4.1 Research design
For this study, a methodological pluralism that combined case study research and qualitative, semi-structured interviews were implemented as method. It even included elements from quantitative research methods, as some of the results from the data collection are presented numerically and graphically. The nature of the situation during fieldwork, however, with limited amounts of available fishers to interview, as well as the limited time scope of the research made the sample group very small in quantitative terms (total sample n=30 and sub-samples n=15 and n=15). This limits the possibilities of performing quantitative tests like regression analysis, as the results would have suffered from low reliability and generalization abilities due to the small sample sizes of respondents. The opportunity of generalizing the findings to a bigger population, was simply not there due to the fact that too few respondents was collected to give a consistent result applicable to the general public. The questions asked to the respondents were not conducted along quantitative variables, nor were possible answers prescribed in strict formats. Therefore, this research does not fill enough criteria to be regarded as quantitative research, but took advantage from a mixed-methods approach.
The population of this research can be defined as ‘all PNL and PS tuna fishers in the western-central Pacific’. When choosing a sample from a population, one needs to keep in mind that the size in almost all cases is a small subset of the population in total, as we never have access to the entire population. And thus; the bigger the sample, the more likely it is to reflect the whole population (Field & Field, 2012). The sample in this research being so small, gives it obvious quantitative research quality limitations. However, a quantitative representation of some of the data has been conducted. Methodologically, the thesis will also gain a somewhat normative display as it seeks sustainability solutions that the PNL and PS tuna fishery can be adviced to take into account.
4.2 The case study approach
Although the qualitative interviews created the main fundament for the methodological framework, the case study approach was of notable importance. NFD, SI, formed the case structure for this research, and cannot be considered representative to other cases due to the nature of qualitative research. It may, however, share knowledge and insight and even serve as inspiration to similar cases. Yin (2012, p. 6) defines a ‘case’ as:
A bound entity (a person, organization, behavioural condition, event or other social phenomenon), but the boundary between the case and its contextual conditions – in both spatial and temporal dimensions – may be blurred (…). The case serves as the main unit of analysis in a case study, while possibly also having nested units within the main unit (Yin, 2012, p. 6).
The entire group of interviewed PNL and PS fishers as well as one of the in-depth interviews were collected from NFD over the time frame of three weeks from April to May, 2015. These interviews served as the main units of analysis in the case studies, while general observations and non-structured conversations served as contextual conditions. NFD were throughout the intense three-week field trip of this research the base from which I lived, observed the everyday operation, such as unloading of fish and meat quality procedures, had an office spot and structured the day-to-day plans with my contacts within the enterprise. As such, NFDs employees and enterprise structure created the vast majority of the primary data entries of this research. As all other case study research, the desire to scrutinize NFDs routines, policies and ethics came from a desire to derive an up-close understanding of NFD – the ‘case’ in the case study – set in their real-world context (Yin, 2012). This approach would presumably provide deeper understanding of one commercial tuna fisheries operation in the Pacific, which again might provide insight that could be applicable to understanding other tuna fisheries operations throughout the region as well. As defined by Yin; “case study research assumes that examining the context and other complex conditions related to the case being studied are integral to understanding the case” (2012, p. 55).
The case study approach further allows the study of specifically identified characteristics and their impact on a given phenomenon. As such one may to a larger extent enhance the possibility of making comparisons to other similar cases (Barbour, 2014) within the strata, in this case; within the vast diversity of tuna fisheries and/or enterprises. Case study data collection is a research approach that is particularly useful when wanting to respond to the how and why questions of a contemporary set of events, phenomenons or ‘chunk of empirical reality’ (Meyer,
2001, Lund, 2014). By emphasizing the study of a case within its real-world context, the case study method favours the collection of data in natural settings, and as such goes beyond the study of isolated variables, or only relying on ‘derived’ data (Yin, 2012).
For this research, it was a desire to collect information through a wide set of data collection methods. The study of sustainability in fishing methods of such a big fishery as in this research implied usage of interviews, documents, documentaries and observation as sources of information. Using the case study approach, which opens up for usage of a variety of data collection methods in a holistic (Meyer, 2001) manner was thus considered favourable. As such, a case study serves as an analytical or social construct of the researcher in which she communicates the investigated findings (Lund, 2014). However, this urges the researcher to take a clear stance to whether she performs an ‘intrinsic’ case study, which focuses on studying one instance in its own right, or an ‘instrumental’ case study – where specific case(s) are selected in order to be able to further investigate similar general principles and phenomena (Barbour, 2014). The latter perspective is most adequately covering the scope of this research; as the case here serves as an instrumental example of a fisheries enterprise presumably striving to achieve sustainability in their operation. The case study setting is also considered appropriate for this research as the method allows for an illumination of particular unusual or admirable features, in this case; how NFD emerges as an enterprise with high regards of social and employment responsibilities as well as ecological limits to fish harvesting growth. Thus, they may serve as a positive example to the many less admirable actors in the tuna harvesting community. With the positivistic approach to illuminating NFD as a case study, the ‘transferability’ and relevance of the findings from this specific case to understanding other similar – or even different contexts in the tuna fisheries may prove valuable methodologically (2014).
Case study research has been criticized for having a low possibility of making any generalizations (Meyer, 2001). A single or small set of cases, like in this research, cannot generalize to larger populations (of other tuna enterprises), nor is it intended to. What its purpose is, however, is to establish an analytical generalization form that uses a theoretical framework to establish a logic that might be applicable to other situations (Yin, 2012). In this context; using NFD as an example of a seemingly successful enterprise, worth taking experience and lessons from for other tuna enterprises wishing to improve their corporate responsibility through for instance increased sustainable modus operandi or battling local unemployment rates. Improving the generalizability for this research, could for instance involve applying a
multi-case approach, where the findings from this case study were replicated to another case study (Meyer, 2001), and would as such also improve the reliability status for the findings in this research.
Figure 26. Source: (Meyer, 2001, p. 350)
Figure 26 summarizes the operationalization of the case study design for this research. The selection of cases was single, with only fishers from NFD being used as units of analysis, further elaborated by in-depth interviews with informants from PNA, FFA as well as secondary data.
The sampling time was limited to convenience – when the respective vessels were at dock and had fishers available for interviews. Time was also the limiting factor when it came to number of data collection – the fishers were only available for interviews while at dock and finished unloading. Within that timeframe for this research, a total of 30 interviews were completed.
The selection of data collection procedures will be further emphasized in section 4.3.
4.3 Sampling strategies
The logic behind sampling units while researching is to be able to draw inferences about some larger population from a smaller one – the sample (Berg & Lune, 2013). A probability sampling method would have been favourable in this research, supposing that it were replicated, enlarged in scale, with more time, resources and higher budget. Limited, however, by all these factors, combined with restricted means necessary for a probability sampling procedure not being present, a nonprobability sampling method was performed. Nonprobability sampling offers the
benefit of not requiring a list of all possible elements in a full population and the ability to access otherwise difficult-to-research study populations (Berg & Lune, 2013). The nonprobability approach was used to get access to informants during the fieldwork of this research. Locating a fisheries enterprise that was willing to receive me and accommodate an open access to their resources and employees was a challenging and time-consuming task. It relied on a mixture of snowball, purposive and quota sampling as well as the power of using contacts as a tool to reach out to the relevant people. The purposive sampling was applied due to the narrowed-down perspective of this research. The topic required specific knowledge on fishing methods in tuna fishing, and as thus a significant amount of time was used prior to the fieldwork to ensure that certain types of individuals and enterprises displaying that knowledge were chosen to gather data from. Using such a sampling method, where beforehand-acquired knowledge directs the selection of the informants, may, however, hold certain reliability dangers (2013). As one exercises judgment on the informant’s reliability and competency, one may obtain biased results (Tongco, 2007).
This research, like many other qualitative research projects, relied certain parts of its data quality on its key informants. The key informants were chosen on the basis of extensive investigation after suitable persons that had knowledge about the tuna fisheries in the region, in particular individuals that had knowledge about sustainability issues within the fishery. Making sure one holds vigorous overview of ones informant’s knowledge and skill levels are of great importance when choosing them. Then, the possibility of holding biased views based on statements from these informants, is a significant danger when performing purposive sampling (Tongco, 2007). The danger of this type of bias was taken into account for this research, however, it is not unlikely that the results and conclusions are somewhat coloured by the statements gathered from the informants.
The snowball sampling strategy was also present, as it was a very practical way of achieving and locating the right informants, according to context. One informant in an early research phase referred to NFD in SI as an appropriate place to inquire, and as such helped point out the direction of the research site. Therefore, the research site was not selected based on several specific criteria; it was based on availability and willingness from NFDs local managers to cooperate to this research. The only criterion as such was that the research site had access to fishers working on both PNL and PS vessels. As very few enterprises or private owners perform PNL as fishing method in the Pacific region, it did narrow down the search for a suitable site.
Finally, quota sampling therefore is suitable to describe the sampling process; the fishers informants needed to be working at PNL or PS vessels, these ‘attributes’ were necessary for them to be chosen. These two attributes were then grouped using the same recruitment strategy in order for the resulting groups to be comparable (Berg & Lune, 2013).
Both the PNL fishers and PS fishers made up a group total of 15 fishers, a sample total of 30 fishers. A convenience recruitment sampling method was then used to pick out which individuals within the PNL and PS strata were chosen. It was simply the fishermen that said themselves willing to cooperate and working on the PNL and PS vessels that happened to be at dock in Noro unloading fish during the dates I was present for fieldwork, that were chosen to conduct interviews. The interviews were performed on a semi-standardized manner. Berg &
Lune defines semi-standardized interviews as a interview format located in the middle of the two extremes forming of the completely standardized and completely unstandardized interview structure continuum of formality (2013). The interview format makes use of predetermined questions forming the basis of the conversation, with the possibility of adding or removing questions from this baseline. The interviews are performed in a systematic and consistent order, but with possibility of digressing and probing beyond the predetermined standardized questions (2013). This format was preferred, as it allows reflecting awareness that individuals understand the questions differently, as well as responding differently to questions phrased in individually adjusted ways. The interview format also opens up for acquiring knowledge the researcher is not aware of before-hand; and indeed many of the interviews in this research resulted in awareness of issues I by no means could anticipate beforehand, further adding meaningful substance to the issues raised under the course of the interviews. This format thus results in a much more textured set of accounts from the participants than would otherwise have occurred if only schedules questions had been asked (2013).
4.4 Triangulation
When choosing a research method during the course of a fieldwork, one may fall into the habit of unwittingly favouring the methodological technique the researcher feels most confident in using. When performing more than one methodological approach, like this research, each method may reveal slightly different facets of the same symbolic reality (Berg & Lune, 2013).
Therefore, performing triangulation was a requirement for this research, as it urges the researcher to investigate the findings angled from different perspectives and as such combines
several perspectives in a study. Consequently, this study will be framed by not so much one overarching theory, rather by several related theories; a triangulation method referred to as theoretical triangulation (2013). Triangulation is a practical tool to strengthening the validity of a research, by being able to make use of several strategies to investigate the same issue or applying differentiated theoretical approaches during the analysis. To increase the validity of the semi-structured interview format one needs to make use of triangulation strategies so that the questions that are asked are accurate, asked to each informant in the same manner, information before-hand being given in the same way, as well as making sure the questions themselves are formulated in a way that actually investigates what the researcher wants to find out. Making sure the research instruments and the data are valid helps increasing the chance of achieving valid conclusions and findings derived from these data.
During the course of this research triangulation were strived for through including more than one strategy of achieving information. That included observations and photographic documentation of natural settings, meaning; the setting on-board the vessels, the fish caught from the vessels, and the conditions on the docks in Noro. It also included analysis of document and textual analysis to support or disprove findings from the interviews as well as comparing answers to the same questions asked to different stakeholders. It further included watching documentaries debating many of the issues observed during fieldwork, and helped create a picture of tuna fishing techniques elsewhere than SI. The answers that were presented from the PNA official did not necessarily match the perspectives from the NFD representative.
As such, interviewing individuals that represented different interests triangulated the answers.
Observing the actual fish catch in Noro also helped form a picture of issues like meat quality, fish welfare and helped understanding the sheer, physical scope of tuna catches globally. In the aftermath of the fieldwork, making use of differentiated literature and theory approaches, further enabled triangulation by illuminating the data from various angles.
Some of the arguments stated in this research are supported from empirical material from the performed interviews of both PNL and PS fishers as well as key stakeholders from PNA, FFA and NFD. Other arguments are supported from secondary literature, continually cited.