The mixed methods champion

Hussein M. Sulieman relies on technology for his research. Yet for him, people will always be center stage.

-Unless people share their stories, the data from computers and modelling programmes will tell you nothing, says Hussein M. Sulieman, co-lead of the SNAC project cluster on climate change and food security, and Professor at the  Centre for Remote Sensing and Geographical Information Systems, University of Gadarif and a Research Fellow at the Global Development Institute, University of Manchester.

With a PhD in Cartography and expertise in remote sensing, Sulieman could easily have chosen to focus on the data and imagery that sensors and satellites provide. But mere satellite images and numbers have never been sufficient for him. They do not tell the full story.

- Remote sensing technology gives you immediate access to a vast amount of hard data. It can give you crucial pointers about everything, from evolving infrastructure to flood risk and droughts. But you will never know how these events affect people’s lives until you ask them, he says.

The whole picture
Mixed methods add a crucial dimension to research, argues Sulieman. Technology can map changes, but understanding their impact requires listening to people.

Coming from an applied science that typically relies on quantitative methods, a collaboration early in his career broadened his approach to methodology and opened his eyes to the benefits of multidisciplinarity.

At the heart of Sulieman’s research lies a simple question: how do people cope with life’s challenges? This question has inspired him to work across disciplines, cooperating particularly closely with social anthropologists. One name that has contributed strongly to shape both his career and Sulieman as a researcher is Abdel Ghaffar Ahmed, a leading figure not only in social anthropology but in research on Sudan in general.

Ahmed is now retired but remains an important influence. Together, they have published extensively on pastoralist mobility and livelihoods. From this close collaboration, Sulieman gained not only a deep interest in the pastoralist way of life, but also a lasting commitment to multidisciplinarity and mixed methods.

-Ahmed saw the benefits of combining more traditional anthropological methods with technology and invited me into his research projects. At first I didn’t see the linkages, but after being invited into the ARUS (Assisting regional universities in Sudan) project (the SNAC project is a continuation of ARUS and several decades of Sudan research and collaboration between CMI, the University of Bergen, and the University of Khartoum) by Ahmed and giving as well as attending courses as a member of the project, I have continued to use mixed methods, combining remote sensing technology with interviews and group discussions, says Sulieman.

People first
During a recent guest researcher stay in Bergen, he presented a study on how large-scale farming encroaches on small-scale farming in Sudan and affects communal land use systems. As centralized agricultural companies with headquarters in Khartoum and no local deep-rooted connection grab increasingly larger swaths of land in the entire Khartoum state, the old communities that depended on the Nile for irrigation are being pushed out.

Sulieman has looked into the impact these changes have had on two neighbouring communities. And his presentation made one point crystal clear.

-The differences we found when looking into this issue may not be statistically significant by academic standards, but for the people who live in these areas, the difference is dramatic, he says.

He stresses how important it is to go beyond the statistics, to go beyond the quantitative to look at what happens on the ground. His study on the two neighbouring communities’ experiences illustrates his point well.

-If you don’t go beyond the statistics, the data from these two communities will look contradictory. But once you take the situation on the ground into account, once you get an understanding of the people who live there and their experiences, it all makes sense, he says.

The experiences on the ground contradicting the numbers have become more of an exception that confirms the rule for Sulieman. For him, using this methodological approach is deeply connected to respect.

By combining quantitative and qualitative methods he feels more confident that his work reflects the voices of the people his research revolves around. He also argues that this focus on the human condition makes the research more policy relevant – because then, and only then, can research provide the knowledge policymakers can use to create positive change.