TEACHING TOOL

1. TEACHING TOOL Research methods for sensitive information: Avoiding mismatch in development interventions Petra Kohler, Kristina Lanz, Sabin Bieri. 2014. Bern, Switzerland: NCCR North-South.

2. Overview • Introduction • About this toolkit • Preliminary thoughts • Methods: face to face versus technological methods; application areas, pros and cons • Conclusions

3. Introduction Development priorities; different views by North and South partners Participatory approaches; idea(l) of development as partnership Development; different understandings of the term and of how to address and interpret challenges

4. About this toolkit I Based on an analysis and evaluation of a variety of existing methods developed for soliciting sensitive information on: • HIV/AIDS • Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) • Drug abuse • Health and sexual behaviour • Physical and sexual gender-based violence • Gender specific sanitation needs

5. Aboutthistoolkit II Aim; to make development interventions more representative of people‘s needs Structure • Prerequisites for successful research • Face to face methods versus technological methods: • quantitative survey methods (pros & cons and examples) • qualitative methods (pros & cons and examples)

6. Prerequisites for successful research I Private & personal topics: challengesforinterventions I Sanitationspecific needs, constraints of local men and women, cultural taboos, gender power relations

7. Prerequisites for successful research II Private & personal topics: challengesforinterventionsII HIV/AIDS and STD‘s clear picture of the actual burden of disease and factors contributing to its spread, reliable data on sexual behaviour

8. Prerequisites for successful research III Private & personal topics: challengesforinterventions III Violence (gender-based violence, human trafficking) prevalence of phenomenon, it’s causes and impacts, willingness of victims and perpetrators to speak about experiences

9. Prerequisites for successful research IV Challenges with researching sensitive questions non-response, reporting error, social desirability bias, gender stereotypes Definition „sensitive question“: “A question is sensitive if it raises concerns about disapproval or other consequences (such as legal sanctions) for reporting truthfully or if the question itself is seen as an invasion of privacy.” (Tourangeau & Smith1996, p.276)

10. Prerequisites for successful research V Asking the right questions open-ended versus closed questions Cognitive interviewing ‘think aloud’ procedure and intensive interviewing

11. Face to face methods I Choosing the right interviewer

12. Face to face methods II a) Quantitative methods Informal confidential voting methods ICVI and Pocket Chart Voting Self-completion procedure can reduce possible embarrassment and social desirability bias Can not stand aloneas an instrument, ispartofothermethodprocedureswhichdepend also on topic and local circumstances

13. Face to face methods III b) Qualitative methods • Observation methods • Face to Face Interview • Third person reports • Focus Group Discussions • GALS

14. Face to face methods IV b) Qualitative methods I Observation methods I; participant observation Getting development professionals accustomed to their environment, at the same time collecting data Description of a holistic and integral view Works in combination with any kind of method Time intense and sometimes need for high knowledge of local language

15. Face to face methods V b) Qualitative methods I Observation methods II: unobtrusive and nonreactive observation Trace studies are nonreactive; lower reactivity results in higher validity of data Substitution for direct observation of behaviours that are too sensitive to practice in presence of observers (e.g. open defecation) Big data amounts can be quantified, standardized, and compared over time and across groups Ethically problematic, e.g. violation of privacy

16. Face to face methods VI b) Qualitative methods II Face to Face Interview If experienced in technique, sensitive topics can be addressed Social desirability bias is strong Third person reports Production of better results than through self reports High potential for addressing taboos Some questions might be too private for friends to know

17. Face to face methods VII b) Qualitative methods III Focus Group Discussions Creation of settings similar to those experienced in everyday Examination of how knowledge and ideas develop and operate within a given cultural context Non-discrimination against persons who are e.g. illiterate Articulation of group norms could quieten indi-vidual voices with differing opinions and views Social desirability can result from group pressure

18. Face to face methods VIII GALS I b) Qualitative methods IV

19. Face to face methods VIV GALS II; «Gender Diamond»

20. Face to face methods X GALS III; «Gender Diamond»

21. Face to face methods XI GALS IV; „Tree of diamond dreams“ = „ Mother tree“

22. Face to face methods XII GALS IV; „Tree of diamond dreams“ = „ Mother tree“

23. Face to face methods XIII b) Qualitative methods GALS V; pros and cons Inclusiveness; involvement of persons of different background, ages, skills (also of illiterate) Social exchange among participants Gender sensitivity Strong in the identification of unusual, sensitive or taboo topics Long duration Interpretation of data is time consuming

24. Technological methods I a) Quantitative methods • CASI • ACASI • Mobile phone-/computer survey b) Qualitative methods • E-mail Interviews

25. Technological methods II a) Quantitative methods I (A)CASI Reservations against interacting with computers Quite high costs for equipment and program High privacy Literacy is not a requirement No interviewer effects Multilingual use Creation of automatic dataset

26. Technological methods III a) Quantitative methods II Mobile phone-/computer surveys I

27. Technological methods IV Mobile phone-/computer surveys III

28. Technological methods V Mobile phone-/computer surveys III; pros and cons Anonymity of and privacy for respondents No interviewer influence Technology is attractive to adolescents No costs for access and use of the programme Time is saved (automatic calculation, no transcription needed) Huge data sets can be recorded and shared Allows mix of qualitative and quantitative data gathering Multilingual use

29. Technological methods VI Mobile phone-/computer surveys IV; pros and cons Technological limitations: access to devices and network Literacy is a requirement

30. Technological methods VII b) Qualitative methods E-mail interviews Overcoming of geographical distances Anonymity of respondents No interviewer effects Asynchronicity enables to reflect on questions Several interviews can be conducted simultaneously No costs for equipment and data transcribing

31. Technological methods VIII E-mail interviews No direct observation of respondents emotions Uncertainty about the identity of respondents Technological problems

32. Conclusion Appropriate methods must: • Allow for privacy, anonymity, neutrality • Offer inclusiveness, acceptability (of theme and method), comfort (user friendliness of method) • Refer to the participants everyday life experiences • Reduce possible embarrassment • Ensure confidentiality (discussing taboo topics without someone losing his/her reputation) • Integrate gender sensitivity • Capture also the views of illiterate persons