AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF A REFLECTIVE ESSAY

Fieldwork is a challenging method of study, but it can also be a satisfying experience. I had the privilege of conducting fieldwork as part of my master's program. While it was a fun procedure, I made some mistakes in my work. However, I've learned a lot from my mistakes. While conducting research in Rwanda, I realised that it was crucial to incorporate research results from first-hand sources into my research. Since I lacked information about my subject, I needed to gather qualitative data from various sources to confirm my findings.

The method, as described by Denzin (1970), is called "methodological triangulation," It lets researchers employ various methods of gathering data to guarantee the validity of their data internally. Using the triangulation method, I set up interviews with elite groups and people who live in slums in Rwanda. I did this to discover why political elites make certain decisions about cities and what effect those decisions have on people living in slums.

The officials from the government were the first group I spoke to, and those who lived in slums were my second. The interviews with the elite were semi-structured and focused on closed-ended as well as open-ended questions. Harvey (2011), an academic researcher, has observed that this strategy is ideal for elite interviews because it lets you be flexible and increases responses. Especially, scholars like Hoffmann-Lange (1987), Aberbach and Rockman (2012), as well as Zuckerman (1972) have all shown that elites are more comfortable asking open-ended questions to help them articulate their opinions coherently.

Although I did not often make up the questions that elite organisations would ask, I ensured I had a solid understanding of the subject to quickly build a relationship with them. Interviews can last anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours. Respondents often provided me with information sets to look over, which was followed by a discussion. I was then required to make an official request for access to the data sets. I attempted to write an official request letter. However, it was unsuccessful, and it got increasingly difficult to access the data sets I required.

Due to the political nature of the questions, I found that political elites' answers varied from one interview to the next. Peabody et al. (1990) say that the general way of doing things says that political class elites shouldn't be interviewed with recording devices because it could make them nervous and uncertain. Even though I did not employ an audio recorder, I was occasionally dissatisfied with my work due to evasive replies. I was incredibly irritated since the absence of audio recording equipment prevented me from locating a complete recording of my chats. I was asked to record observations as I was talking to the person, but I was not able to capture every aspect, and I was unable to catch many important factors. I strive to achieve the right balance between my notes and the process of interviewing. However, I was unable to do this. I was able to connect with a greater number of political insiders than I imagined. However, it was often unsuccessful since I was not able to collect the amount of data I required from this group. I attempted to get around the challenges in my research by looking at the other part of my study, which was comprised of people who lived in slums. However, this sample was not without its own issues. In general, particularly when compared to one of the samples, I found that the second was more cooperative. I realised that I'd spent a lot of time and energy focusing on the elites of the political world while the vast majority of questions I needed to answer could have come from government policies.

As previously mentioned, I noticed that after earning their confidence, the slum dwellers offered me numerous details about urban development within Rwanda as well as being extremely beneficial to my research. Harvey (2011) stated that, in order to gather quality data, field researchers must gain the trust of their subjects. Examining the data I collected, I feel I accomplished this task effectively. The data gathered from the group sample was acquired at no cost. However, it did have a few hazards. The most important concern was my status as a foreigner, which caused many individuals to be wary of my presence. After a few visits to the research site, participants became acquainted with my work and started to accept the idea of taking part in my research. I also made sure to hire a local person to help me with my research. Since I recognised that having a local community enhanced my credibility with possible research participants.

I was able to build resilience and keep my eyes on my goals, despite the reality that it was a process of gathering data that could be extremely challenging and unstable. Through the course of my research, I also realised the right time to modify my approach within the field, especially when a particular method of conducting research did not prove efficient. In retrospect, I should have modified my tactics sooner in order to save time. If I had continued in the same manner, I would have placed less emphasis on the group's elite because I did not require primary data to fulfil my research objectives about government policy. It would have been easier to save time and energy by getting the information from other sources like books and government reports. I also could have hired an experienced local researcher early in the procedure, as it was instrumental in building trust with the respondents. In the meantime, I realised that I needed to provide an additional amount of training to the researcher assistant, who also worked as a translator, in the wake of the incidents that transpired in the field.

According to scholars like Temple as well as Edwards (2002, p.2), "the interpreter is a conduit linking the interviewer with the interviewee and, ideally, is a neutral party who should not add or subtract from what the primary parties communicate to each other." However, after conducting an investigation, I soon realised that this was not the scenario. In several instances, the researcher attempted to impose his political views on my interviewees. In retrospect, I feel I could have trained him more effectively and made him aware of why interviewee replies should not be taken for granted. During my fieldwork, I frequently observed that the translation process was not as efficient as it should have been. Due to my increasing acquaintance with local dialects, I could tell the instances where the translator was not giving a complete picture of the respondents. My opinion is that this is a sign of the translator's lack of education and training. I was also taught not to believe that the responsibilities of the job were clear, particularly in this case. If I noticed any omissions, I asked for an explanation from my translator. At the beginning of my fieldwork, the translator was also uninvolved and didn't always adhere to the format of the questions I had prepared. In retrospect, I should have conducted a pilot study or test to make sure he understood the research guidelines I was aiming for.

Overall, the whole experience was quite difficult and exposed me to the process of iterative fieldwork. It was evident that no fieldwork was ever so smooth as what was written on the field. I realised how crucial the ability to adapt and be resilient was when working in the field. In hindsight, I should have devised backup plans for every aspect of my study since there were times when I got caught in my thoughts and had to take some time off to review my strategy. I ended up losing several precious days because of this. If I had been more cautious with the way I planned my day and practised more precaution. I am convinced that I would have been more prepared for any unexpected situations that might occur on the field.

If I had taken an additional look at my situation, I would have also considered my position with more seriousness as I did not know what other people thought of me to impact my research. In my interactions among the elites, I often found myself impressed and enthralled by my status in the field as a female scientist outside the country. Researchers like Kobayashi (1994) have talked about how characters are portrayed in the field based on their gender, which suggests that women are often left out because of their sexual orientation. I have not experienced any form of discrimination. I believe I am a female, which enabled me to meet individuals I'd never even thought of because I was seen as a woman suffering and needed assistance. While my criticism was dealt with in a way that was favourable to me, it did not influence the actual interview since I wasn't able to get the information I wanted. Understanding the cultural differences could have helped me manage my expectations more effectively. Researchers like Denzin as well as Lincoln (2011) have talked about how personality traits such as gender can affect the ability of an individual to be able to access information. Looking back at my experience, I think that my research was successful principally due to the capacity to gain a deeper understanding of the second research of slum dwellers. The majority of the issues that the project faced were due to its specifics, specifically the lack of knowledge on the part of research assistants as well as the absence of researchers all over the world.

REFERENCES

Aberbach, J. & Rockman, B., 2002. Conducting and Coding Elite Interviews. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(4), pp.673-676. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1554807?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed November 20, 2015].

Denzin, N., 1970. The Research Act in Sociology, Chicago: Aldine.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage.

Harvey, W.S., 2011. Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research 11(4), pp. 431 - 441. Available at: http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/11/4/431.abstract [Accessed May 6, 2015].

Herod, A., 1999. Reflections on interviews with foreign elites: praxis, positionality, and the cult insider. Geoforum, 30(4), pp.313-327.

Highley, J., Deacon, D. & Smart, D., 1979. Elites in Australia, London: Routledge.

Hoffmann-Lange, U., 1987. The surveying of national elites of the Federal Republic of Germany. In G. Moyser & M. Wagstaffe, eds. Research Methods for Elite Studies. London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 27- 47.

Johl, S.K. as well Renganathan, S., 2010. Strategies for gaining access in doing fieldwork: The reflections by two research scholars. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 8(1), pp.42-50.

Kobayashi, A., 1994. Colouring the field: Gender, "race," and the politics of fieldwork. The Journal of the Professional Geographer, 46(1), pp.73-80.

Mullings, B., 1999. Insider or outsider, both or neither: some dilemmas in interviewing in a cross-cultural setting. Geoforum, 30(4), pp.337-350.

Nolinske, T., 1995. Multiple mentoring relationships facilitate learning during fieldwork. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49(1), pp.39-43.

Rose, G., 1997. Situating knowledge: positionality, reflexivities, and other tactics. Human geography: Progress, 21(3), pp.305-320.

Overing, J., 1987. Translation as a creative process. The power of the name. Comparative Anthropology, 70. p.71.

Peabody, R., Hammond, S., Torcom, J., Brown, L., Thompson, C. & Kolodny, R., 1990. Interviewing Political Elites. PS: Political Science and Politics, 23(3), pp.451-455.

Temple, B. and Edwards, R., 2002. Interpreters/translators and cross-language research: Reflexivity and border crossings. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), pp.1-12.

Zuckerman, H., 1972. Interviewing an Ultra-Elite. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), p.159. Available at: http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/2/159.abstract [Accessed November 20, 2015].