Methods and design of empiric data

In my qualitative study of human geography, the self-constructed data encompasses semi-structured thematic interviews. The interviewees were eleven experts implementing the Rural Development Programme for the Mainland Finland (RDPMF) 2007-13 from regional (8 informants) and national (3 informants) organisations. My objective was to formulate a factual interpretation about the regional sensitivity of the EU‟s rural policy (Rural Development Programme) with regard to the rural administration on the national and regional Government institutions and rural interest groups in North Karelia. In addition to the administrative opinion, I interviewed North Karelian rural developers working in the regional organisations for local players (See the informants 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 below).

By rural developers, I refer hence to different rural interest groups (e.g. associations and agricultural/rural lobbing organisations) operating in the province of North Karelia. The regional interviewees were selected as participants of the co-operative body („steering group‟) organised

6

by the ELY-Centre of North Karelia in conjunction with the delivery of Rural Development Programme of the North Karelia 2007-13 (See Appendix 3, the composition of the steering group). The national informants, authorities in the implementation of the Rural Development Programme in Finland, were chosen by the snowball method. The interviewees represented administrative institutions and rural interest groups from different territorial scales as follows:

NATIONAL:

8. The Rural Network of Finland (Maaseutuverkosto) 7. Agency for Rural Affairs (Maaseutuvirasto, Mavi)

9. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, MAF (Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö)

REGIONAL:

1/11. North Karelian Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, ELY-Centre (Pohjois-Karjalan ELY-Keskus)

2. Regional Council of North Karelia (Pohjois-Karjalan maakuntaliitto) 3. Union of Rural Education and Culture of North Karelia (Maaseudun

sivistysliitto, MSL)

4. The Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajien Keskusliitto, MTK)

5. The ProAgria Rural Advisory Centre of North Karelia (ProAgria Pohjois- Karjala)

6. Leader-association of the Joensuu region (Joensuun Seudun Leader) 10. Karelian Institute, rural researcher, (Karjalan tutkimuslaitos, Itä-Suomen

yliopisto)

Methodologically and in reference to my aims of formulating factual interpretations of the EU‟s rural policymaking in the Finnish context, I mirror this inquiry critically in the light of realism.

More precisely via technique of expert interviewing, firstly the objective was to construct a

„factual‟ description of the EU‟s rural policymaking in Finland. Secondly, the aim is to compare the informants‟ knowledge on rural policymaking with the information in relation to the EU‟s

7

normative frameworks (Alastalo & Åkerman 2010:337). In this respect, Alastalo & Åkerman (2010:390) have articulated that the „factual knowledge‟ in the expert interviews is co-produced together with the researcher and the interviewees in a constant process of making research andf learning more about the specific phenomenon. The factual findings that the researcher evidences are hence interpretations produced in a particular situation of interaction in conjunction with the informants (Alastalo & Åkerman 2010:381).

In to the sampling of the interviewees, I intended to recruit participants representing a variety of positions in relations to the research topic that is expected to throw light on meaningful differences of experience (Kingl & Horrocks 2010:29). Flexibility and dynamism are important criteria throughout my research. Therefore I acknowledge “that the interviewer must be able to respond to issues that emerge in the course of the interview in order to explore the perspective of the participant on the topics under investigation” (Kingl & Horrocks 2010:35). My „interview guide‟ outlined the main topics to be covered. Moreover, it was flexible regarding phrasing and order of questions and allowed the participant to lead the interaction in unanticipated direction (Dunn 2005:81-88).

In my empirical analysis, I also kept in mind that collecting and interpreting qualitative information relies upon a dialogue between you and your informants. Therefore, it reminds us how “in these dialogues your personal characteristics and social position – elements of your subjectivity – cannot be fully controlled or changed because such dialogues do not occur in a social vacuum” (Dowling 2005:25).

The ways the researcher is perceived by her/his informants, the ways the researcher perceive them, and the ways you interact are the least partially determined by societal norms (Dowling 2005:25). Social data sources are inherently subject to multiple interpretations and understandings that are far-fetched or extreme; in general, humanistic geographers will be interested in capturing diverse understandings (Cope 2005:232). In this respect my academic interest in rural development, via rural studies for instance, has certainly had an impact on my conceptions and interpretations of rural policy making on Finnish and European Union scales.

8

For my interviews, I utilised audio recording that allows a natural conversational interview style because the interviewer is not preoccupied with note-taking (Dunn 2005:96). For the further qualitative interview analysis, the interview transcripts were written as complete reproductions of the formal interviews which took place between the researcher and informant (Dunn 2005:96).

Yet in terms of expert interviews, I paid more attention to the contents of the produced conversations than to the linguistic particularities in terms of how the language is produced in a particular moment (Alastalo & Åkerman 2010).

Alastalo & Åkerman (2010:377-378) utilises the term of „factual analysis‟ when referring to the method of making sense of the expert interviews. This requires, for instance, that the research data is „cross-read‟ meaning that the interview findings are compared or reflected in parallel with the other documentary sources utilised in the research. Factual analysis of expert interviewing presumes, therefore, that the researcher is beforehand well acquainted with the researched topic (Alastalo & Åkerman 2010:379).

In order to analyse, evaluate, organize and especially „make sense‟ of the interview data, I utilised „thematic coding‟. By thematic coding, I refer to the categorisation of my interview data in order to organize the diversity of interview opinions around the main issues of my research, finally creating a debating matrix of opinions. In other words, as Cope (2005:223) underlines

“the purposes of thematic coding are partly data reduction (to help the researcher get a handle on large amounts of data by distilling along key themes), partly organization (to act as a finding aid for researchers through data), and partly a substantive process of data exploration, and theory-building”.

Therefore, being a human geographer requires categorising, sifting and sorting, prioritizing, and interpreting social data in all of our interactions. Thematic coding of qualitative data is hence a formalisation of this process in order to apply it to research and to provide some structure as a way of conveying our interpretations to others (Cope 2005:232). Therefore, also in my work as well, the rigour of interview-based research was to seek out diversity of expert opinion (Dunn 2005:100).

9