Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter details the research design and methods employed to investigate ecological
sensemaking and adaptation within the Santal community of Bangladesh’s Barind Tract. The
study is grounded in a mixed-methods case study approach, designed to provide an in-depth,
contextual understanding of how a marginalized indigenous community perceives, interprets, and
responds to environmental change. The case study design is particularly appropriate for
examining the “how” and “why” of sensemaking processes within a real-world, contemporary
setting where the researcher has little control over events (Yin, 2014). By integrating quantitative
and qualitative data, this research aims to achieve triangulation, leveraging the complementary
strengths of each method: surveys offer measurable indicators of socio-economic conditions and
behaviors, while interviews and observations provide rich, narrative insights into cultural
interpretations and lived experiences (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Palinkas et al., 2015).
The research was conducted in a Santal-majority village in the Tanor region of Rajshahi district,
within the drought-prone Barind Tract. This site was selected purposively for its
representativeness of the ecological stresses and socio-economic marginalization typical of
indigenous communities in northwestern Bangladesh. A total of 25 households participated,
representing nearly the entire village community present during the fieldwork period (July–
August 2024). Purposive sampling was used to ensure the inclusion of diverse household types,
considering factors such as family size, age of the household head, landholding status, and
primary occupation. Within each household, the primary respondent was typically the household
head or a senior member responsible for family livelihood decisions, resulting in a sample of 18
male and 7 female participants. Community leaders, including the Manjhi (village chief) and
Paranik (assistant), were also consulted to provide contextual grounding and to facilitate
community consent, adhering to ethical protocols for research with Indigenous communities.
Data collection was carried out through three interrelated methods: a structured household
survey, in-depth semi-structured interviews, and participant observation. The household survey,
administered face-to-face in Santali with translation support, gathered quantitative data across
four domains: (a) demographics and education, (b) livelihoods and assets, (c) resource access
(water, sanitation, energy), and (d) food security, including a detailed dietary frequency module
that recorded consumption patterns for both domestic and wild foods. This module served as a
key indicator of ecological adaptation and stress-induced coping. The survey also included open-
ended questions designed to elicit perceptions of environmental change and coping narratives,
which were analyzed qualitatively. Complementing the survey, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with approximately a dozen individuals, including farmers, women, elders, and local
healers. These interviews, each lasting 30–45 minutes, explored themes such as observations of
climate variability, traditional ecological knowledge, adaptive strategies, and cultural beliefs
about nature. To deepen contextual understanding, the researcher engaged in participant
observation over one week, joining daily activities such as farming, foraging, water collection,
and community gatherings. This immersive approach helped build rapport, observe non-verbal
and practical dimensions of sensemaking, and ground the interview data in everyday realities.
Data analysis followed a concurrent triangulation design, where quantitative and qualitative data
were analyzed separately and then integrated during interpretation. Survey data were analyzed
using descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages) to summarize socio-economic patterns,
livelihood structures, and consumption trends. Given the small sample size, no inferential
statistical tests were performed; the aim was to depict local trends rather than generalize
statistically. Qualitative data from interviews and field notes were analyzed using thematic
content analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This involved repeated reading of transcripts, inductive
coding of meaningful segments, and grouping codes into overarching themes related to
sensemaking, adaptation, marginalization, and ecological knowledge. These qualitative insights
were used to contextualize and explain the quantitative findings, with direct participant quotes
integrated to foreground Santal voices and perspectives.
Ethical rigor and reflexivity were central to the research process. Informed consent was obtained
verbally from all participants in their local language, with clear explanations of the study’s
purpose, voluntary participation, and confidentiality. Pseudonyms were used for the village
(“Bhabanipur”) and respondents to protect identities. Acknowledging the researcher’s position as
an external, non-Santal academic, the study was guided by a reflexive practice informed by
subaltern studies, consciously striving to center community interpretations and avoid imposing
external frameworks. A local bilingual mediator assisted in bridging linguistic and cultural gaps,
and findings were shared with the community to ensure transparency and reciprocity.
Several limitations are acknowledged. The small sample size and single-site focus limit the
statistical generalizability of findings, though they provide depth and contextual validity. Self-
reported data may be subject to recall or social desirability bias, despite efforts to cross-verify
responses through observation and secondary sources. The cross-sectional design captures a
snapshot in time and may not fully reflect seasonal variations in coping strategies. While the
mixed-methods approach strengthens credibility, the researcher’s outsider status introduces
potential interpretive bias, mitigated through reflexivity, triangulation, and community
engagement. Finally, the study did not systematically include external stakeholders (e.g., local
government officials), which could have offered a comparative perspective on subaltern versus
institutional narratives—an area for future research.
Despite these constraints, the methodology’s integration of survey data, narrative interviews, and
immersive observation provides a robust, multi-layered understanding of how ecological
sensemaking unfolds within a marginalized community. This approach aligns with the study’s
theoretical commitment to bridging micro-level sensemaking processes with macro-level
structures of subalternity, offering a coherent foundation for examining the interplay between
environmental perception, cultural knowledge, and adaptive action in the context of climate
stress.
can you make it more riched and informative from the papers?
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Research Philosophy and Design
This study is grounded in a pragmatic research philosophy that prioritizes methodological
pluralism, aligning with the complex, context-dependent nature of investigating subaltern
ecological sensemaking. Recognizing that marginalized communities’ knowledge systems are
often expressed through both material practices and narrative traditions, this research adopted a
convergent parallel mixed-methods case study design. The case study approach is particularly
suited to examining contemporary phenomena within their real-life contexts, especially when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly defined (Yin, 2014). In this
investigation, the “case” constitutes the Santal community of Bhabanipur village as a bounded
socio-ecological unit navigating climate vulnerability through culturally embedded sensemaking
processes.
The mixed-methods strategy was implemented through concurrent but independent collection
and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, with integration occurring during interpretation.
This approach follows Creswell and Plano Clark’s (2018) framework, enabling complementarity
—where qualitative insights explain quantitative patterns—and triangulation—where multiple
data sources validate findings. Such methodological integration responds to Whiteman and
Cooper’s (2011) call for research that bridges material ecological realities with subjective
meaning-making, while adhering to subaltern studies’ emphasis on capturing marginalized
voices through respectful, contextual inquiry.
3.2 Study Site and Contextual Rationale
The research was conducted in Bhabanipur (pseudonym), a Santal-majority village in Tanor
upazila, Rajshahi district, situated within Bangladesh’s Barind Tract. This region represents a
critical “hotspot” for climate vulnerability, characterized by semi-arid conditions, recurrent
droughts, declining groundwater tables, and increasing temperature anomalies (Shahid, 2010;
Ahmed et al., 2019). The Barind’s distinct agro-ecology, coupled with historical patterns of
indigenous marginalization, creates a potent context for examining how subaltern communities
interpret and adapt to environmental stress.
The village was selected through purposive criterion sampling based on the following
considerations: (1) predominant Santal population with maintained cultural practices; (2)
location within the drought-prone Barind core; (3) limited infrastructure and service access
indicative of structural marginalization; and (4) absence of prior intensive research intervention.
These criteria ensured the site’s representativeness for studying indigenous sensemaking under
climate duress while minimizing external influence on community narratives.
3.3 Sampling Strategy and Participant Profile
From approximately 30 Santal households in Bhabanipur, 25 households participated in the
study, achieving near-complete coverage of village families present during fieldwork (July-
August 2024). This comprehensive sampling approach, while limiting statistical generalizability,
enabled deep contextual understanding of community-wide patterns—a priority in case study
research focusing on collective sensemaking processes.
Participants were recruited through a multi-gate approach: initial access was facilitated by
community leaders (Manjhi and Paranik), followed by snowball sampling within kinship
networks. The final sample included 18 male and 7 female respondents, all either household
heads or senior decision-makers. This gender imbalance reflects patriarchal structures within
Santal society, though concerted efforts were made to include women’s perspectives through
separate group discussions focused on food security and resource management—domains where
women typically exercise significant knowledge and agency (Haider, 2022). Community elders,
traditional healers, and local artisans were intentionally included to capture diverse forms of
ecological knowledge and adaptive practice.
Table 3.1: Participant Demographics Overview
Characteristic Category Frequency (N=25) Percentage
GenderMale 18 72%
Female7 28%
Age Group 18-35 years 5 20%
36-55 years 14 56%
56+ years 6 24%
Household Role Primary decision-maker 22 88%
Secondary contributor3 12%
Generational Status First-generation literate 9 36%
Non-literate 13 52%
Educated beyond primary 3 12%
3.4 Data Collection Instruments and Procedures
3.4.1 Structured Household Survey
A comprehensive survey instrument was developed through iterative design involving: (1)
literature review on indigenous livelihoods and climate adaptation; (2) consultation with Santal
cultural mediators; and (3) pilot testing with three households (excluded from final sample). The
final instrument, translated into Santali and Bengali, collected data across five domains:
Demographic and Socio-economic Profile: Age, gender, education, household composition,
kinship networks.
Livelihood Architecture: Occupation types, land tenure status (owned, sharecropped, leased),
income sources and seasonality, assets inventory, debt patterns.
Resource Access and Infrastructure: Water sources (primary, secondary, crisis), sanitation
facilities, energy access, transportation, communication channels.
Food Security System: A detailed dietary frequency module recording consumption patterns
across 42 food items categorized as: staples (rice, wheat), cultivated vegetables, purchased
proteins (meat, eggs), foraged proteins (fish, frogs, rodents, insects), wild vegetables and tubers,
and processed/purchased items. Frequency was measured on a 6-point scale (daily, weekly,
monthly, seasonally, yearly, never) with seasonal variations noted.
Climate Perception and Adaptation: Open-ended questions capturing observed environmental
changes, coping strategies, and help-seeking behaviors.
Surveys were administered through face-to-face interviews conducted in Santali by the primary
researcher with simultaneous translation support from a trusted local mediator—a Santal
schoolteacher fluent in Santali, Bengali, and English. Interviews averaged 60-75 minutes, with
breaks to respect participant comfort and daily rhythms.
3.4.2 In-depth Semi-structured Interviews
Complementing the survey, 12 key informant interviews were conducted using a flexible
interview guide organized around thematic areas:
Environmental change narratives and observational logics
Traditional ecological knowledge transmission and transformation
Decision-making processes during climate stress events
Spiritual and cultural interpretations of ecological phenomena
Community-based resource management practices
Perceptions of external interventions and institutional engagement
Interviews followed a funnel structure, beginning with broad, open-ended questions (“Tell me
about changes you’ve noticed in your environment”) before progressing to specific probes about
sensemaking cues and adaptive actions. Interviews were audio-recorded with permission,
supplemented by real-time field notes capturing non-verbal cues and contextual observations.
3.4.3 Participant Observation and Ethnographic Engagement
The researcher engaged in structured immersion within the community across seven full days,
participating in daily activities including:
Agricultural practices (planting, tending, harvesting)
Foraging expeditions for wild foods and medicinal plants
Water collection and management routines
Food preparation and consumption patterns
Community gatherings and ritual ceremonies
Weekly market visits and exchange networks
This immersion followed focused observation protocols targeting: (1) ecological cue recognition
practices; (2) knowledge transmission between generations; (3) gendered division of adaptive
labor; and (4) collective decision-making dynamics. Field notes employed a split-page format,
distinguishing descriptive observations from analytical reflections and methodological notes.
3.4.4 Secondary Data and Documentary Sources
To contextualize and triangulate primary data, the study incorporated:
Meteorological records for Barind Tract (2000-2023)
Government reports on indigenous communities in northwest Bangladesh
NGO assessments of climate vulnerability in the region
Historical and ethnographic literature on Santal culture and ecology
Satellite imagery of land use change in the study area
3.5 Data Analysis Framework
3.5.1 Quantitative Analysis
Survey data were cleaned, coded, and analyzed using descriptive statistics with Excel and basic
SPSS functions. Analysis focused on:
Frequency distributions for all categorical variables
Cross-tabulations examining relationships between livelihood status, food security, and
adaptation behaviors
Seasonal analysis of consumption patterns and resource access
Asset index development using simple additive scoring of productive assets
Visualization of key patterns through charts and comparative tables
Given the small sample size and case study design, inferential statistics were not employed.
Instead, numerical data served to establish pattern prevalence and contextual benchmarks against
which qualitative narratives could be interpreted.
3.5.2 Qualitative Analysis
Interview transcripts and field notes underwent iterative thematic analysis following Braun and
Clarke’s (2006) six-phase framework:
Familiarization: Repeated reading of transcripts alongside field notes
Initial Coding: Line-by-line open coding using both deductive (theory-informed) and inductive
(data-driven) codes
Theme Development: Clustering codes into candidate themes through affinity diagramming
Theme Review: Refining themes through constant comparison within and across data sources
Theme Definition and Naming: Articulating the essence and scope of each theme
Report Production: Weaving analytic narrative with vivid data extracts
The coding process was facilitated by NVivo software, employing a hybrid coding framework
that included:
Structural codes: Sensemaking triggers, adaptive actions, constraints
Thematic codes: Ecological embeddedness, subaltern agency, knowledge hybridization
Analytic codes: Power-knowledge dynamics, resilience paradoxes, temporal dissonances
3.5.3 Integration and Triangulation
Data integration occurred at three levels:
Methodological Triangulation: Comparing findings across survey, interview, and observation
data
Analytic Integration: Using qualitative insights to explain quantitative patterns (e.g., linking high
wild food consumption to narratives of ecological attunement)
Interpretive Synthesis: Developing meta-themes that encompass both numerical trends and
narrative meanings (e.g., “improvisational resilience within structural constraints”)
Table 3.2: Data Integration Matrix
Research Question Quantitative Indicators Qualitative Evidence Integrated Insight
RQ1: Environmental perceptions Frequency of reported changes Narrative descriptions
of change processes Disjuncture between experiential observation and scientific framing
RQ2: Sensemaking processes Coping strategy inventories Decision-making stories and
rationales Ecological cues integrated with cultural logics
RQ3: Adaptation behaviors Food frequency patterns Practice narratives and ritual
contexts Adaptive pragmatism within cultural boundaries
RQ4: Enabling/constraining factors Asset and access metrics Power narratives and
institutional critiques Structural marginalization as sensemaking context
3.6 Ethical Framework and Reflexive Practice
3.6.1 Ethical Protocols
The research adhered to decolonizing methodological principles that prioritize community
agency and benefit:
Prior Informed Consent: Obtained verbally in Santali after detailed explanation of research
purposes, processes, and potential impacts
Reciprocal Engagement: Commitment to share findings with community in accessible formats
and language
Benefit Sharing: Provision of small honorariums and community meals during fieldwork
Confidentiality Assurance: Use of pseudonyms for persons and places; secure data storage
Cultural Protocol Observance: Respect for community norms regarding gender interaction,
sacred spaces, and knowledge sharing
3.6.2 Positionality and Reflexivity
As a Bengali researcher from an urban academic background studying a rural indigenous
community, the primary researcher maintained a critical reflexive journal documenting:
Power dynamics in researcher-participant interactions
Cultural translation challenges and mediation processes
Emotional responses to narratives of suffering and resilience
Epistemological tensions between academic and indigenous knowledge systems
This reflexivity was operationalized through member checking sessions where preliminary
interpretations were discussed with community representatives, and peer debriefing with
colleagues familiar with Santal culture and subaltern methodologies.
3.7 Methodological Limitations and Mitigations
While providing rich contextual understanding, this study acknowledges several limitations:
Temporal Limitation: Cross-sectional design captures seasonal snapshot but not longitudinal
adaptation trajectories. Mitigated through retrospective questions and secondary climate data.
Sample Specificity: Single-village focus limits generalizability. Mitigated through thick
description and contextual triangulation.
Cultural Translation: Linguistic and conceptual gaps between Santali and analytical categories.
Mitigated through bilingual mediation and iterative meaning-checking.
Researcher Influence: Potential for observer effect and interpretive bias. Mitigated through
prolonged engagement, triangulation, and reflexive practice.
Social Desirability Bias: Possible exaggeration or minimization of certain practices. Mitigated
through observational verification and cross-questioning.
Despite these constraints, the methodology’s theoretical coherence (aligning sensemaking and
subaltern frameworks with mixed-methods design), methodological rigor (triangulation,
reflexivity, ethical engagement), and contextual sensitivity (cultural adaptation, community
participation) establish credible foundations for examining the complex interplay between
ecological perception, cultural meaning-making, and adaptive action within a marginalized
indigenous community facing climate stress. This approach not only answers immediate research
questions but models an ethically engaged, methodologically pluralistic paradigm for studying
subaltern environmental knowledge in times of ecological crisis.