• Like
Research methodology 14062011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Research methodology 14062011

  • 422 views
Published

 

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
422
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Build on Sally’s presentation, if necessary remind that : End of Phase I, general feeling that not enough was known about CA in these 3 countries to do a quantitative survey. Review of Phase I country reports and KIT survey methodology and overall literature review as well as the discussions during the IAG in 2010 led to the following research questions being developed: The answers to these RQ would provide us with a better overview of CA and the benefits that women derive from participation in CA in each of the countries, as well as enable us to choose which SS and which issues to focus on in the quantitative survey.
  • Reasons for choosing qualitative research methodology:Too many unanswered questions for quantitative survey methodsKey Informant Interviews not deemed sufficient, especially as a big gap in knowledge from Phase I concerned informal CAFocus Group Discussions seen as an appropriate way to deepen our knowledge and understanding of CA at the community levelDecided against a case study approach for Phase II as our overall level of understanding was still too limited. At this stage we wanted to understand more about CA in the sub-sector as a whole and how it worked at the rural community level in particular.
  • Guidance produced Feb by research advisersPilots in Feb – with research advisersRevised RM produced 1st March
  • FGD1 was larger, included men: used as an entry point. Did not focus on a given sub-sectorFGD2, consisted of a subset of people from FGD2, this time only women. Focused on the SS
  • Initially tried to reflect diversity of community, and continued in Ethiopia . But difficult as FGD effectively organised by local resource persons.Even when participants reflect community (Ethiopia), difficult to follow through (e.g. documentation & analysis)
  • Project Team Meeting revealed that the researchers had understood and applied tools differently, despite the guidance. Hence, sometime was spent clarifying best practice in the application of tools and
  • Use symbols to reach out and include illiterate womenProbe, probe and probe

Transcript

  • 1. Research Methodology
    Daniela Lloyd-Williams 15th June 2011
  • 2. Phase II: Research Questions
    Where does CA occur in each SS & what form does it take?
    What benefits do women gain from engaging in CA?
    How do these benefits vary with type of CA & why?
    How does CA, & the benefits that women derive from it, vary between SS
    Why do the characteristics of CA vary between SS?
  • 3. Phase II: Methodology
    Main steps:
    • Literature Review including grey & informal literature
    • 4. Key Informant Interviews
    • 5. Qualitative field research using PRA techniques
    • 6. Review and validation of findings through Stakeholder Dialogues
    • 7. Triangulation of results & analysis
    of findings within & across SS
    Focus Group discussion in Shinyanga, Tanzania:
  • 8. Phase II Methodology: Process
    Advisers produce initial guidance and share with country research teams
    Advisers + country teams pilot field research element in Ethiopia & Tanzania
    Advisers revise field research methodology on basis of pilots (discussions with country teams)
    Researchers roll out field research
    2/3 through field research hold Project
    Team Meeting – adjustments
    Benefit ranking Jimma, Ethiopia
  • 9. Linking Research Questions, methods and results
    Key Results Area
    RQ
    Methods
  • 10. Field Research
    Focus Group Discussions in 4 communities per SS
    • Set up with assistance from local resource person
    • 11. 2 FGD per community – these followed on from each other
    • 12. Participants for FGD2 were drawn from FGD1
    PRA tools
    • Matrix covering main CA groups in community
    • 13. Chapatti diagram – exploring linkages
    • 14. Constraints brainstorming
    • 15. Benefits brainstorming and ranking
    Chapatti diagram, Jimma, Ethiopia
  • 16. Applying the RM: Challenges
    4 main types of challenges:
    Literature Review
    Selection of communities
    Focus Group Discussions
    Use of PRA tools in cross-
    country research
    Example of sub-sector map for sesame in Mali:
  • 17. Literature Review
    Existing literature on CA limited, especially informal CA
    Difficult to obtain ‘grey’ literature
    Review of literature not prioritised by researchers
    Focus group discussion, Shinyanga ,Tanzania
  • 18. Selection of communities
    Definition of community
    Tanzania & Ethiopia similar size, Mali much larger
    Selection
    Difficult to obtain info on WCA
    Key Informants not aware of informal CA
    High reliance on a few key informants
  • 19. Focus Group Discussions
  • 20. PRA tools
    Difficult to design tools to enable cross-country comparison:
    Benefit ranking: SS scores influenced by number of CA groups covered
    Inconsistent application of PRA tools across countries
    Researchers understand & apply tools differently
    Manage discussions & probe to different extents
  • 21. Best Practice
  • 22. Implications
    Cross-country & cross-sector comparisons difficult:
    • identify trends
    • 23. identify most common constraints
    • 24. indicate most significant benefits
    X identify most critical constraints
    X compare ranks of benefits
  • 25. Thank you