Research Methods

Two particular research methods were used, namely semi-structured interviews and participant observation. In the following, I will present these methods and to what extent I made use of them. Subsequently, I will compare the two methods, cite some of their general

56 strengths and weaknesses, and clarify the relationship between them with regards to their importance and the role they play as material for the analysis.

4.3.1 Semi-structured interviews and participant observation

The semi-structured interview seemed best suited for my purpose and constitutes my main research method. It is fairly flexible in its form. The interviewee may answer the questions as he sees fit, and the interviewer can pose follow up questions, or even un-planned ones.

While being flexible on one hand, the semi-structured interview does have a structure on the other hand. This is often a sort of guide, with a set of questions or themes that should be covered during the interview (Bryman 2012:471). In my case the liberty of being able to follow interesting threads when desirable, all the while following a set of predefined themes that enables comparison between informants, gave me a good way of trying to access relevant information. I conducted 14 individual semi-structured interviews. These interviews followed a guide with themes and suggested questions under each theme.⁵⁴ All were

recorded and later transcribed into the language in which they were conducted.⁵⁵

In addition to the interviews, I made use of participant observation, which arguably is the research method through which we get the closest to actually access social reality at first-hand. In this method, the researcher attempts to fully immerse him/herself in the social reality that he/she is studying, by using a wide-span of methods of data-collection such as behaviour-observation, listening to conversations- both formal and informal, and asking questions (Bryman 2012:432).⁵⁶ During my field-work I had two occurrences of participant

54 The interview-guide is found in appendix 4. As stated, this guide has specific themes, each under which a set of proposed questions are found. This guide was the starting point of all the interviews. As the interviews happened, this guide was obviously changed and during every interview I added and withdrew questions (a process which is common and even advisable in qualitative research, see King & Horrocks 2010:37-38). Thus the guide does not represent how the interviews became, but the starting point of them. As most interviews were in French, so was the guide. I have chosen to attach it in its original form, and not in a translated version.

55 13 of the interviews were in French whereas the two remaining were in Norwegian.

56 I also mention as well that the term participant observation often is somewhat mistaken for ethnography.

These two research methods are difficult to distinguish, but still ethnography must be said to refer to something slightly different than participant observation. Ethnography certainly contains participant

observation, but it also often contains the notions that the researcher has a specific focus on the culture of the

57 observation- the first one was a sortie (sensitizing trip) of the Mobile Caravan (MC) which lasted from October 25 to 28 The second on December 1 (the international HIV/AIDS-day), where I first joined an ensemble of HIV/AIDS- initiatives for a march through the city, and later the same day was a spectator at the sensitizing-show in one part of the town of Ngaondéré, again by the MC. To document these observations, I made field- notes.

4.3.2 Comparison and clarification

There is no right way of conducting qualitative research, merely different methods that suit different situations in search of different kinds of data (Bryman 2012:496-497). Therefore both semi-structured interviews and participant observation has their strengths and weaknesses.

When trying to see through the eyes of somebody else, the participant observer would normally be better situated than the interviewer. He/she witnesses the social reality as it happens, whereas the qualitative interviewer only listen to reproductions of it. Thus, among other things, it may be difficult for the interviewer to understand contextual language and practices, or discover practices that the interviewees take for granted. Also identifying hidden or deviant activities, and to encounter unexpected phenomena may prove difficult. These things are easier for the participant observer to identify (Bryman 2012:493- 494).

However, since the participant observer is immersed in a social setting, it is not always easy or possible to apply meaning to and understand incidents which happen. Some issues may thus be more or less resistant to observation. Furthermore, the observer cannot be several places at one time, which restricts his or her scope. The interviewer is better placed in all the former regards. Furthermore, qualitative studies often have a specific focus, looking for specific phenomena or issues. In that respect it is easier for an interviewer to concern himself with this focus in particular. (Bryman 2012:494-495).

group he studies. Also, ethnography often points to the accomplished result of the study. Furthermore when using the term participant observation, we often imply that we are using other methods, like interviewing, to obtain additional and different data (Bryman 2012:432)

58 It is common to say that four hands are better than two. Rephrased we could say that two methods are better than one, which corresponds with my own experience with drawing on both semi-structured interviews and participant observations. Due to some observations, I was able to ask my interviewees questions about certain aspects, practices and incidents of which I would not have known if I had not seen them happen while observing. The in-depths interviews, on the other hand, provided interpretative- tools and reflections around the events that happened, so that I could better understand them. Without some of these interpretations and explanations I could have made interpretative mistakes.

AS the numbers of interviews by far exceeded the occurrences of participant observation, it is clear that the interviews constitute my main material. This is further so because a main objective was to better understand the relationship between religion and development on the terms of the informants. The observations, however, played an

important complementary part as confirmations and corrections of issues in the interviews.

In addition they revealed some incidents which became issues in the interviews. Thus they were a common point of reference to me and some of the informants.