Culture DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2014.885888Caretta, M.A. (2014) “Credit plus” microcredit schemes: a key to women’s adaptive capacity. Climate &Development DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2014.886990For citation: Caretta, M.A. (2014) Challenging hierarchical research relations and improving researchtrustworthiness: the use of member checking. Field Research Method Lab at LSE (23 May 2014) Blog entry.URL: http://wp.me/p46hMd-6j4/4

Challenging hierarchical research relations and improving research trustworthiness: the use of member checking

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online