Article S8.5 Conducting Interpretive Research: Experience of Small-Scale Hydroelectric Schemes in India Seminar Leader: Johanna Höffken Doctoral Scholar, Department of Technology and Society Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Maastricht, Netherlands j.hoeffken[at]maastrichtuniversity.nl The focus of Höffken’s research is on democratisation of technology and she seeks to study this in terms of civic engagement by analysing cases of small-scale hydroelectric schemes in India. Small-scale hydroelectric projects have been promoted as a renewable energy technology that converts the flow of water into electricity. These may be small, mini-, or micro-, depending upon the output. Small-scale hydroelectric schemes figure in efforts of rural electrification. These projects also contribute towards meeting the increasing demand for power in urban areas and from industries. Democratisation of technology refers to access to, as well as control over, technology by people, especially the end-users of the technology (Wakeford, 2004). Four types of civic engagement were discussed in the seminar: (a) conventional, (b) unconventional, (c) disengagement, and (d) integrated engagement. In the conventional form of engagement there is significant engagement by the villagers; people use methods such as writing letters to the authorities, meeting the authorities, conducting meetings, and appealing to law in case of conflicts. People resort to unconventional engagement when the conventional methods fail. Protests, destroying infrastructure, hijacking, and fasts fall under this category. These appear to be desperate acts by the villagers. Disengagement can arise through neglecting or coping. People use illicit methods such as bribing to get things done. When the community is actively taking part in the development process, it is called integrated engagement. It encompasses forms of engagement, when people become part of the management of technology. This is possible by demystification of the technology among the people. Demystification happens when the “black box” of technology is opened up and villagers are shown how the technology works. In this process people can express their say in the development and design of technologies that affect their lives. Höffken has chosen the approach of interpretive inquiry. This approach seeks to understand the experiences of a group of people involved in a particular situation by analysing their responses and reports. Höffken’s ethnographic field work focuses on a set of “cases” in two states of India, Karnataka and Orissa. In Karnataka, her study focuses on privately run mini-hydroelectric schemes along the Tungabhadra River, in the relatively flat regions of Bellary and Koppal districts. In Orissa, she focuses on the micro-hydroelectric schemes implemented in the mountainous Kalahandi and Koraput districts. The Orissa schemes are facilitated by Gram Vikas and Integrated Rural Development of Weaker Sections in India (IRDWSI, also known as WIDA), both non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operating in these districts. Her method included semi-structured interview, group discussion, and field observation. The cases from both flat and mountainous regions provide a breadth of view suitable for comparative analysis. The Orissa schemes were community-owned. This provided yet another dimension for comparative analysis. Höffken adopted the snowball sampling method to collect data for her research. The success of this method depends on the initial contacts made and their connections within the social setting. Her selection of interviewees was also influenced by the people she knows in India and their understanding of hydroelectric schemes. While conducting the group discussions, Höffken observed that some persons were able to have their say in the meetings. They were the more educated ones in the group and they were more influential. There were also women members, but the discussions were mostly dominated by the influential men. During the interviews, Höffken took the help of a multilingual interpreter, although finding a reliable interpreter was difficult. In addition, she also recorded the discussions. While analysing these interviews she tried to understand the keywords used, various concepts used, and their meaning. Some of the keywords she uses in her research are ownership, demystification, conventional engagement, corruption, and mistrust. In one of the areas, there was resistance and the members of the gram panchayat (council for village-level governance) did not cooperate with the researcher. On the other hand, she could easily access information from several sources, especially from the government, perhaps because she was a white foreigner. Except in one gram panchayat, she did not face much difficulty in any of the interviews or group discussions. Interpretive research does not follow a rigid structure and it gives importance to the specific features of the context being studied. This calls for some flexibility on the part of the researcher. The researcher has to adapt to the situation and pay close attention to the contexts and cultures encountered. The seminar identified a number of issues to be considered in this kind of research: (a) role of expectations (people in a community may form expectations from a visiting researcher and that may bias their responses), (b) role of predetermined categories (the researcher’s conceptual categories may predispose her vis-a-vis the field experiences or interview responses), and (c) role of alternative explanations (micro-hydroelectric schemes could succeed or fail due to reasons other than forms of engagement). References Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home | ||
 |