Chapter Summary

91 community, as well as to provide some basic quantitative date to support the largely qualitative study.

There are some limitations to choosing informal survey as a research technique. Informal surveys are a) not appropriate to collect in-depth information; b) susceptible to sampling bias; c) not able to provide complex statistical analyses; d) not as generalizeable as large surveys; and e) vulnerable to credibility problems (Kumar, 1987, p. 27; Kumar 1990, p. 6). Furthermore, when informal surveys use open-ended questions there can be coding issues and interviewers are more inclined to edit questions and answers (Kumar, 1990, pp. 11-12). These limitations are recognized and are supplemented through the use of observation, in-depth interviews, and action research.

92 Information regarding the JICA-Nepal SEMS project came from the reports of the participants who attended the 2008 training of trainers in Tokyo, as well as unstructured interviews and observations that were made possible through my involvement with the project as a facilitator. Additionally, the JICA coordinator of the project provided me with some documentation on the structure and progress of the project via unstructured interview, email, and primary JICA documents.

The data on the current evaluation systems and the issues with evaluation in developing countries came from the reports of the Forum for the Institutionalization of Evaluation System (ibid) participants in 2007 and 2008, as well as from my unstructured interviews and observations of the participants from 2008 where I was a facilitator of the training.

The Localized Monitoring System on the MDGs Project in Jagna, Philippines was not a project that I was personally affiliated with. However, as a part of my exploratory research in the Philippines I visited Jagna and had the opportunity to observe the situation in the municipality, as well as interview the mayor and his wife, both of whom were intricately involved in the project. Further information about the Jagna MDG localization project came from a report compiled upon the completion of project by the European Union (EU).

The cases from Chapter Six incur the same limitation as those used in Chapter Five. They are intended to be illustrative and not critical. The cases were selected to demonstrate areas of concerns and lend support to the expansion of concepts of localization and evaluation.

The first exploratory field trip to the Philippines was conducted from August 12 to August 31, 2007. This trip gave me a feel for the situation in the Philippines, allowed me to acquaint myself with the surroundings and culture in the Philippines, as well as meet with local contacts and explore potential case study locations. Preliminary contact had been made with some local mayors whom I met through the One Village One Produce (OVOP) JICA training at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in October 2006, where I was a facilitator. Areas that were visited on the exploratory field trip were the municipality of Pagudpud in the province of Ilocos Norte in North Luzon (contact – Hon. Marlon Ferdinand T. Sales), Jagna in the Province of Bohol in the Visayas (contact – Hon. Exuperio C. Lloren), the municipality of Amlan in the province of Oriental Negros (contact – Hon. Bentham P. De La Cruz) and the municipality of San Jose in Romblon Province in the Visayas (contact – Hon. Violeta P. Tandong). The outcomes of this trip yielded more local contacts and a viable case study location, as well as other potential local research partners.

Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte was selected as the site for field work because it can be described as a typical case of a developing community in the Philippines, and also because of its relative stability. This case can be considered paradigmatic as well because it helps to extend the applicability of the concept of community capacity and allowed for the exploration of governance in developing countries.

Through the mayor’s cooperation, I was allowed access to any place within the community and introduced to several key informants, which made him a gatekeeper. He greatly assisted with my initial observations and data collection, allowing me access to people and places I would not have privy to had I been completely on my own.

The execution of the case study to analyze community capacity in Pagudpud was conducted in February – March 2008. Informal interviews, both structured and unstructured, with local people and organizations were made. I attended a major local event, the town fiesta, as well. An interview question guide was made to guide unstructured interviews and the Chaskin Framework was used to craft in-depth interviews (IDIs) and an informal survey. The structure of the

93 informal survey, called the Focal Point Questionnaire (FPQ), is detailed in Chapter Seven. The synopsis of the IDIs can also be found in Chapter Seven. The specific results of the FPQ and the IDIs can be found in the Appendix.

A final field trip to Pagudpud was conducted in September 2008. During this trip, all findings from the first leg of the case study were reviewed and discussed with local informants.

As with the previous trips to Pagudpud, unstructured interviews and observations were made.

Additionally, two focus groups were formed to work on action research projects, one using video and another using photography. These sub-cases can be described as maximum variation cases because they were chosen as trial cases to develop the participatory evaluation methodology on the basis of their group composition. The video group was selected by the mayor and consisted of local leaders, whereas the photo group was comprised of students from an outlying area of the municipality. Additionally, it should be noted that mini-survey techniques were used to gather feedback on the photo and video projects. The surveys were qualitative, with open-ended questions and were anonymously answered in writing by participants in the various phases of the project. More detail about the photo and video projects are offered in Chapter Eight and the survey questions and results can be found in the Appendix.

There are several limitations in the Pagudpud case that need to be acknowledged. First, my personal connection with Mayor M. Sales can be seen as a benefit to my research because he was a ‘gatekeeper’ and granted me access to many people and places around the community, as well as a detriment because I was then subsequently limited to viewing things through his filter (see Pavey et al., 2007, p. 108). I attempted to mitigate this limitation by choosing informants outside of his circle and conducting the action research project with a group assembled on my own (the photo group). Additionally, the survey helped to provide some perspective on the views I obtained from the mayor because there was a broader and more random sampling of respondents.

The remaining limitations have to do with me as a researcher. I cannot speak either Tagalog or the local language of Pagudpud, Ilocano, which limited my ability to communicate with all demographics within the community, often forcing me to rely on a translator. That being said, it should be noted that most people in the community had a rudimentary grasp of English as a result of the education system in the Philippines; however poor farmers and fishermen were often reluctant to exercise their often poor English skills as a matter of pride. Interviews were conducted largely in English or by a local research partner who conducted the interview or survey in Ilocano and translated it for me. Every attempt was made to preserve the quality of the information through the translation process.

In addition to my lack of language ability, I was always viewed as an outsider in the community, even though I eventually gained a level of comfort with many local people in the community. However, my status as an outsider may have caused some of the informants to censure themselves, thus skewing the information, usually so that I would view them more favorably. To counterbalance this, several trips were made to the case location to build relationships with key informants and to allow the community at large to become acquainted with me. The outsider factor was also taken into consideration in the interviews and survey, which is why I coordinated with local research partners to have them conduct the survey and some interviews.

This chapter on methodology provides a paradigmatic starting point for the following data chapters, as well as a general understanding of how the data was gathered and why such techniques were used. Chapter Five is the first of the data chapters and uses the cases of rural

94 development from Japan to expand upon the concept of community, community capacity, and community leadership.

95