3.1 Introduction
This third chapter presents and justifies the methodological framework adopted to examine public perception of food safety in relation to pesticide use in Nigeria. Given the multidimensional nature of the research problem, spanning agricultural practices, chemical risk exposure, institutional regulation, and consumer interpretation, a methodologically pluralistic approach is required. The chapter therefore outlines the philosophical orientation, research design, data collection methods, sampling strategies, analytical procedures, ethical considerations, and methodological limitations guiding the study.
Rather than reiterating conceptual or empirical issues addressed in previous chapters, this chapter focuses exclusively on how knowledge is generated, why specific methods are appropriate, and how methodological rigour is ensured. The methodological choices align with the research objectives and are designed to produce findings that are empirically robust, contextually grounded, and policy relevant.
3.2.1 Research Philosophy
This study is underpinned by pragmatism because the central research problem (that is, public perception of food safety in relation to pesticide use in Nigeria) cannot be adequately understood through a single epistemological lens. The issue under investigation spans measurable consumer responses (such as levels of awareness, perceived risk, and trust in regulatory institutions) and contextual explanations rooted in agricultural practice, socio-cultural beliefs, and institutional experience. Pragmatism is therefore relevant because it allows methodological choices to be driven by the nature of the research problem rather than by philosophical allegiance (Morgan, 2014; Creswell and Creswell, 2023).
In the context of this study, public perception of food safety is neither purely objective nor entirely subjective. Quantitative measurement alone would reveal patterns in consumer concern or trust but would be insufficient to explain why such perceptions exist in a food system characterised by informal markets, limited regulation, and heterogeneous farming practices. On the other hand, a purely interpretivist approach would capture lived experiences and meanings but would lack the empirical structure required to assess the prevalence and strength of these perceptions across consumer groups. Therefore, pragmatism provides a coherent framework for integrating these forms of knowledge. It also enables the study to examine both the extent of food safety concern and the mechanisms through which pesticide use practices shape that concern.
Adopting a pragmatic philosophy enhances the validity of the research process in several ways. First, it supports methodological triangulation, thus, allowing survey data from consumers to be corroborated and explained through qualitative insights from farmers and agricultural officers. This reduces the risk of partial or one-dimensional interpretations of food safety perception. Second, pragmatism strengthens construct validity by ensuring that abstract concepts such as “risk perception” and “institutional trust” are examined through both statistical indicators and contextual narratives, rather than being treated as isolated variables. Third, it enhances external validity by grounding findings in real-world practices and decision-making processes across the food system thereby increasing the relevance of the study for policy and intervention design.
From a procedural standpoint, pragmatism also improves the research process by enabling a sequential explanatory design in which quantitative findings directly inform qualitative inquiry. Survey results identifying patterns of concern or mistrust guide the selection of interview themes, thus, ensuring that qualitative data collection is analytically focused rather than exploratory. This alignment increases analytical coherence and ensures that each methodological stage contributes directly to answering the research questions.
Overall, pragmatism is not adopted as an abstract philosophical preference. It is rather a functional and problem-oriented framework that aligns with the objectives of this study. Moreover, it enables the integration of multiple data sources, enhances analytical depth, and ensures that conclusions about public perception of food safety in relation to pesticide use in Nigeria are both empirically grounded and contextually meaningful.
3.2.2 Ontological and Epistemological Position
Ontologically, this study adopts a pluralist position because food safety risk in the Nigerian context exists simultaneously as a material condition and a socially interpreted reality. On the one hand, pesticide-related food safety risk is grounded in objective conditions such as chemical exposure pathways, application practices, and regulatory standards. Furthermore, the significance of these risks is mediated through consumer interpretation, cultural beliefs, prior experiences, and levels of trust in institutions. Therefore, treating food safety risk as exclusively objective would obscure the ways in which perception shapes consumer behaviour, while treating it as purely subjective would neglect the material practices that give rise to concern. A pluralist ontology therefore aligns with the study’s aim to examine both the existence of risk and its interpretation within everyday food consumption contexts.
Epistemologically, the study views knowledge as context-dependent and provisional, produced through the interaction of empirical evidence and human interpretation rather than as a fixed or universal truth (Saunders et al, 2019; Creswell & Creswell, 2023). This position is particularly relevant to the current study because perceptions of food safety are shaped by uneven regulatory enforcement, informal market structures, and variable access to information across Nigerian food systems. Knowledge about food safety risk is therefore contingent on social position, occupational role, and lived experience, which make it inappropriate to assume a single authoritative account of risk perception.
This ontological and epistemological positioning directly informs and strengthens the research design and analytical strategy. By recognising multiple forms of reality and knowledge, the study is justified in combining quantitative measures of perception and trust with qualitative accounts from farmers and agricultural officers. Quantitative data provide structured insight into patterns of concern and awareness among consumers, while qualitative data illuminate how pesticide use practices, institutional constraints, and everyday decision-making processes shape those patterns. Neither strand is treated as epistemologically superior; instead, each contributes distinct but complementary forms of evidence.
Adopting this stance enhances the validity of the study in three keyways. First, it improves explanatory validity by ensuring that observed statistical relationships are interpreted in light of contextual realities rather than as abstract correlations. Second, it strengthens interpretive credibility by acknowledging that participant accounts are situated and meaningful representations of experience rather than deviations from an assumed objective truth. Third, it supports methodological triangulation, allowing convergence and divergence across data sources to be analytically productive rather than treated as methodological weakness.
In sum, the pluralist ontological and contextual epistemological position adopted in this study is not merely theoretical but functionally necessary. It provides the philosophical justification for methodological integration while enabling a more practical interpretation of public perception of food safety in relation to pesticide use. Further, it ensures that the research findings reflect both the material conditions of food production and the social realities of food consumption in Nigeria.
3.3 Research Approach
3.3.1 Mixed-Methods Rationale
The study employs a mixed-methods approach. It combines quantitative and qualitative techniques within a single research design and is, therefore, particularly suited to studies that seek both to identify patterns and to explain underlying mechanisms (Tashakkori et al, 2021).
In this study:
- Quantitative methods address what consumers perceive regarding food safety and pesticide risk.
- Qualitative methods address why those perceptions exist and how production and regulatory practices shape them.
The integration of both approaches enables a more comprehensive understanding than either method could provide independently.
3.3.2 Sequential Explanatory Design
This study hinges on a sequential explanatory design in which quantitative data collection and analysis precede qualitative inquiry. This design allows initial survey findings to inform the focus of interviews thereby enhancing analytical coherence and explanatory depth (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2022).
3.4 Research Design
The research design consists of two analytically linked phases:
Phase One: Quantitative Survey
The first phase involves a structured questionnaire survey administered to consumers. The purpose of this phase is to:
- Measure levels of food safety awareness.
- Assess perceptions of pesticide-related risk.
- Examine trust in regulatory institutions.
- Analyse consumer behaviour in food purchasing.
This phase establishes empirical patterns and relationships among key variables.
Phase Two: Qualitative Interviews
The second phase involves semi-structured interviews with farmers and agricultural officers. This phase explores:
- Pesticide use and handling practices.
- Compliance challenges and decision-making processes.
- Institutional and resource constraints affecting regulation.
Qualitative findings are used to contextualise and explain quantitative patterns.
3.5 Study Context
The study is conducted in selected urban and peri-urban locations in Nigeria where food supply chains converge and consumer exposure to pesticide-treated food is most likely. These settings are characterised by informal market systems, limited food traceability, and uneven regulatory oversight which make them analytically appropriate for examining food safety perception.
3.6 Target Population
Three interconnected population groups are included:
- Consumers, who interpret food safety risks and make purchasing decisions.
- Farmers, who apply pesticides during production and post-harvest handling.
- Agricultural officers, who provide extension services or enforce regulatory standards.
This multi-actor focus reflects systems-based approaches to food safety research (World Bank, 2021).
3.7 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size
3.7.1 Quantitative Sampling
A multi-stage non-probability sampling strategy was used for the consumer survey. Markets and residential areas were purposively selected, followed by convenience sampling of respondents. While this approach limits statistical generalisability, it is appropriate for perception studies conducted in settings without comprehensive sampling frames (Bryman, 2021).
Sample size was determined to balance analytical robustness with practical feasibility.
3.7.2 Qualitative Sampling
Qualitative participants were selected using purposive sampling, targeting individuals with direct experience of pesticide use or regulation. Sampling continues until thematic saturation is achieved to maintain consistency with qualitative research standards (Guest et al, 2024).
3.8 Data Collection Methods
3.8.1 Questionnaire Survey
The questionnaire is structured into sections covering:
- Demographic characteristics
- Awareness of pesticide use
- Perceived food safety risk
- Institutional trust
- Consumer behaviour
Likert-scale items were used to capture degrees of perception and trust. The instrument is pre-tested to ensure clarity and contextual relevance.
3.8.2 Semi-Structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted using an interview guide informed by literature and survey findings. This format allows comparability across interviews while enabling participants to articulate experiences in their own terms (Kallio et al, 2016).
Interviews were audio-recorded with consent from participants and transcribed verbatim for analysis.
3.9 Validity, Reliability, and Trustworthiness
3.9.1 Quantitative Rigour
- Content validity is ensured through alignment with established perception and trust constructs.
- Reliability is assessed using internal consistency measures.
- Construct validity is enhanced through careful operationalisation of variables (Hair et al, 2022).
3.9.2 Qualitative Trustworthiness
Qualitative rigour is ensured through:
- Credibility (use of participant quotations)
- Dependability (transparent documentation of procedures)
- Confirmability (reflexive consideration of researcher assumptions)
These criteria align with contemporary qualitative quality frameworks (Tracy, 2020).
3.10 Data Analysis Techniques
3.10.1 Quantitative Analysis
Quantitative data are analysed using statistical software. Techniques include:
- Descriptive statistics
- Correlation analysis
- Regression analysis to examine predictors of food safety perception and behaviour
These techniques are appropriate for perception studies seeking to identify associations rather than causal effects (Field, 2022).
3.10.2 Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative data are analysed thematically using a combination of inductive and deductive coding. This approach enables theoretical sensitivity while remaining grounded in participant narratives (Braun & Clarke, 2021).
3.11 Integration of Findings
Integration occurs at the interpretation stage, where qualitative findings are used to explain quantitative patterns. This process generates meta-inferences that synthesise evidence across methods, thus, enhancing explanatory depth and policy relevance (Fetters et al, 2013).
3.12 Ethical Considerations
Ethical principles guiding the study include informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality, and the right to withdraw. Ethical approval is obtained prior to data collection, and data are stored securely in accordance with research governance standards (UK Research Integrity Office, 2023).
3.13 Methodological Limitations
The study acknowledges limitations related to non-probability sampling, self-reported data, and geographic scope. These limitations are mitigated through triangulation, transparency, and cautious interpretation.
3.14 Chapter Summary
This chapter has outlined the methodological framework guiding the investigation of public perception of food safety in relation to pesticide use in Nigeria. The pragmatic, mixed-methods design enables a thorough and credible examination of perception, practice, and institutional context. The next chapter presents the empirical findings.
Discover more from MEZIESBLOG
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.