Flexibility and „using what works‟

Flexibility and creativity during fieldwork is considered central to qualitative research (Karthy Charmaz and Richard Mitchell, 2001; Glaser and Strauss, 1979; Strauss, 1997 and Strauss and Corbin 1998, Whyte, 1984). Irrespective of the documentary guidelines on qualitative research that I had read before fieldwork, I made an attempt to be as adaptive and innovative as possible. I was not only guided by the principle of multiple realities but the knowledge that what had worked elsewhere was not necessarily going to work in my situation. This flexibility therefore made it possible for the study to make some inroads in some of the conventional practices in qualitative methodology. Different actors related with me differently. Some would relate with me on the basis of gender, as a researcher, and as a “foreigner” while to others, I was a faculty member at the University of Nairobi. In some occasions, being registered for doctorate study in a European university made it easier to recruit some partners. A retired

46

police officer noted that: “Local researchers gather data for nothing”, adding that those from other countries look “more serious”. For some respondents, the mention of the word “PhD”

thrilled them and wanted to be associated with the study saying they had never been involved in such a study before.

In view of the general living conditions and income levels, I had chosen not to use a car.

Whereas walking around and using public means worked perfectly well, to some respondents, that was cause to doubt my authenticity. In what was ideally an experiment, a fairly influential man who kept on postponing appointments saying that he was pressed for time agreed to be interviewed after I drove to his compound. Surprisingly, he apologised for his earlier stance noting that he had not expected somebody who was teaching at the university “to be walking around in dirty jeans and snickers”.

In Sultan Hamud, a respondent told me that “after talking to me, you don‟t need to talk to any other Maasai”. This put me in an awkward position since being an influential man, I did not know how he would react if he found me interviewing somebody else. I had to engage him into a long conversation so that he would appreciate the notion that interviewing others was not necessarily aimed at „cross-checking‟ what he had shared with me but rather to benefit from other people‟s unique experiences. A local councillor once met me in Simba and told me that he had been told that I was carrying out research in “his area” and that he was wondering why I had not gone to interview him. I had to save the situation by explaining to him that since he was a “big man”, I had planned to talk to him last so that I could also share with him my findings on the area. This appeared to please him and offered to assist me to attend some local public meetings. Maasai leaders were generally concerned about the image of the Maasai which they said had been presented “negatively” in books and in the media. For this reason, they felt duty bound to provide “accurate” information.

Local power structures shaped the interviewing process including who should be interviewed before whom. An attempt to interview the chairperson of Simba trading centre before interviewing the local chief was met with the response: “The head is more important than the neck...talk to the chief first then come and talk to us”. The chairperson said that he did not want to be accused of undermining the provincial administration.⁵² There was an ethnic dimension too. Whereas the chief was Maasai, the chairperson of the centre was Kamba although Simba is in Maasailand. I will revisit this in chapter six.

52 This is a prefectoral system of administration introduced by the British colonial government and retained by the post-independence state. The civil servant posted to a region (e.g. to a “division” or “district”) acts as a delegate of the central government and officers of individual ministries in his/her region are subordinate to him/her. Further clarifications are provided in chapter seven.

47

Apart from selected and carefully chosen respondents, data were also obtained from „casual discussions‟ held with people in a bus, on the road side or when I accidentally listened in on a conversation. Some of these incidences would provide very useful information that would clarify certain codes and categories. The whole research exercise was not a steady continuous process but one marked by ups and downs. It would at times take one or several days without

„any data‟ and then a day would make all the difference. Data would also be gathered at „odd places‟ outside the research area or at times when I had taken time to relax. On three occasions, I left respondents in a restaurant to rush to my room to make some notes and then came back within a reasonable interlude. At another time, a respondent whom I was listening to wondering how he would react if I took notes, raised the issue himself saying that I should note down what he was saying “or is it that I am telling you nonsense”. I had to learn that each day, each respondent and each place presented unique challenges that had to be dealt with spontaneously. When I met the chief of Kiboko location to arrange for a suitable date of interview, he ended up saying so much regarding a ranch where dominantly Kamba and some Maasai families had been evicted by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS).⁵³ I was to realise later that he had provided detailed information basically because in his judgement, I was not taking notes. Being in a restaurant, we ended up talking for about 3 hours. Luckily, since I had found the discussion very informative, I used to take a break, rush to my room and note down what we had discussed. My absence passed for normal urinal breaks which he also took to pass water. This experience is similar to Baumann‟s strategies during his study in Southhall (London) where he talks of “hurrying to the toilet to take my notes” (1996: 65). In my case, all these were precautionary measures as the chief had given me an appointment to see him

“officially” the following day at around 9.00 hours. When I went to see him as agreed, with my writing paper and pen ready to take notes, he said that he had told me “everything” the previous day. This was interesting because, during our three-hour „casual‟ conversation, he kept on telling me that “I shall give you all the details tomorrow”. My conclusion was that although he knew that I was doing research, the absence of a questionnaire or writing material and a pen was to him a casual talk which encouraged him to share information freely without little if any inhibition. The social environment was quite relaxed and he must have thought that since I was not recording the information, whatever he said would be of no consequence.

53 This is discussed in chapter six to show how state authorities shape ethnic competition over land resources and conflict.

48