Overview

This study uses a mixed-methods approach with both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Mixed-methods approaches are studies with qualitative and quantitative data collected sequentially or concurrently (Hanson et al. 2005). Mixed methods studies are thought to use both types of data in order to enrich their results in ways that only one form of data would not allow (Brewer and Hunter 1989). For example, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data may allow for generalizable findings with deeper understandings of phenomena of interest and interactions. Additionally,mixed methods allow for testing theory while simultaneously modifying theories based on the feedback of participants (Hanson et al. 2005).

Interviews

I collected three types of data at each field site. For the first type, I used long-form, semi-structured interviews that asked key informants detailed questions on three topics that include (1) the design principles of their local MPA institution, (2) mapping stakeholder groups defined for convenience in Sections 4.4 and 4.5, and (3) the three-part socioecological systems framework for comparing institutions. The interviews had two purposes: figuring out how informants defined and categorized institutions and stakeholders, and asking informants to respond to questions for which I had already defined terms (Harrel and Bradley 2009). Interview questions on design principles and stakeholders were focused on defining and categorizing, whereas interview questions on socioecological systems interactions were predefined by me and based on the literature. Interviews are a time-consuming method for data collection, yet they provide the most detailed and complete responses to questions with the greatest potential to discuss conflicting or complex topics with stakeholders (Harrel and Bradley 2009). The need for interviews became apparent in my first visit to my field sites in the summer of 2013, where I observed that although Lovina had less healthy reefs compared to Pemuteran, its institutions seemed more legitimate and developed than those of Pemuteran (Dunning 2015). This type of contradiction made interviews critical.

Qualitative methods theorists argue that interviews are not only where data is collected but also where participants can co-construct knowledge with the researcher. Doucet and Mauthner argue that interviews are where “identities are forged through the telling of stories and meaning-making begins” (2008, 335).