Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Research methodology 14062011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Research methodology 14062011

440

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
440
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
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<br />Daniela Lloyd-Williams 15th June 2011<br />
    • 2. Phase II: Research Questions<br />Where does CA occur in each SS & what form does it take?<br />What benefits do women gain from engaging in CA?<br />How do these benefits vary with type of CA & why?<br />How does CA, & the benefits that women derive from it, vary between SS<br />Why do the characteristics of CA vary between SS?<br />
    • 3. Phase II: Methodology<br />Main steps: <br /><ul><li>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</li></ul> of findings within & across SS<br />Focus Group discussion in Shinyanga, Tanzania:<br />
    • 8. Phase II Methodology: Process<br />Advisers produce initial guidance and share with country research teams<br />Advisers + country teams pilot field research element in Ethiopia & Tanzania<br />Advisers revise field research methodology on basis of pilots (discussions with country teams)<br />Researchers roll out field research<br />2/3 through field research hold Project<br />Team Meeting – adjustments <br />Benefit ranking Jimma, Ethiopia<br />
    • 9. Linking Research Questions, methods and results<br />Key Results Area<br />RQ<br />Methods<br />
    • 10. Field Research<br />Focus Group Discussions in 4 communities per SS<br /><ul><li>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</li></ul>PRA tools<br /><ul><li>Matrix covering main CA groups in community
    • 13. Chapatti diagram – exploring linkages
    • 14. Constraints brainstorming
    • 15. Benefits brainstorming and ranking</li></ul>Chapatti diagram, Jimma, Ethiopia<br />
    • 16. Applying the RM: Challenges<br />4 main types of challenges:<br />Literature Review<br />Selection of communities<br />Focus Group Discussions<br />Use of PRA tools in cross-<br />country research <br />Example of sub-sector map for sesame in Mali:<br />
    • 17. Literature Review<br />Existing literature on CA limited, especially informal CA<br />Difficult to obtain ‘grey’ literature<br />Review of literature not prioritised by researchers<br />Focus group discussion, Shinyanga ,Tanzania <br />
    • 18. Selection of communities<br />Definition of community<br />Tanzania & Ethiopia similar size, Mali much larger<br />Selection<br />Difficult to obtain info on WCA<br />Key Informants not aware of informal CA<br />High reliance on a few key informants<br />
    • 19. Focus Group Discussions<br />
    • 20. PRA tools<br />Difficult to design tools to enable cross-country comparison: <br />Benefit ranking: SS scores influenced by number of CA groups covered <br />Inconsistent application of PRA tools across countries<br />Researchers understand & apply tools differently<br />Manage discussions & probe to different extents<br />
    • 21. Best Practice <br />
    • 22. Implications<br />Cross-country & cross-sector comparisons difficult:<br /><ul><li> identify trends
    • 23. identify most common constraints
    • 24. indicate most significant benefits</li></ul>X identify most critical constraints<br />X compare ranks of benefits<br />
    • 25. Thank you<br />

    ×