Comparative Research Design - The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neopatrimonial States - page 47

derstanding of the institutional dynamics at the local level heuristically. The only selection
criterion was that the local studies should not be carried out in water scarce areas in order to
exclude extreme physical factors as potential variables but to be able to concentrate on institu
tional aspects in rather favorable conditions.
The local case studies were complemented by short term field visits in other parts of the
countries: in Kyrgyzstan in the districts Aravan (Osh province), Alamedin (Chuy province) and
Tyup (Issyk Kul province); in Tajikistan in the districts Kanibadan, Mastcha and Ganchi
(Sughd province), Shakhriston (RRS), and Farkhor (Khatlon province). 29 These field visits
were carried out before and after the in depth case study. The field visits before the in depth
case study served to identify basic characteristics of local water governance as well as to select
the case study. During the field visits after the case study, I focused on the key issues identified
in the case study to assess whether there were similar patterns in other places or whether they
were a particularity of the case study.
In field research, the identification of the right “entry point” is an important but often
underestimated issue (Schatzmann, Strauss 1979; Wax 1979; Girtler 1988: 54 101; Schöne
2003: [26 39]). Finding an entry point for the local case studies proved to be very difficult.
When contacting local officials or water managers directly, there was s strong expectation on
their side that my research would result in a project involving financial aid. 30 When trying to
find a suited place through donor agencies, there was a tendency to present positive examples
only. In addition, the topic and interest of my study were difficult to communicate due to the
technocratic perception of water management which is still prominent. Hence, finding a place
where I would meet constructive research conditions evolved as the main selection criteria.
In both case studies I cooperated with a donor organization that implements water insti
tutional reforms at the local level. In Tajikistan, Aini raion was chosen due to the willingness
and interest of the regional project office of the German NGO German Agro Action (GAA)
to support such a study. In Kyrgyzstan, Sokuluk raion was chosen where I collaborated with
the WUA support office of the World Bank on farm irrigation project. The raion is also the
research area of a joint research project of the Agrarian University in Bishkek and the Swiss
NCCR South North. In both areas, other previous or simultaneously conducted studies were
available that I used to prepare for my own research and assess the validity of my results
(Askaraliev 2004; Lindberg 2007; Grundmann 20004; ASDP “NAU” 2003).
The responsible leaders of the projects supported my studies without interfering in the re
search and provided information, contacts, and helped with logistics. The concrete research
villages were selected together with the project managers. The selection criterion was that their
WUA activity performance should be average. The concrete research village in Tajikistan,
Iskodar, was selected together with GAA staff. In 2004, this village was also in a sample of
four villages under research in a GAA study on local decision making processes (Grundmann
2004). This study not only provided basic data on the village but also allowed me to compare
(and confirm) the research findings. In Sokuluk, two villages were chosen: Zhany Pakhta and
Studencheskoe.
A drawback of this cooperation with donor organizations was that the representatives of
local water user associations perceived me as a kind of “controller” from the donor agency
29 The duration of these field visits ranged from several hours (interviews with two or three key persons) to several
days (in Aravan, Kyrgyzstan and Farkhor, Tajikistan).
30 This is understandable as most rural places are very poor and people often meet foreigners aho are representatives of
donor organizations. This not only led to certain expectations (of me to finance a project), but also involved the
danger of biased answers (like underscoring technical needs).