Methodological Leeway and Obstacles in Qualitative Research: Reflections on Procedural and Practical Issues in Tanzania

Abstract

Despite being subject to criticism, qualitative research methodology remains a unique and valuable approach in collecting rich and informative data. However, this may vary from one context to another and researchers understanding of the context. Grounded on the decolonization notion of qualitative research, this paper explains leeways and obstacles in conducting research, reflecting upon the procedural and practical aspects that represent the reality in Tanzania based on two cases. Our paper emphasizes that it is essential to understand and capture the real-world reflective of the voices of the population whom the study targets, which may be easier for local/native researchers. This is because the local/native researchers may be able to explain the research processes and findings in consideration of the socio-cultural settings and political environment. The paper acknowledges that qualitative research requires patience and time, which may have financial implications. It also acknowledges that some populations are facing research fatigue exacerbated by inadequate research dissemination plans. Understanding the context of the study area or topic and applying appropriate methodological approaches to overcome obstacles and gather required adequate and relevant information is thus of importance.

Introduction

Within the field of social sciences, qualitative research is increasingly triggering the interest of numerous scholars and has gained significant prominence over the last few decades (Bozkurt & Öztürk, 2022). This progress has been influenced by the growing demand for evidence-based research grounded on neo-liberal policies and practices popularised in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Alasuutari, 2010; Dixon-Woods et al., 2006). Researchers are also increasingly engaging in qualitative research to undertake informative studies that produce exciting findings (Alasuutari, 2010; Creswell, 2014a, 2014b) when investigating different aspects of social sciences. Unlike quantitative studies that are mainly rooted in cause and effect, how much, and numeric correlations, qualitative studies ask open-ended questions whose answers are not easily quantified but mainly entail ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions. According to Khankeh et al. (2015), this is an attentive search for meanings and an attempt for profound comprehension of a phenomenon. This enables a more profound understanding of experiences, phenomena and context (Cleland, 2017), contributing to growing knowledge development in the social science field.

The prominence of qualitative research is embedded in utilizing various research methods (Forchuk & Roberts, 1993; Mullangi et al., 2020), which enable researchers to acquire rich information. These include focus group discussions, participants’ observations, in-depth interviews, grounded theory, biography, logic discourse analysis, case study, and ethnography (Cibangu, 2012; Creswell, 2002). Other methods include therapy counselling, comparative methods, introspection, literary criticism, casuistry, social constructivism, phenomenology and historical research meditation practices (Burns et al., 2022; Cibangu, 2012; Mohajan, 2018). Qualitative research methods may be used to explore and understand how people interpret, experience, and make sense of a particular social phenomenon or program and how and why it operates as it does in a specific context (Cibangu, 2012). This is because it allows the researcher to examine, analyse, and understand verbal, visual, and textual materials. However, this calls for an in-depth investigation that may involve a wide range of participants while employing different techniques (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Long & Godfrey, 2004).

Despite its usefulness, qualitative research design is often not linear (Tenny et al., 2017), and as a result, it is associated with various challenges. These include the difficulty in choosing or selecting the right topic and methodology and identifying the suitable study participants and populations (Kapoulas & Mitic, 2012; Khankeh et al., 2015; Rimando et al., 2015; Squires, 2009). To avoid gathering irrelevant information from inappropriate population samples, the researchers should take time to plan and organize the research process. In doing so, scholars have advised a direct and orderly methodological framework capable of evaluating or assessing a particular phenomenon (Austin & Sutton, 2014; Creswell, 2014a, 2014b). Also, qualitative research design requires dealing with empirically and theoretically generated data, multidisciplinary researchers’ experience, and precise interpretation and analysis (Kapoulas & Mitic, 2012; Malterud, 2001; Schonfeld & Mazzola, 2013). Khankeh et al. (2015) add that it does not offer the espoused meanings, such as facts and equations. Some qualitative researchers may not always possess such specifications and skills, which may limit the implementation of the research process and outcomes. Given the various attributes and, at the same time, challenges, there is a growing scholarship in the field of qualitative research.

More recently, literature that offers contradictory qualitative research findings has emerged, although not context-specific. For instance, numerous qualitative methodological studies have attempted to explain the planning process of research and the general principles (Bengtsson, 2016; Nic Giolla Easpaig et al., 2020; Rosenthal, 2016; Tomaszewski et al., 2020); recruitments in research (Bonisteel et al., 2021; Elliott et al., 2017; Jessiman, 2013; Kristensen & Ravn, 2015); and practical guidance focusing on research questions, design and ethics, sampling, data collection and analysis (Korstjens & Moser, 2017; Moser & Korstjens, 2017a, 2017b, 2018; Sutton & Austin, 2015). Previous studies have also discussed different issues, including a conceptual understanding (Aspers & Corte, 2019), the roles of researchers and the challenges of qualitative research methodologies (Kapoulas & Mitic, 2012; Khankeh et al., 2015; Rimando et al., 2015; Schonfeld & Mazzola, 2013). Although the literature reviewed, except Khankeh and colleagues, provides a comprehensive analysis of the technicalities of the qualitative methodologies based on a Eurocentric context. It offers generalisation, which reflects the dominance of global north scholarship. Literature on the African region tends to focus on the contribution of qualitative methodologies, especially in the public health discipline (Daniele et al., 2020), the critical implication and experiences of conducting qualitative research (Githaiga et al., 2023), the co-generation of knowledge (Martínez Pérez et al., 2015) and the ethical dilemma in qualitative multi-method research (Makhoul et al., 2023). Most of these authors, though focusing on Africa, are from the global north; therefore, they may not provide critical qualitative reflective methodologies based on the African dynamic context. As such, some scholars advocate for the decolonization of qualitative methodologies in Africa (Keikelame & Swartz, 2019; Rasweswe, 2023), noting that it is one way of empowering the local/native researchers and communities to tell and provide their stories based on realities and experiences. Hence, a paper on qualitative research to contribute to the limited African scholarship on the subject is critical.

This paper thus explains the leeway and obstacles in undertaking qualitative research, reflecting upon the procedural and practical features through the application of decolonizing qualitative research theoretical lenses. In doing so, the paper provides an opportunity for the local researcher(s) to explain methodological stories and realities during their own research studies. The explanation was based on the two cases in the field of social sciences conducted in Tanzania presented and explained in Section 3. The remaining part of this paper proceeds as follows: the second section (Section 2) provides a theoretical explanation that informs this paper. The third section (Section 3) explains the two cases in which this method case paper was developed. The fourth section (Section 4) discusses the data collection in the field– leeway and hiccups, while Section five (Section 5) expounds on procedures and practical issues. The sixth section (Section 6) elaborates on the laws and administrative hierarchy that guide qualitative research, and the final section (Section 7) provides a conclusion and reflections.

Decolonizing Qualitative Research –A Theoretical Enlightenment

To provide a theoretical analysis of decolonizing qualitative research, it is essential to understand what decolonization and qualitative research mean in this paper. Smith (2012, p. 21) sees decolonization as a “process which engages with imperialism and colonialism at multiple levels”. In the context of research, Smith remarks that “…one of those levels is concerned with having a more critical understanding of the underlying assumptions, motivations and values which inform research practices”. Such an understanding facilitates counter-interacting with the Eurocentric worldview, also known as others’ perspectives (Smith, 2012; Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021). Tapping into Smith’s notion, in this paper, decolonization of qualitative research refers to a situation where a local/native researcher undertakes a research activity and designs a methodological framework based on the lived experience, knowledge at hand and local legal environment, among others. Creswell (1994, pp. 1-2) defines qualitative research as “...an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem based on building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting”. Denzin and Lincoln (2005, p. 2) noted that, “Qualitative research is multi-method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter.” Borrowing Creswell’s, Denzin and Lincoln’s explanations, in this paper, qualitative research refers to a holistic investigation of phenomena, including the influencing factors, the context in which they arise, or the viewpoints from which participants can perceive them (see also Busetto et al., 2020). Therefore, decolonizing qualitative research requires that people, locals, or natives should be a centre point in the research.

Literature has revealed that in the late 20th century, scholars around the world started to provide critical analysis of the dominance of the Eurocentric worldview in research and advocating for adherence to the local/native methodological approaches (Held, 2019; Smith, 2012). This is substantiated by a recent 50-year bibliometric analysis of research that revealed major research inequalities in which European and North American scholars dominated research activities regarding author productivity, author collaboration networks and research findings agencies (Mabele et al., 2023). Nonetheless, there has been an increase in the voices of scholars in the global south claiming ownership of their research (Held, 2019). This implies that scholars capable of commanding and controlling research automatically will be the ones to determine and dominate the research agenda and, thus, will be drivers and shakers of the research discourse (STEPS-Center, 2024). If this eventually happens, scholars from the global south, specifically Africa, capable of commanding and controlling research, will have a voice in global scholarship, particularly on ‘Afro-oriented’ epistemology’.

It is an oppressive act not to acknowledge the contribution of local/native researchers in shaping context-inappropriate research methodologies. Thambinathan and Kinsella (2021) refer to this oppressive act as ‘inaccurate stereotypes’. Historically, Africa has been passing through different developmental phases, including colonialisation. Colonization has also not spared influencing academic discourses and practices. As such, empowered scholars who are not local/native have taken advantage of dominating the research landscape and ownership of knowledge (Collin et al., 2018; Kennedy et al., 2022; Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021). In this regard, scholarly works worldwide have not considered or paid adequate attention to the African scholars’ contribution to the research methodological aspects. It is against this status that locals/native African scholars are increasingly breaking barriers by not letting other scholars from other regions dictate and explain their research methodologies and environment (Mkandawire, 1997). To decolonise qualitative research, local/native scholars have advocated for their stories to be researched and explained to break the barriers of privilege through a paradigm shift (Kennedy et al., 2022). This is mainly because they feel that their knowledge is taken by scholars from the global North, and as a result, they lack a voice in the academic arena (Thambinathan & Kinsella, 2021). Another argument is that if foreign researchers explain local research stories, some aspects may be deliberately ignored, underrated, or not comprehended, leading to inaccurate representation in global scholarship. For Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2021), this situation is aggravated by the failure of epistemological and ontological studies to recognize that people across the human globe can make sense of and provide meaning to their existence in different ways. Due to the decolonization theoretical lens in research, it is essential to pay attention to local/native practices in qualitative methodologies.

Decolonizing methodological approaches in communities colonized or affected by colonial legacies is still yearned for. However, Thambinathan and Kinsella (2021) caution that while using decolonizing methodological approaches, local/native researchers ought to be critical, transparent and tolerant of divergent views to collect transformative information. Similarly, Kennedy et al. (2022) indicate that the locals’/natives’ methodologies should influence the conception, design, execution, analysis, and dissemination of research. Under such circumstances, the application of the locals’ research methodologies will be context-specific and determined by the socio-cultural position of the particular community and the researchers’ position. Suppose the local/native researcher determines the research. In that case, it is easy to explain how they struggle in the application of a particular methodological technique based on the reality in which socio-cultural and policy issues of the study settings are embedded.

The Qualitative Study Cases

Case I: Gas Exploration and Community Participation in South-Eastern Tanzania

As pointed out earlier, this paper is illuminated by two Tanzanian cases reflecting two different research pieces conducted in two different contexts. The thrust for the first case was to explore how local community members participate and benefit from the natural gas sector activities because Section 6.12 of the Tanzania national energy policy mandates local communities to participate in natural gas activities (URT, 2015). Mtwara and Lindi’s regions, located in the South-eastern part of Tanzania with two localities, namely Msimbati and Songosongo, respectively, were the study focus. The selection of these two localities was based on the fact that natural gas activities in the area raised expectations of economic and social benefits by the host community. However, as things evolved, local community expectations dwindled as the government plans and priorities changed. For instance, contrary to community expectations that the government would heavily invest in Mtwara in gas processing and distribution, the government opted to ferry the gas to Dar es Salaam for processing and supply to various consumers. This twist of affairs raised chaos, entailing local community protests against the government’s decision as a way to inquire how they would benefit from natural gas. As a result, people in these regions are seen as desperate due to accumulated grievances (Nuhu, 2023). Confirming the host communities’ grievances, scholars have noted that the region has been economically marginalized and isolated for many years (Kamat, 2017; Seppälä & Koda, 1998).

A combination of qualitative data collection methods was used to gather data in this case (Case I) from various sources at different levels. The methods included key informant interviews, focus group discussions and semi-structured in-depth interviews. These methods were supplemented by desk research reviewing the literature on community participation in natural gas activities and extractive industries in general. Participants were from responsible organizations and companies, civil society organizations and grassroots institutions, and residents in the natural gas sector. Key informants were selected based on their positions in their institutions and their role in local community participation in the natural gas sector. They were, therefore, considered to have the most relevant information. For instance, officials responsible for outreach, communications and public relations across natural gas activities and stakeholders were selected. At the community level, the study engaged the community leaders who were mandated to promote community involvement in development projects, including natural gas-related projects. The participants (including host community residents) were identified using a range of criteria, including but not limited to the duration of stay in their villages (10–20 years), residents whose livelihoods were affected by natural gas activities, and their willingness to participate in the research. The selection of these participants involved the guidance of local community leaders in the respective villages since they are expected to know their residents better.

In terms of data analysis, in Case I, content analysis was used. It involved a review of the individual key informant transcripts to identify themes and concepts relating to the research questions. The data analysis process from the study involved reading and re-reading the written transcripts and listening to the audio-recorded interviews and discussions. Through this process, relevant themes, concepts and keywords were identified. Analysis of the focus group discussion data entailed transcribing the issues and comments from the participants systematically. Participants’ contributions to the research question were noted for each focus group theme discussed.

Case II: Land Access Processes and Governance Mechanisms in Peri-Urban Tanzania

The second case focused on land access governance, particularly the dynamics and contentions of peri-urban Tanzania’s land access processes and governance mechanisms. Dar es Salaam is the largest city in Tanzania, and it is experiencing rapid population growth and land transformation. Moreover, by 2050, the city population is projected to exceed 10 million (Sturgis, 2015; Wolff et al., 2018). It is also noted that around three-quarters of the city residents still live in informal settlements (Oates et al., 2020). The city thus experiences significant land governance issues associated with delays in land regularization and allocation process, conflicts, corruption, and inadequate transparency and accountability (Nuhu, 2023). The study was done in two peri-urban Dar es Salaam sites, including Wazo and Goba wards. Agricultural and even hazardous lands are increasingly transformed into residential and commercial buildings in the wards. Therefore, different actors with divergent and conflicting land-related interests engage in land access and governance mechanisms in these wards. These actors include responsible government agencies, land service providers (e.g. private sector), communities (landholders, tenants, land seekers and sellers), development partners, and civil society organizations. Actors, especially land sellers and seekers, utilize different processes and institutions to attain land-related interests. For example, while some actors may use a formal process to access land, others use informal processes. Similarly, some actors use customary processes, while others use formal and informal processes concurrently. In addition, some actors may be interested in profit-making through land-related services, others through land transactions. While some actors implement land laws and regulations, others participate in land advocacy activities. Notably, these actors may have different powers and resources. Thus, such circumstances may contribute to endless dynamism and contentions because peri-urban areas are constantly experiencing daily transformations influenced by actors’ interests and needs.

The complexity of the issues around land access governance in Dar es Salaam necessitated the undertaking of an in-depth investigation of land access processes and governance mechanisms. To do so, qualitative research was deemed to be a relevant approach, and hence, it was employed, supplemented by quantitative data that was subsequently translated and analysed qualitatively as the study was more analytical than statistical. Facts were evaluated and analysed based on the respondent’s and participants’ responses. The case used the facts to develop an analytical tool as the study’s main contribution. It facilitated adequate exploration of the multiple and diverse actors’ perspectives towards land access processes and governance mechanisms. In generating facts, various techniques were used in the collection of data. These included face-to-face in-depth interviews, open-ended household questionnaires, focus group discussions and document analysis. Through these techniques, various participants were engaged in the case. These include landholders, land brokers, officials from civil society organizations, the private sector and the government. The participants were selected purposively. In the case of respondents, only those who owned land or were engaged in land regularization activities in the study area participated in an open-ended household questionnaire. Officials were purposefully selected from various organizations, including those responsible for land matters, policy issues, land rights advocacy, and land services providers. Other criteria that were considered in the selection of participants were officials’ responsibilities, position and experience. These participants were thought to have more information concerning land transactions, regularization activities, land access and land-use conflicts.

Data in Case II were analysed through content analysis, where the interpretation and comparison of stories and narrations were dissected based on the intensity of perspectives and opinions provided. The process started with the arrangement of data – because most of the data were mostly unstructured. The arrangement and re-arrangement of the data were done thematically. A comparison of the emerging data was made during the process, which resulted in merging themes and sub-themes to form major and clear themes. A combination of themes and sub-themes was done to simplify the interpretations and make the easy explanation of the data. The collected data was divided into brief segments with similar meanings to identify themes and sub-themes. After that, the process led to the formation of themes, which were coded to form large segments and given codes or labels. Notably, sub-theme relationships were identified in the process of data collection, coding and analysis. Validation of data was done through data analysis and, more specifically, at the last stage to avoid flawed data to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness of the collected data. The methodological approach explained in this case was therefore found suitable for this paper because it informs how the qualitative methodologies were used to capture divergent and conflicting interests from different actors. It informs how the researchers were able to get the reality and navigate the obstacle of data collection but still gather relevant and adequate information. Hence, the case provides an opportunity to understand suitable methodological procedures and protocols in the dynamic research processes that can contribute to decolonize research in the global south, specifically in Tanzania. By scrutinizing the research process that were undertaken in the two cases, this paper looks at leeway and hiccups in the data collection, government and organization procedures and legal and ethical issues in the subsequent sections.

Data Collection in the Field– Leeway and Hiccups

Data collection at the field level is one of the critical aspects while conducting qualitative studies. It is essential to capture first-hand information from the respondents through key informant interviews or group discussions. However, this process often encounters a range of obstacles attributed to the qualitative nature of the study that involves a significant amount of time for interviews and discussion. One of the obstacles observed is ‘interview fatigue’, which is essentially caused by repeated interactions between researchers and local communities. It is, therefore, quite common for a single village or a peri-urban area to be visited by tens or hundreds of qualitative researchers within a brief period, contributing to ‘research fatigue’. This interaction often becomes monotonous to the respondents without necessarily realizing any direct or indirect, tangible or intangible benefits. The situation is even challenging whenever researchers need to provide feedback to the community about their study results. For instance, in case I one respondent noted:

“…Two months ago, a researcher came to our village and asked questions similar to the ones you are asking, but we are still waiting to get feedback from him. Is this the same research or not? Will you provide feedback?”

The same concern was raised by one of the respondents in Case II, as captured in the following quote:

“…we are tired of the so-called ‘utafiti’ (research). Everyday ‘utafiti, utafiti’ in our area, but we do not see any changes in our community. What are the real benefits of this ‘utafiti’ if we do not see any development in our area? You collect data regularly from us, but we have not seen any change in our life….”

The preceding remarks from two respondents during fieldwork in both cases point to the same fatigue that local community members experience due to increasing research studies in their communities. This challenge emanates more in qualitative research because of its participatory and engaging nature with participants. As such, some participants may not be willing to engage in research or may participate as a routine. Clark (2008) argues that fatigue could also emanate from regular data collection without solving participants’ problems being researched or providing feedback at the end of the respective studies. As such, Smith (2013) cautions on the tendency of some researchers to take for granted information from communities as available for extraction, appropriation and distribution, a phenomenon commonly referred to as the 'colonizing of knowledge.’

As pointed out earlier, qualitative studies involve in-depth interviews and discussions as an appropriate data collection technique, especially when the researcher wants detailed information about a person’s thoughts and behaviours or wants to explore new issues deeply (Boyce & Neale, 2006). Thus, spending up to 60 minutes or more involving direct, one-on-one engagement with individual participants is a common practice. At times, this tends to take a long time for the participants to withstand. In the two case studies used as a basis for this paper, this reality was apparent at the local community levels, where participants had to attend to other chores to make ends meet. So, in-depth interviews and discussions were seen as time-consuming. Therefore, it was found suitable to compensate some respondents for their time by providing a financial benefit. Although this could be seen as a breach of research ethics in general on the argument that it compromises the quality of data as participants may be obliged to offer information to please the researcher (Largent & Fernandez Lynch, 2017), it has become a common practice in the research activities in Tanzania. Notably, the allowance is also paid to the local community leaders (especially the ten/fifty-cell leaders), who are constantly introducing the researcher to the participants. These leaders are vital in the research environment in Tanzania. Some participants may not accept to provide any information to the researchers if they have not been introduced by the local community leaders. Notably, in some instances, participants ask for payments to be interviewed or to engage in the study as compensation for their time, while in other scenarios, the practice is spearheaded by the researchers.

Sometimes it often, becomes challenging to get hold of the targeted participants. For instance, during fieldwork for Case I, the researcher had to make several attempts to meet the targeted respondents/participants. This was because most of them were engaged in farming and fishing activities and so were sometimes unavailable at their homes. This situation necessitated an extension of the researcher’s time in the field to get hold of the participants.

Government and Organizational Procedures

Research Permits

Customarily, in many countries, the issuance of permits to researchers is a procedural (legal) issue. Permission to conduct research must be sought from responsible authorities at different levels and the participants in the study as well. Regarding participants, procedures are crucial in earning consent and trust to ensure research success (Zong & Matias, 2022). Research participants vary from one country to another, but the basics and the need for permits remain the same. In Tanzania, a researcher must request a research permit before undertaking any research activity. The Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) is a government agency mandated to issue research permits through the National Research Registration Committee, which meets at an interval of two months to review and endorse research permits. Generally, securing a research permit entails a definite set of processes and steps, including applying for a permit physically or online. This is followed by paying the commission’s research clearance permit fee (COSTECH, 2022). Given the interval at which the national research registration committee meets, research permit applicants should apply two months before the commencement date of the research (COSTECH, 2022).

While any Tanzanian intending to undertake research must apply for a research permit, not all researchers from higher learning institutions, affiliated research institutions, or government ministries must undergo the COSTECH process (URT, 2015; Wolking, 2021). In the case of university researchers, the hosting universities are required to issue letters to introduce the researcher to various institutions involved in the students’ research. The letter briefly describes the student’s study and its main objectives and introduces the student to the relevant administration regarding the particular study. For instance, if research involves field activities at the regional, district and village levels, the university must introduce the student to the regional authorities. Subsequently, the regional authority issues a letter to introduce the student to the lower administration levels, notably district authorities, directing them to support the student in successfully undertaking the fieldwork. In turn, the district and or municipal authorities introduce the student to the low-level administration units (wards, mtaa, village, hamlets and ten or fifty cell leaders). For visualization of the process, see Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Procedures and steps for getting a research permit for a local researcher in Tanzania.

While the process may often be smooth, and the researcher may spend less time obtaining clearance at every level, bureaucracy sometimes delays the process. It is common for the qualitative research that usually engages various stakeholders and respondents at different levels who may sometimes have different interests and needs towards the researched topic. Sometimes responsible officials may be dedicated to other duties and not available for endorsing research activities, yet if the topic under investigation is sensitive, delegation may not be granted. In other cases, in addition to submitting a detailed explanatory letter requiring permission to conduct research, the official in-charge may still request physical presence to probe the researchers for more information regarding the study. It also involves back-and-forth engagements and consultations when the issue(s) under investigation is relatively sensitive and requires in-depth investigations and narrations. For instance, as presented in Case I, natural gas and land resources are typically among the sensitive sectors attracting a whole range of interests in Tanzania. The case was, therefore, subjected to the aforementioned scrutiny before permission was granted to collect data.

Besides the research permit process protocols being bureaucratic, it has been observed also that the low cadre staff such as receptionists or registry office in the organizations may not forward the request to the responsible authorities until you offer them a token to follow up on the request. Also, when the request has been submitted, and the research permit has been written, sometimes it may not be delivered to the researcher in time until some token is offered. While it is common in Tanzania to offer a token of appreciation or motivation to officials, to non-local/native researchers, it may have considered as a bribe. Sometimes, it may also happen that the researcher wants a permit within a short period of time; after handing in a request at the reception/registry office, the researcher is informed to come a week after to get the permit. Most often, the researcher may be coming from far or even where the researcher intends to conduct the study is far from permit offices. Therefore, this may have time and financial implications.

Some researchers, after encountering obstacles, take the initiative to deal with a final official for the fastening of the permit process. In such an event, the official may authorise the writing of the permit. However, the persons in charge of writing the letter may also take their time creating an environment to delay the process intentionally. This incident was evidenced by the researcher in Case II, where the initiative to get the research permit took 7 hours in one office. Notably, research permits within the same department or unit may also be handled by different people with different positions. For instance, within the regional administration, it starts from the registry, then to the regional administration commissioner and then to administrative staff and back to the reception. While the research permit process is a requirement for both quantitative and qualitative studies, the latter is more cumbersome because the research collects data from different stakeholders necessitating various permits.

Signing Agreements

In the course of undertaking research studies in Tanzania, there are instances where researchers are compelled to sign a particular organization’s agreement before conducting interviews or accessing any data. While this may be a relevant procedure to adhere to and observe organisational procedures, it sometimes becomes cumbersome and delays the research process. This may happen especially when the researcher is interested in making a deep exploration through interviews and other relevant qualitative techniques for sensitive topics, such as the cases highlighted in section 3. For example, under Case I, the researcher was compelled to stall field activities and fulfil the requirement to sign what was referred to as a ‘confidential agreement’. This was a legally binding agreement in which the researcher had to promise to treat specific information highly classified as private and not disclose it without proper authorization from the agreement issuing organization. It was a tripartite kind of agreement prepared for signing by the researcher (student), the host university and the organization mandated to oversee oil and gas resources across the country. The process was protracted, and it took about one month to get the agreement signed by the parties. It was mainly delayed at the organization for what was stated to be unavailability of an official responsible for signing and sanctioning such an agreement. As soon as the parties signed the agreement, the researcher was allowed to continue with the research, including interviewing relevant officials at the organization and officials from a subsidiary company. The signing of the agreement also provided a green light for the researcher to visit the organizations’ and companies field sites in Mtwara and Lindi regions where the fieldwork was conducted. The researcher was also permitted to conduct interviews with the relevant field officials. The nature of the study being qualitative involving acquisition of data from organizations and in-depth interviews with a wide range of participants at different levels necessitated intense scrutiny. Contrarily, such intense scrutiny and signing of a confidential agreement did not involve the Case II study. While the reasons for this differentiation could not be established, possibly it could be attributed to the fact the natural gas sector has experienced more clashes from the community whose impact were still flesh in the peoples’ minds at the time of the study (see Mwanyoka et al., 2021; Nuhu, 2023).

Participant Engagement in Research and Their Flexibility

Participants availability, engagement and commitment is a fundamental segment in qualitative research. Although it is ethically acceptable for participants to refuse to participate in a research study for various reasons, in the cases stipulated in Section 3, some potential participants from relevant organizations or companies were just adamant to participate because they did not feel like doing so. Yet, the researchers hoped to collect some vital information from such specific participants. This was one of the obstacles the researchers faced. One of the suspected reasons for participants being adamant to participate was the fear that the interview would take long and consume their valuable time. This challenge stemming from qualitative research is noted since conducting in-depth interviews and focus group discussion may not be completed within a shortest possible time. More so because qualitative research interviews not only take a longer time but also require keenness and probing by the researcher to ensure adequate and relevant information is captured from the participants to establish a reality or real-world problem (Nic Giolla Easpaig et al., 2020; Tomaszewski et al., 2020). This is unlike quantitative research, whose data collection tools are commonly structured, and respective research questions are closed-ended and therefore require one-off direct answers.

The research period sometimes may take long because of the need to collect appropriate and relevant data from reliable officials. For instance, in Case II one participant was visited more than three times at different times, days and weeks, as well some months. It was not easy to avoid interviewing that participant because most researched issues were concerning the decisions made by the participant due to the participant’s position and responsibility in the land sector. Most of the reasons provided was that the participant was not able to spend 1-2 hrs discussing with the researcher because of the busy schedule. It took one and half months to find an appropriate time. Even during that time, the participant was up and down. The researcher was engaged in the interview while the participant continued working on other issues in the office. Such situation does not create a good environment for a researcher to make a clear probing for more clarification. In this particular case, the researcher opted to interview also the assistant to the potential participant which also took long time to get him. Information required from this office was important to cross examine the information obtained from the main participant that had been given first priority.

Reluctance to participate in the study by potential participants sometimes emanates from mistrust and suspicion that they are being investigated by the state behind the auspices of a research, no matter the explanation. Some participants, especially in both cases thought that the studies were about implementation of government guidelines and so the study would report findings of either poor performance, tax evasion or level of spirit of patriotism and diligence to state vision. In the circumstances surrounding Case II, the research coincided with the government mission of ensuring both public and private officials followed the land-related guidelines and laws and the perquisites of providing public services.

Unlike the reasons stated for reluctance to participate in the study despite the explanation from the researchers in the two cases, Syanzila et al. (2013), emphasise that this is mostly caused by failure for participants to understand the benefits of the study for their community or nation. This is disputable for the two cases. Nonetheless, respondents being suspicious of the qualitative research studies is common as substantiated by a study by Fry (2014) in 20 African countries that revealed that a reasonable number of research participants perceived that researchers were sent by intelligence or secret service agencies to gather information and this made them adamant to participate in the study. Suspecting researchers as government intelligence agencies gathering information at the community level was experienced in case II as some of the respondents were completely reluctant to participate. This could be linked with the protest community members in Mtwara had been engaged in against the piping of the natural gas to Dar es Salaam and the eventual government intervention. Thus, some of the potential respondents suspected the researchers as government agents gathering more information from the communities. The situation encountered in the two cases as narrated in this section may not easily be understood by a researcher who is alien to the local settings, events and dynamics.

Participants in the field (especially the residents or community members) are selected with the researcher, and sometimes with the assistance from the local community leaders. The assistance from the local community leader is sometimes requested because they know almost all community members, therefore, they have information about them. This is done to avoid recruiting participants who may provide irrelevant information. Normally, prior characteristics are established by the researcher and can guide the selection process of the participants. The researcher should be cautious because local leaders may influence the selection process regardless of the given criteria. However local/native researchers may easily detect the discrepancies in the process. In Case II, for instance, among the criteria provided was that participants had to be landholders. Therefore, the help of the local community leader was necessary because, in Tanzania, the government does not keep updated datasets or census records of landholders. To ensure that the participants mobilised were genuine, the researchers probed about holding documents and sometimes asked neighbours for authentication. Knowing landholder was also difficult because land transactions (selling and buying land) are daily activities, and most people buy land informally as such there are no official records for public reference. Leaders, especially at the ward, sub-ward, and ten/fifty-cell levels, are involved in the land transaction in their areas, and so consulting local leaders in Case II was relevant.

Legal and Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research

Access to information is a right endowed upon global citizens through Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Svärd, 2018). Besides access to information being a right, it is commonly agreed that legal and ethical issues are an essential component of modern research related to the subject and researchers (Yip et al., 2016). However, at times, these issues may become obstacles and affect research activities in many ways. This can be challenging despite a global commitment to using and sharing public data (Van Panhuis et al., 2014). Notably, despite the global declaration noted above, countries have different legal and ethical procedures, which impact research activities and processes differently.

Over the last few years, the statistics law in Tanzania has been noted as an obstacle to research activities. In 2018, the 2015 Statistics Act, along with the 2015 Cybercrimes Act, was reviewed by parliament. This review entailed inclusion in the law’s stringent provisions that made it difficult and a crime for statistics stakeholders, including researchers, to collect, analyse, and disseminate information without government consent (Fjeldstad et al., 2019). This remarkable revision of the law not only restricted access to information by researchers but also prompted fears among officials from various organizations and authorities entrusted to issue the data. Following a public and international outcry about the repercussions of this revision, the Act was amended in 2019. This amendment removed the criminal aspect, but the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) was still mandated to give final approval for using any statistics (The-Citizen, 2018). So often, accessing information took a long time, especially data prone to drawing public attention, such as land-use disputes, mismanagement of natural gas projects, and their associated benefits, which provided the basis for this paper.

Moreover, in the research processes, the officials, especially in public organizations, hesitated to provide any related information on suspicion that they might be quoted using the established acts. In one way or another, this situation affected the Case I and II studies since there were instances where even accessing ‘insensitive’ data from relevant organizations became extremely difficult. Notably, this could be applicable to both qualitative and quantitative research, but the outcomes and implications may be different. More so, for pragmatic studies, in addition to numbers/statistics, views and opinions to explain the status quo may still be essential. As such, the qualitative approach may call for interviews with relevant officials in addition to the collected information.

Conclusion and Reflections

This method-case-based paper sought to provide methodological leeways and obstacles in two qualitative research cases conducted in Tanzania. The paper brings to the limelight a variety of leeways and obstacles that emanated from undertaking the cases and how these were capitalised upon or navigated through. It underscores the importance of local/native researchers in explaining the reality of research processes in their context. This requires an understanding of not only the social, cultural, and sometimes political escapades surrounding the topic under investigation but also the population from which information is sought. Such understanding enables the researcher to understand the complexities and dynamics that come with conducting research, right from soliciting permits to the actual collection of data in the field. In this case, qualitative researchers should equip themselves with flexible techniques to carry out research (see also Forchuk & Roberts, 1993). Researchers should also have the ability to understand what other people perceive and desire by critically reflecting on their behaviour, actions, and views (Gardner & Qualter, 2010; Mayer, 1989). In this way, the researchers are able to manage various people in the course of acquiring research permits while also collecting data. This paper calls upon local/native researchers to increasingly tell their stories regarding procedural and practical lessons in qualitative research, contributing to the global scholarship on methodological approaches. By doing so, generalisation may be minimised. It is also important for researchers to provide feedback about the research results and recommendations, enabling participants and other stakeholders to comment candidly on the research results. This two-way research approach is essential in making respondents own the research and may help redress the research fatigue’ problem that is increasingly becoming a concern in communities.