What does it mean to be a farmer in Kurnool (a district in Andhra Pradesh)? One part of the district grows commercial crops such as sunflower and tobacco while another supports nothing but paddy (the Telugu-Ganga Canal influences the soil in way that only paddy can be grown here). Against this backdrop, we wanted to understand the lives of the farmers in the district, what they do for sustenance and how they manage their finances. We travelled across Kurnool and met a diverse cross- section of respondents covering small and large farmers, housewives, small businessmen, Sarpanch and SHG presidents. As a part of our conversations with these respondents, we enquired with them about formal and informal sources of finance available to them, especially through microfinance institutions (MFIs) and their experiences with them. These were in-depth interviews with individuals as well as with groups as other villagers often gathered around us to share their views as well. We also met an officer from a government owned bank to understand his view of the financial options available to his clients.
Following qualitative research methods, we aimed to maximise diversity in our respondent set. The purpose of this post is neither to generalise our findings nor to draw conclusions merely based on our observations from this trip, but to place on record the multiplicity of voices heard from the field on issues at the heart of the microfinance debate. We feel that many of these perspectives and personalised narratives have been missing from recent coverage on the Andhra Pradesh microfinance situation.
[The names of the respondents have been changed at their request to protect their privacy.]
Weather shocks
The farmers of Kurnool district are reeling under the damaging impact of fungal attacks on their crops. Vast expanses of black paddy fields greeted us as the two of us travelled to Nandyal in the Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh.
An excess of rainfall and prolonged wet weather has led to fungal attacks on almost all the paddy fields in the region. (By November 24, 2010, 496,000 hectares have been submerged or otherwise damaged due to the excess rains and yields are expected to be much lower than usual.) These are difficult times for farmers who had toiled hard all through the sowing season, often borrowing to meet their daily expenses in the hope of a good harvest. But their crops are being attacked by a disease that would reduce their yields to less than 50% of normal yields. The question in our minds, as we observed this was, how does a farmer here manage her financial requirements?
“[This year] I planted sunflower and turmeric along with paddy. These commercial crops require high levels of investment. [To make these investments] I rely upon my savings, bank loans against the collateral of my land and on the rental that the small farmers pay for leasing parts of my land”, says Abilash, a farmer with 10 acres of land in Atmakur village.
We ask him what role a microfinance institution (MFI) plays here.
“Only about 10 percent of my investment cost is met by the MFI loan” he replies. “But you should talk to my labourers or the small farmers from the lower caste / tribal colony. They are the ones that keep taking MFI loans”, he adds.
While talking to them we learnt that the “colony” people are the ones who are hired as labourers by the big farmers or lease a piece of land from them. If they choose to lease the land, they have to pay their lease rental upfront because the landlords do not want to bear the risk of crop failure (the big farmers also confirmed the existence of this practice). Since they are from a “lower caste” they do not even consider requesting permission to pay at the end of the harvesting season. They also know that if they take loans from these rich farmers and default, they run the risk of being boycotted by the entire village.
No land documents meant that the lessees had no access to a source of financing such as a commercial bank. Moneylenders or MFIs were the only options left for them to approach. (Self-Help Groups interestingly, had not yet caught their attention, though they are aware of it). “The moneylender does not give us the amount of loan we want. Not because we are not capable of repaying, but because he wants to have us hooked to him. He gives about half of what we need tells us that only if we repay this promptly will he give us more. God knows how much interest I have paid him!” says Ahmed, a “colony” resident who has taken one acre of land on lease.
This means there is still some more money that needs to be borrowed. “We have BASIX, SHARE and Swayam Krishi [SKS] operating here and they have been good to us. My wife took the loan and I was able to take the land on lease, buy some pesticides and fertilisers. Last year, we had a bountiful harvest so I decided to lease more land and cultivate more cash crops. But this year the crops have failed and I have spent all the money I took as loans.”
So what would he do to repay the moneylender and the MFI? “For the microfinance loan, my wife works as a daily-wage labourer and she earns enough to repay the Rs. 250 weekly repayment. But I don’t know what to do with the moneylender. I will have to borrow more from him or someone else to repay his loan” he says.
By now, we are surrounded by some 20 people, all from the “colony” and all of them (excepting 2) had taken loans from MFIs. We asked them if they had ever faced any difficulties in repaying the MFI loans. “Sometimes we do face difficulty”, one of them said. “I have a small piece of land and my wife works as a daily wage labourer. Sometimes, when my wife falls sick, we lose income for a few days. Then weekly repayment becomes difficult. If it was a monthly repayment, we could easily compensate for it by working extra. The recent system of paying monthly has helped us.”
Multiple borrowings
We raise the issue of adequate borrowings and we ask if they have multiple borrowings and why. An elderly farmer in the crowd says, “We told you before that our requirements are never met completely from one source. Why would we borrow from different people if there was no need to do so?”
A labourer who had never taken an MFI loan interjected, “Do they explain why they take your signature while giving the loan? They have the capability to auction all your property if you don’t repay them on time”. When we ask him if he had read any such document from an MFI, he said he had only heard people say it. We ask them if the MFI had explained the documents and procedure. The others said, “They did, but we did not understand and we were all eager to take the loan.”
When we meet a group of women in a different mandal (Allagadda) the next day, we get some more perspective on the phenomenon of multiple borrowings. The women said they do have multiple borrowings, often up to four MFI loans. A woman who sells sarees for a living says, “I know my neighbour goes for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday groups. I too have taken loans from three MFIs”, says one woman. But why did they take these loans? “Why should we say no when someone gives it to us? We get good income and we know we can pay off the weekly dues easily. Then what is wrong in taking the loans?” she replies.
One of the women says, “When a new MFI enters our village, they first enrol the women who already have an MFI loan. They call us and explain that they are a similar company and that they would offer higher loans. Next, they ask us to bring our friends and they continue to offer loans. We keep taking loans from them because we have a need. Besides, who are they to decide how much I can afford? I know my limitations and I will take as long as I have a need. If I don’t tell them, how will they know if I have already taken a loan [from elsewhere]?” another woman asks. “Even if the MFIs checks on who is borrowing [from multiple sources], we will produce five new faces and as soon as MFI gives them the loan, we take the money from them” said another woman, while others laughed and agreed with her.
Collection practices
The previous day, when we were in the “colony”, we had asked the small farmers and labourers what the loan officer would do if they failed to repay. “They would insist that we repay. They would sit here and ask us to clear our dues. Normally, if my friend has a genuine problem such as illness of a child, we would pool in money and cover her. Didn’t we agree to do it when we took the loan?” they said.
The women in Allagadda also give us a similar answer. “They come here exactly on the same day and collect the amounts from the centres. We believe them because they are very professional. They do not even drink water or even talk to us anywhere else other than at the centres”, says one of the women.
We ask them what would be the officer’s response if they did not pay. “Why would I not pay? Had I not agreed to pay every week when I took the loan? If I do not pay, my group members lend me money for the week. I put in extra work and repay it to them” is the reply. There was strong sense of conviction in their voices. In case of a second default, the woman can still depend on the group to help her again, but not the third time. “The third time is when things become bad”, they say. “Why would I help someone who is not interested in repaying her own loan?”
“How would the loan officer behave then?” we ask.
“He would say that the group can leave the centre only after paying the instalment and I would not blame him for that. But why would I have to sit unnecessarily if it is not my fault? I would shout at the woman [defaulter] for being careless. Anybody, who has borrowed has to pay up. Am I not paying my dues?” replies one of the women.
Interest rates
In all the conversations that we had, the most striking aspect was the absence any mention of high interest rates. In fact, the Sarpanch of a village acknowledged that because of the presence of MFIs, the money lenders had brought down their interest rates.”If the MFIs were not there, the money lenders would create an artificial scarcity and would say that loans were available only at 5 percent per month. Now it is available to us at 2-3% per month”.
When we met the branch manager of a government owned bank in the village and asked him about other sources of finance for the villagers, he said there were about 300 SHGs in his branch and he was all praise for them. “We insist that all the team members to come to the bank when they want to withdraw money”. On the Joint Liability Group (JLG) model used by the MFIs, he said would really be interested in testing out the JLG model. “But unfortunately, I am short-staffed and am not able to spend as much time on forming these groups and managing weekly payments”, he said.
Farmer suicides
Almost all the respondents we met had heard of farmer suicides. When we asked them how they felt about deaths of their fellow farmers who were pushed to commit suicides, the common response we received was “His family would suffer and he did not think about them. It was his bad luck. Poor guy.” We asked if the MFIs could have pushed them to suicide by their aggressive collection practices, they replied “We know that only some of the stories [of suicides] are real and others are not. For example, a story of suicide reported in a village close-by was an accidental death, while TV showed it as a suicide”. But the others were quick to point out “How do you know? We only know in our village nobody committed suicide”. On MFI staff harassing the borrowers, they said, “Nobody can enter our village and harass us or use foul language against our women and get away with it. We would have not allowed such things to have happened in our village”.
Beyond the MFI
Finally we were curious to know if they were still repaying the MFI loans. They replied, “No, when the MFI person came, we said, we can’t pay this week and he went away silently and came back next week.” However in Allagadda, the women said they paid up their dues.
We asked them what they would do, if the MFIs were gone or if they stopped giving loans, but they don’t seem to have imagined such a scenario. One common response we got was “Where would the MFIs go?” When we insisted that they imagine such a scenario, they replied that they would somehow borrow from somewhere or someone and manage to continue, but they did not have a clear alternative.
We had to cut our visit short because of the ensuing political situation, but we believe this visit offered a perspective that was worth sharing.
38 Responses
– “We have BASIX, SHARE and Swayam Krishi [SKS] operating here and they have been good to us.” So a good chit to MFIs in overall image.
– “Even if the MFIs checks on who is borrowing [from multiple sources], we will produce five new faces and as soon as MFI gives them the loan, we take the money from them” said another woman, while others laughed and agreed with her.” So MFIs are let off the hock for multiple lending.
– “In all the conversations that we had, the most striking aspect was the absence any mention of high interest rates.” So interest rates are benign.
-“We asked if the MFIs could have pushed them to suicide by their aggressive collection practices, they replied “We know that only some of the stories [of suicides] are real and others are not.” So holes are cast in charges of MFI induced suicide.
This is really pathetic by IMFR.
Can SKS Microfinance buck the industry’s momentum to doom?
Read More: http://devconsultgroup.blogspot.com/2010/12/can-sks-microfinance-buck-industrys.html
– “We have BASIX, SHARE and Swayam Krishi [SKS] operating here and they have been good to us.” So a good chit to MFIs in overall image.
– “Even if the MFIs checks on who is borrowing [from multiple sources], we will produce five new faces and as soon as MFI gives them the loan, we take the money from them” said another woman, while others laughed and agreed with her.” So MFIs are let off the hock for multiple lending.
– “In all the conversations that we had, the most striking aspect was the absence any mention of high interest rates.” So interest rates are benign.
-“We asked if the MFIs could have pushed them to suicide by their aggressive collection practices, they replied “We know that only some of the stories [of suicides] are real and others are not.” So holes are cast in charges of MFI induced suicide.
This is really pathetic by IMFR.
Can SKS Microfinance buck the industry’s momentum to doom?
Read More: http://devconsultgroup.blogspot.com/2010/12/can-sks-microfinance-buck-industrys.html
Hi Balajee!
I totally agree. You can’t change what people say, but you can filter it by cherry picking from the sample, purposive sampling techniques to hear what you want to hear. This appears typical “research” churned out by industry under siege akin the tobacco industry refuting its links to cancer.
Just a thought – if only research arms of the MF industry such as IMFR was wedded to principles of research instead of trying to pass a PR leaflet as research, perhaps the MF industry won’t have found itself in the mess as in present.
And it is such PR that is the reason why the MF industry stands today totally discredited and losing support from every quarters, including those once considered your pillar. Take eg the MF reaction to suicide – right from the beginning it tries to fudge the issue. Instead if the industry had constituted an independent panel of prominent citizens to inquire these allegations, identify real cases, compensate victims, bring their staff to book and apologize to the victims and country, the MF industry would have had their credibility intact or even enhanced.
I totally agree with you Rajan. The present research discredits qualitative research procedure, which is supposed to add value to overall scenario.
Mr. Rajan, Prof. Prabhakar, I am sorry the villagers did not tell what you wanted you hear.
I would love to hear what the villagers in Kurnool district had to tell you personally when you went there.
So what what would be your suggestion to solve the issue?
This crisis is not for the first time. At various times and geographic location, even outside AP, they have occurred in the past. Krishna 2006 crisis saw MFIs adopted a code of conduct. They then not only broke every element of this code but magnified their misdemeanors several times in scale. So this is where we are.
So what lessons can we draw? It validates the old adage – leopards can’t change their spots. These bunch of MFs historically demonstrated that they are not willing to change notwithstanding their rhetoric. A moneylender by any other name will still have a moneylender mindset even if trades his dhoti for tie and suit.
So how to solve this crisis? We destroy to build again. This should make it clear that I have nothing against MF as a poverty mitigation toolkit. But this present lot are so discredited and tainted by blood, that they should be destroyed! A new crop with differential values should be enabled to come up.
Hi Balajee!
I totally agree. You can’t change what people say, but you can filter it by cherry picking from the sample, purposive sampling techniques to hear what you want to hear. This appears typical “research” churned out by industry under siege akin the tobacco industry refuting its links to cancer.
Just a thought – if only research arms of the MF industry such as IMFR was wedded to principles of research instead of trying to pass a PR leaflet as research, perhaps the MF industry won’t have found itself in the mess as in present.
And it is such PR that is the reason why the MF industry stands today totally discredited and losing support from every quarters, including those once considered your pillar. Take eg the MF reaction to suicide – right from the beginning it tries to fudge the issue. Instead if the industry had constituted an independent panel of prominent citizens to inquire these allegations, identify real cases, compensate victims, bring their staff to book and apologize to the victims and country, the MF industry would have had their credibility intact or even enhanced.
I totally agree with you Rajan. The present research discredits qualitative research procedure, which is supposed to add value to overall scenario.
Mr. Rajan, Prof. Prabhakar, I am sorry the villagers did not tell what you wanted you hear.
I would love to hear what the villagers in Kurnool district had to tell you personally when you went there.
So what what would be your suggestion to solve the issue?
This crisis is not for the first time. At various times and geographic location, even outside AP, they have occurred in the past. Krishna 2006 crisis saw MFIs adopted a code of conduct. They then not only broke every element of this code but magnified their misdemeanors several times in scale. So this is where we are.
So what lessons can we draw? It validates the old adage – leopards can’t change their spots. These bunch of MFs historically demonstrated that they are not willing to change notwithstanding their rhetoric. A moneylender by any other name will still have a moneylender mindset even if trades his dhoti for tie and suit.
So how to solve this crisis? We destroy to build again. This should make it clear that I have nothing against MF as a poverty mitigation toolkit. But this present lot are so discredited and tainted by blood, that they should be destroyed! A new crop with differential values should be enabled to come up.
It’s obviously not “academic” research in that it’s not possible to unambiguously extract inferences from the stories presented by Balajee and Vijayalakshmi. (But V and B never claimed it was, either.) However, it rings true. And it’s not all laudatory of the MFIs either. So it doesn’t seem to be cherry-picking of comments..
Actually, I am in the process of reading a book by Armendariz and Morduch called The Economics of Microfinance; this morning I read the chapter on “Beyond Group Lending” and what we see in AP as presented by V and B reflects very much the research presented there about the impact of competition by MFIs on the viability of microfinance. It seems that a very similar phenomenon occurred in Bangladesh and Bolivia in the 1990s. The phenomenon that the AP villagers talk about in terms of taking multiple loans is called “overlapping” it seems, in Bangaladesh.
BTW, this is also just what Nachiket and Bindu wrote about a week or so ago when the story first broke.
PV
If not “academic” why does this posting say the following:
“Following qualitative research methods, we aimed to maximise diversity in our respondent set. The purpose of this post is neither to generalise our findings nor to draw conclusions merely based on our observations from this trip, but to place on record the multiplicity of voices heard from the field on issues at the heart of the microfinance debate. We feel that many of these perspectives and personalised narratives have been missing from recent coverage on the Andhra Pradesh microfinance situation.”
Multiplicity of voices lend itself for gross methodological misuse – say 99 opinions are the same and there is one which is contrary. You can compare 99 with 1, giving them equal weightage in the guise of multiplicity of voices and give readers a different perception what’s reality.
I am not sure how conversant you are with qualitative research methods, but this happens to be an area where I have much experience.
As Prof Prabhakar observed, if you had focused your study on villages/hamlets where suicides were alleged to determine causality, and then the findings may have been more credible, useful, as it is the need of the hour.
MF researchers are too dependent on the industry and we can’t depend on them on bringing out the truth, as they are too dependent on the industry for their career and livelihood. If at all they choose to publish research, they need to be transparent on their methodology, which isn’t the case with this posting.
Thank you sir for re-clarifying the fact that we are not generalising but only placing on record some things we heard on the ground.
It’s obviously not “academic” research in that it’s not possible to unambiguously extract inferences from the stories presented by Balajee and Vijayalakshmi. (But V and B never claimed it was, either.) However, it rings true. And it’s not all laudatory of the MFIs either. So it doesn’t seem to be cherry-picking of comments..
Actually, I am in the process of reading a book by Armendariz and Morduch called The Economics of Microfinance; this morning I read the chapter on “Beyond Group Lending” and what we see in AP as presented by V and B reflects very much the research presented there about the impact of competition by MFIs on the viability of microfinance. It seems that a very similar phenomenon occurred in Bangladesh and Bolivia in the 1990s. The phenomenon that the AP villagers talk about in terms of taking multiple loans is called “overlapping” it seems, in Bangaladesh.
BTW, this is also just what Nachiket and Bindu wrote about a week or so ago when the story first broke.
PV
If not “academic” why does this posting say the following:
“Following qualitative research methods, we aimed to maximise diversity in our respondent set. The purpose of this post is neither to generalise our findings nor to draw conclusions merely based on our observations from this trip, but to place on record the multiplicity of voices heard from the field on issues at the heart of the microfinance debate. We feel that many of these perspectives and personalised narratives have been missing from recent coverage on the Andhra Pradesh microfinance situation.”
Multiplicity of voices lend itself for gross methodological misuse – say 99 opinions are the same and there is one which is contrary. You can compare 99 with 1, giving them equal weightage in the guise of multiplicity of voices and give readers a different perception what’s reality.
I am not sure how conversant you are with qualitative research methods, but this happens to be an area where I have much experience.
As Prof Prabhakar observed, if you had focused your study on villages/hamlets where suicides were alleged to determine causality, and then the findings may have been more credible, useful, as it is the need of the hour.
MF researchers are too dependent on the industry and we can’t depend on them on bringing out the truth, as they are too dependent on the industry for their career and livelihood. If at all they choose to publish research, they need to be transparent on their methodology, which isn’t the case with this posting.
Thank you sir for re-clarifying the fact that we are not generalising but only placing on record some things we heard on the ground.
I think this qualitative research ( to be believed) is just a fraud on people in the name of research. It lacks credibility and mostly says what MFIs want us to believe. I doubt your research methodology as all responses are to suit your point of view. Villagers telling that we heard about deaths and telling poor guy and not bothered about his family shows total insensitivity towards the issue. What is expected out of you to visit all the 40 and odd deaths reported and find the causality of the death. One report claims that on 11% of the finance is from MFIs and others are from the local money lenders. There are multiplicity of research reports with never addressing real issues.
1.Why not you publish the actual rates of interests charged by the MFIs?
2. What is their loan collection practices?
3. Why people should believe MFIs?
The blog post also speaks about crop failure and helpless situation the farmers find themselves in. I hope you have not deliberately missed the big picture here, professor.
I think this qualitative research ( to be believed) is just a fraud on people in the name of research. It lacks credibility and mostly says what MFIs want us to believe. I doubt your research methodology as all responses are to suit your point of view. Villagers telling that we heard about deaths and telling poor guy and not bothered about his family shows total insensitivity towards the issue. What is expected out of you to visit all the 40 and odd deaths reported and find the causality of the death. One report claims that on 11% of the finance is from MFIs and others are from the local money lenders. There are multiplicity of research reports with never addressing real issues.
1.Why not you publish the actual rates of interests charged by the MFIs?
2. What is their loan collection practices?
3. Why people should believe MFIs?
The blog post also speaks about crop failure and helpless situation the farmers find themselves in. I hope you have not deliberately missed the big picture here, professor.
Politicians are telling borrowers to stop repayment in AP because they are left out of the equation and cannot make money or influence politics through lending. They similarly used to tell farmers not to repay when IRDP an dother schemes were disbursed through nationalised banks compulsorily as told by the government. Banks got into losses and Indian treasury became bankrupt before going to WB. Now they are doing this again with MFI’s, it is the poor thsat lose out because of politicians
Politicians are telling borrowers to stop repayment in AP because they are left out of the equation and cannot make money or influence politics through lending. They similarly used to tell farmers not to repay when IRDP an dother schemes were disbursed through nationalised banks compulsorily as told by the government. Banks got into losses and Indian treasury became bankrupt before going to WB. Now they are doing this again with MFI’s, it is the poor thsat lose out because of politicians
First things first, this is a blog post based on our field observations and interviews. It is a field note and not an academic research paper.
The three main accusations that have been levelled against MFIsseem to be overselling, usurious interest rates and aggressive collection practices leading to client suicides. As an ethnographic qualitative researcher who is familiar with Indian villages for the last 25 years, I chose to go to the place where it all started to understand the context and perceptions from the villagers as they lead their lives.
Based on our field visit to Kurnool, we are merely stating that there exist clients who seem to disagree with these accusations. There seem to exist some villagers who are demanding multiple loans , who are afraid that in the absence of MFIs, money lenders are going to charge more and who perceive in the normal course of their interactions that MFI loan officers seem to be decent folks. Whether 130+ ( Prof Prabhakar, pls note this number –it is not 40) who have met tragic deaths represent 99% population or these dissent voices is not the purview of this filed visit.
Our role as qual researchers is to understand the socio-economic context in which an event occurs and to offer propositions that need to be further tested using rigorous quant methods. For any person who claims expertise in qualitative research should know better than to say that qualitative research can be used to prove causality.
The 99%-1% issue is a generalisability issue that is more applicable in a positivist ontological view with a empirical survey method and has very limited use of verifiability in our work. Even there, the Theory of Falsifiability applies. For clarification, our ontological stance is critical realism. We use grounded theory method for identification of respondents and respondent size. For our data collection/ analysis , we use Narrative techniques with an emic persepective. The responses for this blog post seem to by researchers who prefer positivist dialectic position of thesis (bad MFIs) vs antithesis (Good people),and who wish to attain synthesis by forcing us to agree to their thesis. We fundamentally disagree to their rhetoric. Our stance is more inter textually loaden dialogic position where multiple voices can and should co-exist and that every voice has to be heard before we draw conclusions about them.
The purpose of this field visit was not to know why people committed suicide but to hear how people lead their lives in Kurnool and how they manage their finances. We definitely are deeply distressed by reports of suicides .As our primary tenet of research is sensitivity to our respondents, we refrain from going to a family that is grieving the loss of loved one to a tragic death and interview them about how they feel about it. There is a time and place to do it. We feel that this is not the time to do so. I would love to read Prof Prabhakar’s account of these deaths, if he wishes to do so. Else, he only has to switch on the TV. Oh by the way, media is no longer covering it- they have more interesting and latest political dramas to cover in Andhra.
Dear Vijayalakshmi, Thank you for your clarification. I never suggested that we can find causality with qualitative methods nor I am an ardent admirer of press. However, I am sceptical about your research which claims that it is based on in depth interviews.
You have stated your objective as;
What they do for their sustenance and how they manage their finances?
Have you met your objectives?
How they manage their finances is not addressed at all except telling that their family members work over time. The first question is how they meet the interest burden? Why there is no mention at all about interest and depth interview missed this point? How will you make any kind of inference on managing finances without addressing the component of interest? The loan collection person not allowing people to leave the centre without payment is justified by a women’s interjection that people who take loans have to pay. Have you collected further information on how can a loan collection person illegally detain people for non payment when the person has no money? He not only detains the person and the group until they pay for it according to your research. Is it not a pernicious and illegal practice? Where in your research you have addressed the issue of sustenance?
The not studying suicide is justified based on bereavement in the family and they are likely to be offended by our questioning. As a researcher with 25 years of experience in Indian villages, you should know that learning about death and reason for death of poor will provide solace rather than irritation. Why shy away from the issues of publicizing interest rates? Why shy away from transparency in loan collection methods. As a researcher my suggestion is addressing the three issues without unduly concerned about our sponsors image will do a lot of good for people in long run whom MFI are supposed to serve. However, I thank you for your prompt reply and enlightening me with some of the research issues which I loved learning and sharing with my students.
A point of clarification:
Over the past 3 years Professor Vijayalakshmi has interviewed almost 1000 households across 6 Indian states about what they do for sustenance and how they manage their finances with the goal using this information to help to improve the well being of rural households. Her impact is felt throughout our approach. In August I was at the Academy of Management conference in Toronto presenting some of her research based on these interviews, and there was universal appreciation specifically for the rigor of her methodology. Back here in India we have a steady stream of quantitative/positivist researchers from the best institutions in the world (i.e. Stanford, Colombia, etc.) who deeply respect her work.
Dave!
We are not talking of Vijayalakshmi as an individual and I have no reason why I need to question her credentials and competence. We are actually debating research methods.I am sure she is all what you endorse and much more.
I noticde IMFR use alot of postivist approaches. I came across one of their evaluation using Appreciative Inquiry which quoted borrower communities saying that “Even if their parents fail them, MFs will look after them” or something to that extent. Today, the same MFIs are not allowed in villages, their offices attacked and so afraid some of them is that they have removed their office boards!
Obviously, somewhere something went wrong. And these postivist approaches did not pick up warning signals.
Hi Vijayalakshmi,
As Prof Prabhakar said, it was never the intent of suggesting that qualitative research can be used to prove causality. But in combination with quantitative methods, qualitative techniques can establish causality. But what does using quantitative analysis alone do besides giving correlation? Correlation however is not causation.
Granted that your purpose was one embedded in an epic perspective. For non-anthropologists reading these comments, it simply means “insider’s” or “native’s” interpretation of or reasons for his or her customs/beliefs. Neither is my intent to push you to a synthesis thesis, combining positivist dialectic position of thesis (bad MFIs) vs antithesis (Good people). But we do expect that if you undertake 20 qualitative interviews, to differentiate what is the majority perception vs a minority. I am sure you don’t need much statistical analysis for this. The manner in which your post was written, blurs these lines. And I wonder why.
Secondly, if you claim you took an anthropological approach, the trouble is that there is no accompanying social analysis to distinguish who is saying what, given there are bound to be sections who disagree with the prevailing perception. This is strange as your defense entirely centers from apparently applying an anthropological method to your research. Sorry field note.
I have 30 years in this field, including working at the grass-root and as a project holder. Now if I get this kind of “field note”, I will fire my field staff who produced this, unless he/she is new and undergoing induction. Why? It gives me no information. By information, I mean offering clarity from a person supposed to have two decades of experience. Such a post fuels instead confusion.
Let me explain. If someone says he or she is not happy with the project I am running, I like to know where this is coming from. If one of the objectives of my project is to marginalize the moneylender, then I know I am making impact, as the money lender is getting upset and maybe viewing my project as a threat.
Before you fire anyone I would suggest that you do a deeper dive into the difference between a diagnostic and a dialogic approach.
Hi Dave!
Hi Dave. I did not notice dialogic mentioned by Vijayalakshmi as the essence of an approach. But lets assume it was an oversight. Let us then see whether there is any evidence of this approach in the content of the original post.
As far as my understanding, a dialogic method should encourage respondents to further explore and explicate their views and questions with the object of producing greater clarity and detail. To this context, there was very little evidence seen neither in the content of the post or Vijayalakshmi’s reaction.
We use applied dialogic methods a lot in community organization. Usually you can’t just enter a village you are not familiar with and initiate a dialogic process. The process itself lends itself better as group work rather than individual interviews, which apparently is the case here. The process is time consuming.
Besides, we need a “climate” for people to be free and frank. I suppose it won’t as the post said “We had to cut our visit short because of the ensuing political situation”!
Hi
I have been following this discussion for a while now and feel that:
– Things are never black and white – in case of this discussion neither are MFIs completely to be blamed nor people who took multiple loans.
– We need to know about various voices that come from field and from diverse stakeholders and hear their point of view.
– so without getting into merits of research methodology ( each one of them can be criticised and debated upon)
– we need to pay attention on what is being said and there are different perspectives to the same issue and hence we should not generalise or jump to conclusions too soon.
Thanks and keep these voices coming to the forefront.
First things first, this is a blog post based on our field observations and interviews. It is a field note and not an academic research paper.
The three main accusations that have been levelled against MFIsseem to be overselling, usurious interest rates and aggressive collection practices leading to client suicides. As an ethnographic qualitative researcher who is familiar with Indian villages for the last 25 years, I chose to go to the place where it all started to understand the context and perceptions from the villagers as they lead their lives.
Based on our field visit to Kurnool, we are merely stating that there exist clients who seem to disagree with these accusations. There seem to exist some villagers who are demanding multiple loans , who are afraid that in the absence of MFIs, money lenders are going to charge more and who perceive in the normal course of their interactions that MFI loan officers seem to be decent folks. Whether 130+ ( Prof Prabhakar, pls note this number –it is not 40) who have met tragic deaths represent 99% population or these dissent voices is not the purview of this filed visit.
Our role as qual researchers is to understand the socio-economic context in which an event occurs and to offer propositions that need to be further tested using rigorous quant methods. For any person who claims expertise in qualitative research should know better than to say that qualitative research can be used to prove causality.
The 99%-1% issue is a generalisability issue that is more applicable in a positivist ontological view with a empirical survey method and has very limited use of verifiability in our work. Even there, the Theory of Falsifiability applies. For clarification, our ontological stance is critical realism. We use grounded theory method for identification of respondents and respondent size. For our data collection/ analysis , we use Narrative techniques with an emic persepective. The responses for this blog post seem to by researchers who prefer positivist dialectic position of thesis (bad MFIs) vs antithesis (Good people),and who wish to attain synthesis by forcing us to agree to their thesis. We fundamentally disagree to their rhetoric. Our stance is more inter textually loaden dialogic position where multiple voices can and should co-exist and that every voice has to be heard before we draw conclusions about them.
The purpose of this field visit was not to know why people committed suicide but to hear how people lead their lives in Kurnool and how they manage their finances. We definitely are deeply distressed by reports of suicides .As our primary tenet of research is sensitivity to our respondents, we refrain from going to a family that is grieving the loss of loved one to a tragic death and interview them about how they feel about it. There is a time and place to do it. We feel that this is not the time to do so. I would love to read Prof Prabhakar’s account of these deaths, if he wishes to do so. Else, he only has to switch on the TV. Oh by the way, media is no longer covering it- they have more interesting and latest political dramas to cover in Andhra.
Dear Vijayalakshmi, Thank you for your clarification. I never suggested that we can find causality with qualitative methods nor I am an ardent admirer of press. However, I am sceptical about your research which claims that it is based on in depth interviews.
You have stated your objective as;
What they do for their sustenance and how they manage their finances?
Have you met your objectives?
How they manage their finances is not addressed at all except telling that their family members work over time. The first question is how they meet the interest burden? Why there is no mention at all about interest and depth interview missed this point? How will you make any kind of inference on managing finances without addressing the component of interest? The loan collection person not allowing people to leave the centre without payment is justified by a women’s interjection that people who take loans have to pay. Have you collected further information on how can a loan collection person illegally detain people for non payment when the person has no money? He not only detains the person and the group until they pay for it according to your research. Is it not a pernicious and illegal practice? Where in your research you have addressed the issue of sustenance?
The not studying suicide is justified based on bereavement in the family and they are likely to be offended by our questioning. As a researcher with 25 years of experience in Indian villages, you should know that learning about death and reason for death of poor will provide solace rather than irritation. Why shy away from the issues of publicizing interest rates? Why shy away from transparency in loan collection methods. As a researcher my suggestion is addressing the three issues without unduly concerned about our sponsors image will do a lot of good for people in long run whom MFI are supposed to serve. However, I thank you for your prompt reply and enlightening me with some of the research issues which I loved learning and sharing with my students.
A point of clarification:
Over the past 3 years Professor Vijayalakshmi has interviewed almost 1000 households across 6 Indian states about what they do for sustenance and how they manage their finances with the goal using this information to help to improve the well being of rural households. Her impact is felt throughout our approach. In August I was at the Academy of Management conference in Toronto presenting some of her research based on these interviews, and there was universal appreciation specifically for the rigor of her methodology. Back here in India we have a steady stream of quantitative/positivist researchers from the best institutions in the world (i.e. Stanford, Colombia, etc.) who deeply respect her work.
Dave!
We are not talking of Vijayalakshmi as an individual and I have no reason why I need to question her credentials and competence. We are actually debating research methods.I am sure she is all what you endorse and much more.
I noticde IMFR use alot of postivist approaches. I came across one of their evaluation using Appreciative Inquiry which quoted borrower communities saying that “Even if their parents fail them, MFs will look after them” or something to that extent. Today, the same MFIs are not allowed in villages, their offices attacked and so afraid some of them is that they have removed their office boards!
Obviously, somewhere something went wrong. And these postivist approaches did not pick up warning signals.
Hi Vijayalakshmi,
As Prof Prabhakar said, it was never the intent of suggesting that qualitative research can be used to prove causality. But in combination with quantitative methods, qualitative techniques can establish causality. But what does using quantitative analysis alone do besides giving correlation? Correlation however is not causation.
Granted that your purpose was one embedded in an epic perspective. For non-anthropologists reading these comments, it simply means “insider’s” or “native’s” interpretation of or reasons for his or her customs/beliefs. Neither is my intent to push you to a synthesis thesis, combining positivist dialectic position of thesis (bad MFIs) vs antithesis (Good people). But we do expect that if you undertake 20 qualitative interviews, to differentiate what is the majority perception vs a minority. I am sure you don’t need much statistical analysis for this. The manner in which your post was written, blurs these lines. And I wonder why.
Secondly, if you claim you took an anthropological approach, the trouble is that there is no accompanying social analysis to distinguish who is saying what, given there are bound to be sections who disagree with the prevailing perception. This is strange as your defense entirely centers from apparently applying an anthropological method to your research. Sorry field note.
I have 30 years in this field, including working at the grass-root and as a project holder. Now if I get this kind of “field note”, I will fire my field staff who produced this, unless he/she is new and undergoing induction. Why? It gives me no information. By information, I mean offering clarity from a person supposed to have two decades of experience. Such a post fuels instead confusion.
Let me explain. If someone says he or she is not happy with the project I am running, I like to know where this is coming from. If one of the objectives of my project is to marginalize the moneylender, then I know I am making impact, as the money lender is getting upset and maybe viewing my project as a threat.
Before you fire anyone I would suggest that you do a deeper dive into the difference between a diagnostic and a dialogic approach.
Hi Dave!
Hi Dave. I did not notice dialogic mentioned by Vijayalakshmi as the essence of an approach. But lets assume it was an oversight. Let us then see whether there is any evidence of this approach in the content of the original post.
As far as my understanding, a dialogic method should encourage respondents to further explore and explicate their views and questions with the object of producing greater clarity and detail. To this context, there was very little evidence seen neither in the content of the post or Vijayalakshmi’s reaction.
We use applied dialogic methods a lot in community organization. Usually you can’t just enter a village you are not familiar with and initiate a dialogic process. The process itself lends itself better as group work rather than individual interviews, which apparently is the case here. The process is time consuming.
Besides, we need a “climate” for people to be free and frank. I suppose it won’t as the post said “We had to cut our visit short because of the ensuing political situation”!
Hi
I have been following this discussion for a while now and feel that:
– Things are never black and white – in case of this discussion neither are MFIs completely to be blamed nor people who took multiple loans.
– We need to know about various voices that come from field and from diverse stakeholders and hear their point of view.
– so without getting into merits of research methodology ( each one of them can be criticised and debated upon)
– we need to pay attention on what is being said and there are different perspectives to the same issue and hence we should not generalise or jump to conclusions too soon.
Thanks and keep these voices coming to the forefront.