86
Abdulaziz Dino Gidreta
Thus, in modernist view, the measures of progress were Gross National Product (GNP),
industrial bases, urbanization and the like; all quantitative criteria (Servaes, 2002: 19-20).
It does not give significance to changes in actual human capacity and sprit. Due to mul-
tifaced challenges in reaching the remote, rural grassroots communities particularly are
victimized by positivist narratives of development.
Concrete ethnographic observations and qualitative reflections about a certain devel-
opment can challenge common quantitative narratives. In other words, interaction and
observation give a way to listen to the people who have often been subject to approxi-
mations and generalizations within national and international development reports. Ac-
cordingly, research attempts should conformingly be informed by interactions with actual
subjects (Silverman, 2004 & Yin, 2003:89), group discussions and reflections (Silverman,
2004:177), researchers’ deliberate exposure to actual vicinities (Creswell 2009; Babbie &
Mouton, 2001). By this, one can better understand the development problems of a given
society not by a single technique, but by a combination of techniques - by triangulation
(Babbie & Mouton, 2001:277).
In this fashion, development complications of the marginalized grassroots communities
should be brought into academic and policy debates. This article intends to unveil the
lives of rural communities mainly from a human development viewpoint. It aims to identify
the prevailing socio-economic challenges, what the people have and lack; to prioritize
challenges; and to propose ideas of intervention. It mainly considers challenges relating
to health and sanitation, education, farming and deforestation. The discussion is estab-
lished the way that national development strategies and reports are briefly introduced
and subsequently criticized against real-life accounts of the people as learned mainly by
personal observations, in-depth interviews, and FGDs.
Method
The methods applied to this study are more of qualitative. Qualitative researches allow
the researcher to purposefully select participants and/or sites that will best inform the
problem and the research questions (Cresswell, 2009: 178). Thus, in selecting a case
site, the researcher attempts to consider familiarity and developmental distinctiveness.
By this, the target case range includes rural villages of Weshamo, Guanguay, Sayba Dob-
ba, Ashufe, Koto, Mehal Damota, Tach Damota, Kotiche, Tikore, Lay Dobba, and Mehal
Dobba from Dobba kebele administration and Qarsamue, Tirkume, Lay wageshe, Tach
Wageshe, Suhiya, Sadika, Sesenar, Tebade, Tinore, Wodesha and Agored from Wodesha
kebele administration. The study was informed by series of in-depth interviews and FGDs
in addition to the personal observations and document reviews. In-depth interviewees
and FGD participants were purposefully selected as much for their knowledge and expe-
rience, age and exposure to certain developmental challenges.
Flexibility, high response rate, check on questions, probes, clarification, confirmation,
prompts, connecting, non-verbal communication and timing of interview are among
the major advantages of in-depth interviews (Miller and Brewer, 2003: 167). Silverman
