Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
A pragmatic approach
An epistemology is a theory of knowledge (Hansen, 2010); the context of this study is very much entrenched in the view of the researcher. The findings relate to the researcher’s experiences when gathering the data, and the data is described. A framework is proposed as a way of explaining what was discovered, and to offer a way of explaining other related ICT4D projects. It is therefore not in essence a measure of truth, but rather a description of events witnessed and experienced. The emphasis is on practice, where low-level generalisations are formulated to describe certain relationships (Cartwright, 1983). An ontological approach was followed in determining what it is that should be studied, and what exists (Turk, 2006). In this case, the ontology is formulated by illustrating the relationship between sustainability, impact assessment and the D4D framework to formulate the proposed framework and to substantiate it with the evidence collected.
The research philosophy
To make a clear distinction between positivism and interpretivism, one has to distinguish between the questions asked, and the conclusions drawn from the questions (Lin, 1998). An interpretive philosophy has been used throughout the study. An interpretive study is more “subjective” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979), and is not aimed at generating facts or proving hypotheses, but at studying people in their normal, social settings (Oates, 2005) with multiple realities. The researcher is also seen as interacting often with the people and environment (Angen, 2000). The interpretive philosophy of this study relied on case studies and interview data, but the distributed questionnaires had a dual purpose: to gather data on how the key beneficiaries of the traceability systems leading to change in communal societies, and also to distinguish between how the primary users, the animal technicians and veterinary assistants’ answers differ in terms of their age, number of years of experience and regions of operation ‒ a quantitative analysis, but still falling under the interpretive philosophy. The quantitative analysis serves only to describe the experiences of the different primary users and their frame of reference.
Critical realism closely examines structures in order to constrain or dominate our activities (Houston, 2001). It requires “an explicit overall theory of truth”, as stated by Bhaskar (2010), and needs to be fair to all parties and authentic, while empowering people to overcome sources of power and alienation (Oates, 2005). Critical realism is not applicable to the study, as it does not leave the audience with a single overall truth, but rather a subjective account of what has been seen, heard and experienced by the researcher.
The research approach
A deductive research approach can be explained by throwing two dice and calculating the probabilities of certain numbers being thrown at a specific time, thereby determining the frequencies (Johnson, 1932), whereas the inductive research approach looks at the consequences of gambling with dice and how it can affect society. The inductive approach further looks at the application of technologies and what we perceive to be true in terms of change or other social consequences (Barbieri et al., 2010). Deductive research explains rules, and inductive research generalises rules (Gollin, 1998). In order to derive a model or framework to explain the impact of traceability systems on communal farmers, as is the overall aim of the study, one has to generalise, and in future, apply and test the model or framework. An inductive research approach is used as a means of creating a more generic framework, rather than determining frequencies.
Conceptualising a new framework
When one builds a new conceptual framework, one has to ensure that the entire framework is at the heart of solving the problem of interest (Salerno, Hinman, & Boulware, 2004). The impact on the communal farmer remains a central theme, and the framework in part addresses the impact with implementing the “communications-for-development” impact assessment framework, as proposed by Heeks and Molla (2009). Other impact assessment frameworks are discussed in the following chapter, for example the livelihoods framework. The livelihoods framework looks at different forms of capital, such as social, human and financial capital, but because individual rural farmers, the beneficiaries of the system, could not be interviewed or a survey conducted to obtain individuals’ data, it was not deemed as the best fit in this study, but to rather focus on another framework that does not need individual feedback to derive deductions regarding the different forms of capital. Another impact assessment framework that was considered, but later dismissed, was the cultural-institutional framework. The micro-level drill-down of the cultural aspects are important, but one has to overcome the one weakness of this framework, as stated by Heeks and Molla (2009):
“There are specific models and methods for investigating static, national-level, cause-oriented perspectives on culture, but little specific guidance to date in ICT4D research on the recommended dynamic, micro-level, impact-oriented perspective on institutions.”
The two countries and their cultures differ, with a dynamic relationship and one cannot generalise the cultural aspects in a framework, especially a framework with multiple layers. Sustainability is another central part of the framework. Giovannucci & Ponte (2005) explain in an article relating to the sustainability of the coffee industry: “The concept of sustainability in agriculture usually refers to aspects variously referred to as economic viability for farmers, environmental conservation and social responsibility. Both existing and emerging standards seek to meet some or all of these needs. These are process standards that rather than just measuring the characteristics of a final product – typically assess the interconnected processes of production, agro-processing, and trade. In so doing, they attempt to cover the whole value chain from farmer to consumer.”
The three pillars of sustainability: economic, environmental and social responsibility (Kahn, 1995) are addressed in the design of the sustainability component of the framework.
The four policy objectives of the agriculture-for-development agenda as created by Burch et al. (2007) form the third part of the conceptual framework, also discussed further in Chapter 6, where the macroeconomic fundamentals, governance and the socio-political context of both countries are explained as the first part of the framework. The five impacts, namely improved food sustainability, improved food safety, increased income, improved self-esteem and earning a market-related income are based on the four policy objectives and aligned to the hierarchy of Maslow’s basic motivations (Maslow, 1943).
1. Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Purpose and aim of the thesis
1.3. Problem statement
1.4. Main research question
1.5. Secondary research questions
1.6. Assumptions and limitations
1.7. Brief chapter overview
1.8. Research methods
1.9. Significance of this study
1.10. Conclusion
2. Chapter 2: Food safety, traceability of food products and current legislation
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Development Goals
2.3. Modern-day pressures on the agricultural sector
2.4. Food security
2.5. Food safety
2.6. Defining traceability
2.7. Defining livestock traceability
2.8. Traceability legislation
2.9. Certification
2.10. Livestock traceability worldwide
2.11. Conclusion
3. Chapter 3: The requirements of livestock traceability systems to export meat products
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Requirements of a livestock traceability system
3.3. Entry to new export markets
3.4. Aligning livestock production with the Millennium Development Goals
3.5. Conclusion
4. Chapter 4: A discussion on sustainable ICT4D projects and its implications for a successful initiative
4.1. Sustainability and sustainable development
4.2. Critical success factors for sustainable development
4.3. Examples of sustainable projects by focusing on ICT successes
4.4. Sustainable livelihoods
4.5. Conclusion
5. Chapter 5: The research methodology and design
5.1. Introduction
5.2. A pragmatic approach
5.3. The research philosophy
5.4. The research approach
5.5. Conceptualising a new framework
5.6. The research strategy: In-depth case studies
5.7. Data collection methods
5.8. Ethical considerations
5.9. Conclusion
6. Chapter 6: A discussion of frameworks proposed in creating an impact-for-sustainable-agriculture framework
6.1. Introduction
6.2. The three pillars of sustainability as a building block for the new conceptual framework
6.3. The communications-for-development model as an impact assessment framework
6.4. The objectives of the agriculture-for-development framework
6.5. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
6.6. Towards an impact-for-sustainable-agriculture framework
6.7. The ICT4D value chain: touch-points with proposed framework
6.8. Conclusion
7. Chapter 7: Discussion of evidence collected from Swaziland and its traceability system
7.1. Introduction
7.2. Background on Swaziland
7.3. Introducing the new technology leading to change and the findings from the data gathered as a result of the change
7.4. The impact on communal farmer in order to ensure sustainability
7.5. Application of the impact-for-sustainable-agriculture framework to SLITS
7.6. Conclusion
8. Chapter 8: Discussion of evidence collected from Namibia, focusing on the Northern Communal Areas and its traceability system
8.1. Introduction
8.2. Background of Namibia
8.3. Introducing the new technology leading to change and the findings from the data gathered as a result of the change
8.4. The impact on the communal farmer in order to ensure sustainability
8.5. Application of the impact-for-sustainable-agriculture framework to NamLITS
8.6. Conclusion
9. Chapter 9: Conclusion
9.1. Introduction
9.2. Comparison between Swaziland’s SLITS and Namibia’s NamLITS
9.3. Revisiting the problem statement
9.4 Main research question
9.5. Summary of contributions
9.6. Future research
9.7. Conclusion
10. Bibliography
