Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Ähnlich wie Research methodology 14062011
Ähnlich wie Research methodology 14062011 (20)
Mehr von ccanepa
Mehr von ccanepa (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Research methodology 14062011
- 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?
- 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
- 11. 2 FGD per community – these followed on from each other
- 13. Chapatti diagram – exploring linkages
- 15. Benefits brainstorming and rankingChapatti 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
- 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
- 23. identify most common constraints
- 24. indicate most significant benefitsX identify most critical constraints X compare ranks of benefits
- 25. Thank you
Hinweis der Redaktion
- 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