|
|
|
6.1 An Overview of Gathering,
Managing and Communicating Information
6.1.1
Knowing the Journey Data Will Take
Data travel.
On this journey they are gradually collated and analysed as the data move
from field sites or different project staff and partner organisations
to be centrally available for management decisions and reports. The journey
involves a transformation from data to information and knowledge that
is the basis of decisions. Data are the raw material that has no
meaning yet. Information involves adding meaning by synthesising
and analysing it. Knowledge emerges when the information is related
back to a concrete situation in order to establish explanations and lessons
for decisions. Many rural development projects have much data lying around,
less information, little knowledge and hence very little use of the original
data for decision making (see Box 6-1). To avoid this
problem, plan not only how you will gather data but also how you will
transform the data into valuable knowledge.
| |
Box
6-1. Data and yet no information in Uganda
In
one project in Uganda, field extension staff had kept monthly records
for seven years on their work with farmers to establish sustainable
livelihood activities, such as planting woodlots, beekeeping, using
fuel-efficient stoves and implementing soil conservation measures.
There was literally a room full of monthly reports. However, no
system had been developed for collating this information and turning
it into insights about adoption rates, reasons for differences between
villages or differing success rates of particular extension staff.
When analysis of the data was attempted, it proved to be impossible
because the data was unreliable and very difficult to compare and
collate between different project areas. This problem typically
arises when the focus is on data collection rather than knowledge
generation.
|
|
Figure
6-1 shows how data travel. Table 6-1 lists questions that need to
be considered for each part of the journey. For each performance question
and indicator, the journey will be different in terms of the choice of
methods, frequency and responsibilities. Irrespective of the journey,
be sure that the information you are collecting is helping you answer
your performance questions (see Section
5).
Figure
6-1. The journey data take
Table
6-1. Preparing the journey for your data
|
Steps
|
Key
Questions to Answer
|
|
Data
sample selection
|
Will
a sample be necessary? If yes, how will it be taken in order to
be representative of the project’s primary stakeholders? If no,
where can you get the information?
|
|
Data
collection
|
How
are you going to find your information: by measuring, interviewing
individuals, group discussions, observing?
|
|
Data
recording
|
Who
will use which formats to write, visualise, photograph or take video
of data and impressions?
|
|
Data
storing
|
Where
will data (raw and analysed) be stored, how and by whom? Who will
have access?
|
|
Data
collation
|
Who
will use what methods to group data into a logically ordered overview?
|
|
Data
analysis
|
Who
will examine the data using what method to give them meaning and
synthesise them into a coherent explanation of what happened and
what needs to now be undertaken?
|
|
Information
feedback and dissemination
|
At
what stages and using what means will information be shared with
project and partner staff, primary stakeholders, steering committees
and funding agencies?
|
6.1.2
Considerations When Choosing Your Method
Before choosing your method, be clear about three methodological aspects:
- the difference
and overlap between methods for qualitative and quantitative information;
- the implications
of working with individual or group-based methods;
- what
makes a method participatory – or not.
Several steps need to be followed to select the most appropriate method(s)
(see 6.2.2 for more details):
- Check
that you are completely clear about what information you need collected,
collated, analysed or fed back, for which you are seeking a method.
- Check
that another group, person or organisation is not already collecting
the data. Check, where possible, how the information was collected to
see if it is reliable enough for your needs.
- Be clear
about how accurate you need to be.
- Does the
information relate to a specialist area? If so, seek specialist advice
or documentation before proceeding with the method selection.
- Be clear
about the task that needs to be accomplished, and whether this concerns
qualitative and/or quantitative information. Consider whether a method
is needed to collect, collate, analyse, synthesise or disseminate information.
- Decide
the extent to which the data gathering or analysis process is to be
participatory, and therefore whether you need to work with individuals,
groups or a combination.
- Decide
if your data-collection coverage is to be sampled or comprehensive.
If working with a sample, decide on your sample size, clarify the "sampling
frame" and select your sample (see D.1).
- Do you
have several methodological options or is there only one? List your
method options and make an initial selection. If using a sequence of
methods, check that the methods complement each other.
- List your
methods and make an initial selection.
- When you
think you’ve got the right method for the task at hand, consider if
it is: feasible, appropriate, valid, reliable, relevant, sensitive,
cost-effective and timely.
- Pre-test
your method, with a small number of participants who are similar to
those from whom information is going to be sought. Adjust your method
based on recommendations from the test run.
- Determine
the frequency of use.
6.1.3
Gathering, Collating and Storing Information
When preparing for data gathering, do not forget to:
- Consider
carefully how to select interviewers and facilitators.
- Consider
how to distribute the tasks of collection and analysis among different
people and what is needed to limit errors.
- Ensure
that those using the methods are comfortable with them.
- Ensure
clarity of language.
- Prepare
the practicalities of each method, such as materials needed.
Avoid error
by considering possible causes of sampling errors and non-sampling errors.
Non-sampling errors are particularly critical. These can occur due to
interviewer bias, inadequacy of methods, processing errors and non-response
bias (see 6.3.1).
Check your
data from time to time. Spot checks are important at the beginning of
any project – if you are using existing data sets – by looking at where
data come from, who has collected information and the methods and standards
they used. Also check data collection when using a new method or when
working with new fieldworkers, new implementing partners, new staff, etc..
Data can be suspicious if you notice overly precise data (like perfect
matches between targets and actual realised activities), sudden large
changes in data, and data gaps.
For each
bit of information, define how it will be recorded. Practise with the
people doing the recording before setting out to collect data.
The step
of collating (or aggregating) information often gets lost in the gap between
data collection and analysis. It requires some attention as it can greatly
facilitate analysis if undertaken well and can introduce error if done
poorly. Collation is needed when you are scaling up your information from
a smaller unit of analysis to a larger one or when information has been
collected from different sources with different methods. The collation
of qualitative data requires special care and analytical skills.
Qualitative
and quantitative data analysis are both critical for making use of M&E
data but are also quite distinct processes. The Guide focuses on aspects
of qualitative data analysis as statistical procedures fall outside its
scope. Refer to Section 8 for
many ideas on how to encourage reflective meetings and analytical reporting
in addition to the ideas in 6.4.2.
When deciding
how to organise the storage of M&E information, consider these four
questions(also see 7.5):
- What information
needs to be stored?
- Who needs
access to the information and when?
- What type
of information needs to be stored – hard copies or data that can be
computerised and accessed centrally?
- Regularly
assess what information you need to keep and what can be discarded.
6.1.4
Considering Communication of M&E Results
M&E-related
findings have many potential audiences: funding agencies, steering committees,
cooperating institution, project and implementing partner staff, and primary
stakeholders. The main purpose of communicating findings is to ensure
accountability and motivate stakeholders to action. Draft M&E findings
need to be discussed with implementing partners and primary stakeholders
in order to get feedback on accuracy, reach joint conclusions and agree
on next steps. Final findings can then be passed to the relevant organisations
for accountability and action.
Plan
carefully how you will communicate your M&E findings. Reach agreement
with project stakeholders on who needs to receive what kinds of M&E
information. Remember to include accountability, advocacy and action-oriented
audiences and to agree on the information (content and form) they need.
Plan
for communication as part of your M&E system from the outset. Do not
hope or expect that someone else in the project will communicate M&E
findings. As part of this, invest in good communication, not only in producing
effective outputs but also in project-based capacities for communication.
A
key communication task is to ensure that your findings are correct. Workshops
and meetings are critical events to seek feedback and plan action.
When
planning to present M&E information for feedback, consider these practical
aspects:
- Ensure
clarity of message for specific audiences.
- Agree
on the frequency for communicating information.
- Ensure
timeliness. When do you need to get feedback to still be useful for
decision making?
- Consider
location. Where will people feel at ease?
Use different
media to communicate findings. Written reporting is most known and ranges
from formal progress reports, to special studies, to informal briefs in
the form of memorandums highlighting a current issue. M&E findings
can often be communicated more effectively verbally than by other means.
Speaking directly with a target audience provides a quicker and more flexible
way to convey your message. Also use visual displays, such as graphs or
charts showing trends or maps, to convey summaries of what is happening.
Back
to Top 
6.2 Deciding Which Methods to
Use
6.2.1
What Are Methods?
A method
is an established and systematic way of carrying out a particular task.
Agronomists have methods for measuring crop yield. Economists have methods
for calculating return on investment. Anthropologists have methods for
looking at household decision-making patterns. Accountants have methods
for budgeting and reporting on project funds. And managers and facilitators
have methods for helping groups to make decisions.
M&E
makes use of a wide range of methods for gathering, analysing, storing
and presenting information. In your M&E activities, you are likely
to use established research methods from the biophysical and social sciences,
as well as from a growing collection of participatory methods (see Box
6-2). Sometimes the information you require will make it necessary
to adapt an existing method or develop an entirely new method.
| |
Box
6-2. Matching methods to needs
One
IFAD-supported agricultural development project in China used crop
development models to make predictions on the development of 14
crops, including the impact of staple and specialty crops – such
as pearl sorghum and ginger – on farm-level production and income
generation. These models were calculated with the help of the FARMOD
modelling software developed by FAO and the World Bank. These estimates
could be used as a base with which to compare actual results gathered
through data-collection methods.
In
India, a method for the self-evaluation of women’s credit "self-help
groups" was developed for periodic monitoring of specific indicators.
Because many of the women are illiterate, a series of pictures was
used to represent indicators and a colour-coding system was developed
to represent levels of evaluation. This method was used in groups
and allowed for full participation of all the members.
|
|
In
carrying out M&E, it is often necessary to combine a series of methods
(see Box 6-3). For example, a participatory rural
appraisal (PRA) process used to find out how primary stakeholders are
benefiting from a project might combine some 15 or more different methods
ranging from transect walks to matrix ranking and focus group discussions.
Likewise, a household survey or annual project review meeting would combine
a series of interviewing, discussion and facilitation methods. The combination
of a series of methods in a structured way is often referred to as a methodology.
For example, you have a methodology for a workshop or a methodology for
a baseline survey.
| |
Box 6-3. Diverse methods for sustainability
monitoring in the Karnataka Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project,
India 1
A
village-based sustainability monitoring process was developed to
understand what issues could potentially adversely affect the sustainability
of water and sanitation services in India. A set of nine questionnaires
was developed to be used in visits to 15 villages, with the following
topics: village socio-economic profile; technical: water supply
(asset condition and profile); technical: sanitation (drainage,
soak-pits and dustbins); technical: sanitation (household latrines);
financial: costs, tariff, billing and collection; institutional:
village water and sanitation committee (VWSC) – composition, functions
and effectiveness; household: facts, perception of demand met; social:
participation by women and poor; and tap stand monitoring.
Preparation
and Data Collection
Before
starting the data collection, a one-day preparatory workshop was
held for the teams to brainstorm about the concept and the methods.
A variety of methods were used in order to answer the questionnaires:
direct observations, general meetings, focus group discussions,
household surveys, and observations and interviews of villagers
while collecting water at the public tap stands.
Collation
and Analysis
After
the fieldwork, all the data collected through the questionnaires
and scores of the 71 indicators were converted into a sustainability
index for each village. The analysis revealed that nine out of the
15 villages visited fell into the "likely to be sustainable"
category (60% with a score above 0.65), five into the "uncertain"
category (33% between 0.50 and 0.64) and one in the "unlikely"
category (below 0.50).
|
|
6.2.2
Types of Methods
Annex
D provides a description of 34 different methods commonly used for
M&E and, in particular, participatory M&E. They have been grouped
as follows:
- sampling
methods;
- core M&E
methods (such as stakeholder analysis and questionnaires);
- discussion
methods for groups (such as brainstorming and role plays);
- methods
for spatially-distributed information (such as maps and transects);
- methods
for time-based patterns of change (such as diaries and photographs);
- methods
for analysing relationships and linkages (such as impact flow diagrams
and problem trees);
- methods
for ranking and prioritising (such as matrices).
You will
probably also need to draw on other specialised methods related to specific
technical fields, which are clustered under biophysical measurements (Method
5) and cost-benefit analysis (Method 7) in Annex
D.
By calling
on specific technical expertise when developing a detailed M&E plan,
you can ensure the inclusion of appropriate specialist methods.
Before selecting
your methods, first consider three important aspects:
- quantitative
versus qualitative methods (see Table 6-2);
- individual
versus group-based methods (see Table 6-2);
- the extent
to which a method can be participatory.
Table 6-2. Examples of multi-purpose M&E methods
|
|
Qualitative
Data
|
Quantitative
Data
|
|
Methods
for groups
|
Case
studies, brainstorming, focus groups, SWOT, drama and role plays,
maps, transects, GIS, historical trends/ timelines, seasonal calendars,
rich pictures, visioning, flow diagrams, well-being ranking
|
Nominal
group technique, maps, transects, historical trends/timelines,
seasonal calendars, flow diagrams, matrix scoring and ranking
|
|
Methods
for individuals
|
Semi-structured
interviews, case studies, maps, transects, diaries, historical
trends/timelines, seasonal calendars, flow diagrams
|
Direct
measurements, structured questionnaires, maps, transects, GIS,
diaries, flow diagrams
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Methods
Quantitative
methods directly measure the status or change of a specific variable,
for example, changes in crop yield, kilometres of road built or hours
women spend fetching water. Quantitative methods provide direct numerical
results.
Qualitative
methods gather information by asking people to explain what they have
observed, do, believe or feel. The output from qualitative methods is
textual descriptions.
Much information
in M&E reports tends to be based on numbers. Quantitative data are
clear and precise and are often considered to be more scientifically verifiable.
You will always need this kind of information. However, for some performance
questions you will need to complement it by asking people about their
experiences and opinions.
Choosing
to use a method to produce or analyse qualitative or quantitative data
(see Box 6-4) depends not only on the type of information
you are seeking but also on the capacities and resources you have available,
how the information will be used and how precise data need to be (see
Box 6-5).
Note that
the difference between quantitative and qualitative methods is not absolute.
Much qualitative information can be quantified. For example, opinions
can be clustered into groups and then counted, thereby becoming quantitative.
Note, however, that you can never make quantitative information more qualitative.
You cannot extract an opinion from a number.
| |
Box 6-4. Using methods to produce quantitative
or qualitative data
Methods
for quantitative data. They need to produce data that are easily
represented as numbers, answering questions such as "How much…?",
"How many…?", and "How frequent …?" Quantitative
data generally require formal measurements of variables such as
income, production or population densities.
Methods
for qualitative data. They produce data that are not easily
summarised in numerical form, broadly answering the "how"
and "why" through, for instance, meetings, interviews
or general observations. Qualitative data are more appropriate for
understanding people’s attitudes or behaviours, beliefs, opinions,
experiences and priorities. Qualitative data include answers to
questions like "Why do you think this happened?" and "How
do you think this will affect you?"
|
|
| |
Box 6-5. Considering the pros and cons
of qualitative and quantitative studies 2
A
study focusing on the community’s acceptability of immunisation
was carried out in Somalia, as mothers did not seem to want to take
their children to be immunised.
A
quantitative survey could have found out: how many mothers
accept immunisation, how many do not and whether this is related
statistically to their socio-economic status, education, age, number
of children, distance from the clinic, income, clan, etc. This information
might be useful for programme planning if the social or physical
factors that were found to influence the mothers could be changed.
However,
a qualitative survey was used instead. It found out why mothers
do or do not take their children to be immunised. It looked at their
experience with immunisation and how that affects their behaviour.
The study showed that the way mothers were treated in clinics put
them off. For example, they were not given enough information and
were scared when their children suffered from fevers after vaccination.
They also thought that diseases were caused by bad spirits and,
therefore, could not be prevented by vaccination.
From
this study, it was possible to change the way clinics were run and
how staff was trained, and it was easier to explain to mothers why
immunisation is important.
|
|
Considering
Individual- or Group-Based Methods
Throughout
the M&E process – from design, to data collection and analysis – you
can choose to use methods to consult with groups or with individuals (see
Table 6-3). Working with individuals can give you
more detailed information but it will only give an overview after analysing
data from a set of individuals. A group-based method will elicit a more
collective perspective – with areas of consensus and divergence – while
personal details and perspectives are less likely to emerge. Groups ask
more of the facilitator and the quality of discussions depends on the
size of the group and how comfortable people are with each other and the
topic at hand. Annex D includes one cluster of methods that are particularly
suited for group discussions. However, many other methods in Annex D can
also be used in a group context (see Table 6-2).
The more
people involved at any one M&E event, the greater the importance of
good facilitation and planning. The facilitator’s skill will largely determine
whether a method is used successfully in a group. Good facilitators will
provide suggestions, probe, encourage, redirect and also take notes. They
also help manage conflicts by encouraging people to listen to and understand
each other’s perspectives.
Table
6-3. Pros and cons of working with individuals and groups
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Processes
with individuals
|
-
Manage the discussion more easily
-
Can get detailed information
-
Generate data that can usually be structured in a way that makes
statistical analysis possible
|
-
Consume more time if you want data from many individuals
-
Cannot be used to generate consensus
-
Do not allow cost-effective feedback
|
|
Processes
with a group
|
-
Generate new learning in some participants, as information may be
shared that normally is not
-
With careful planning, can allow for marginal voices to be heard
-
Can show where divergence and convergence of opinions lie
|
-
Can cause problems in terms of data validity, as individuals may
be influenced by group dynamics or composition
-
Cannot (usually) deal with sensitive information
-
Require a facilitator able to deal with group dynamics
-
Require careful thought about group composition to adequately represent
the voices you want to hear
|
What Makes
a Method Participatory
Many projects
are keen to involve primary stakeholders more in M&E. They commonly
consider that collecting data from local people using so-called participatory
methods is sufficient. Imagine the following scenario. The M&E staff
of a project goes to a group of farms to understand if soil nutrient flows
have changed as a result of farmer training on soil conservation. They
meet the farmers and ask them to sketch maps showing where nutrients enter
the farms, how they are used and how they leave, and in particular showing
what has changed after soil conservation measures were adopted. The mapping
process lasts about two hours, after which the team goes back to the M&E
office with the sketched maps to synthesise and analyse the data for a
report to the director. At some point, the report is copied and sent to
the village. Can you call this mapping process participatory?
Participation
in M&E is often limited to working with primary stakeholders as information
sources, rather than as joint users of information and therefore potential
analysts and co-designers of methods. If you have selected the method
and use it to get information from people, then you are involved not in
a participatory process but in an extractive one. This is fine – unless
you are aiming for participatory M&E. In which case, you would involve
other stakeholders in choosing and using methods.
Many people
think there is a set of so-called "participatory" M&E methods,
but this is not the case. A method is not inherently participatory or
not participatory. Many of the methods useful for M&E can be used
in either a participatory or non-participatory way. The participatory
impact comes with the way a method is used and who helped select it. The
use of a technical method for testing water quality, for example, can
become participatory if the community is involved in deciding what aspects
of water quality to measure, collecting the data and reviewing the results.
On the other hand, if a group is directed to produce a map of the area,
there is little discussion, and the map disappears into the project office
forever, then this cannot be called participatory mapping. See 2.6
for general considerations for participatory M&E.
To ensure
that the selection and use of methods is participatory, consider these
questions.
- In
what aspect of the M&E methods is participation important? In
selection or design of the method, in applying it for data collection
or for analysis?
- Who
should ideally be involved in the task at hand? Who needs to help
select, design or use the method? Ideally, those who are to use it for
collecting or analysis should be involved in selection/design. This
can include staff of implementing partners, project staff, primary stakeholders
and consultants.
- Who
wants to be involved in what? Not everyone has the time or
inclination to participate. This is not a problem, as full participation
is neither practical nor possible. Instead, you need to ask those you
would like to involve if they are able and interested.
- What
is needed for effective participation? Self-confidence is needed
before effective participation is possible. Therefore you need to create
the conditions for people to feel free in helping define methods, in
testing and adjusting them, in collecting data, etc. This can include
providing training or follow-up mentoring, finding the right time and
place, offering childcare support, etc.
6.2.3
Selecting Your Methods
To select
the most appropriate methods for the task at hand, the steps below can
give some guidance.
- Be
clear about what you need to know. Section
5 discusses the process of deciding what you want to monitor and
evaluate. Before you start with method selection, confirm with those
involved that everyone is clear on what information needs to be sought.
- Check
that another group, person or organisation is not already collecting
the data. Before investing in method selection for data gathering
and analysis, find out if the information you are seeking is already
available and from where (see Table 6.3). Government
agencies, universities and research organisations will often have data
that can contribute to the project’s information needs. Start by asking
whether there are reporting mechanisms in the villages, local towns,
district capitals, etc. for information you might need, such as population,
disease incidence, tax collection and so on. The methods employed will
be many and varied, ranging from national statistical and census methods
to specific research methods. You might find it helpful to make an inventory
of existing information collection, as in an IFAD-supported project
in Zambia (see Table 6-4).
Check, where
possible, how the information was collected to see if it is reliable enough
for your needs. In some situations it may be possible to modify data gathering
by other agencies to better support the M&E work of the project. However,
if you think the data quality cannot be improved or if they are too difficult
to access, then you will need to consider collecting the data yourself.
Table
6-4. Part of an inventory of information useful for the District Development
Project that is already being compiled in Zambia3
|
Type
of Information Collected
|
Who
Collects?
|
Why
Collect?
|
Where
Does It Go After Collection?
|
|
Water
points
|
D-WASHE,
water affairs, education, MoH (min. of health)
|
-
Planning for new water points and maintenance
|
Local
authorities, NGOs, water affairs, UNICEF, MoH
|
|
Road
infrastructure
|
Roads
department, local authorities, MAFF (min. of agriculture, food
and fisheries)
|
-
Planning, e.g., access and maintenance
|
MoLGandH
(min. of local government and housing), MAFF, MoT (min. of tourism)
|
|
Public
institutions
(agriculture
camps, hospitals, schools, industries, trading centres, banks,
postal services)
|
CBS
(central bureau of statistics), local authorities, sector departments
|
-
Planning for services provision
-
Planning for new investment
|
MoLGandH,
sector departments/ministries, donors, MoFED (min. of finance
and economic development)
|
|
Crop
production
|
MAFF,
CBS
|
-
Food security
-
Input requirements
-
Policy formulation
-
Marketing
-
Crop production potential
-
Household income
|
MAFF,
MoFED, CBS, FRA (food reserve agency), local authorities
|
|
Enrolment
(schools)
|
Head
teachers, CBS, inspectorates (district), zone coordinators
|
-
Planning purposes, e.g., upgrading, expansion, materials procurement
|
MoE,
curriculum development centre, MoH, local authorities
|
|
Births
and deaths
|
Local
authorities, hospitals, CBS
|
-
Birth and mortality rates
-
Population growth rate
-
Planning, e.g., provision of social services
|
Registrar
general, MoFED, CBS, MoH, MoLGandH
|
- Be
clear about how accurate you need to be.
Higher accuracy is always more desirable than lower accuracy. However,
in some cases you may not need precise figures or detailed opinions
based on a representative sample, but only a general impression. For
example, you can choose to do a series of 50 measurements on farmers’
fields to measure exact productivity. But you might only need to know
if most farmers are satisfied with their yields, for which discussion
with several farmer leaders might be sufficient.
- Does
the information relate to a specialist area? If so, seek specialist
advice or detailed documentation before proceeding with the method selection.
This is the case, for example, for cost-benefit analysis and geographic
information system mapping (see Methods 7 and 19 in Annex
D). They require expert input in order to assess if they are worthwhile
for the project to use.
- Be
clear about the task that needs to be accomplished and whether it concerns
qualitative and/or quantitative information. Consider whether a
method is needed to collect, collate, analyse, synthesise or disseminate
information. Does the performance question or indicator for which you
are seeking a method require quantitative, qualitative or both types
of information? Think about whether you need individual or group opinions.
Also consider how the people involved prefer and are able to communicate,
as this determines the choice of medium: written, oral, visual and/or
dramatic. Some methods are based on diagrams, while others focus on
written information.
- Decide
the extent to which the data gathering or analysis process is to be
participatory and, therefore, whether you need to work with individuals,
groups or a combination. Different stakeholders can be involved
in data gathering and analysis of information to varying degrees. Be
clear about why you are seeking more participation (see Box
6-6). Is it for consistency in processing or for shared analysis?
This will affect the choice of method. The extent of participation will
also influence the suitability of certain methods. For example, a cost-benefit
analysis is not suited for just anyone, but for someone with an economic
background. If you are developing an M&E system that micro-credit
groups are to implement and manage, then questionnaires will only be
suitable if they design this themselves and are confident about analysing
the results.
| |
Box
6-6. When participatory M&E is the incentive needed to keep
the data journey moving 4
In
many CARE offices, there is often a physical and temporal gap between
data collection and data analysis. Those collecting data are often
not involved in analysing it. Analysis often happens months after
the data are collected. Often data are not analysed at all. One
M&E staff member in CARE joked that when he started his job,
there was a huge container of paper outside his office that one
day simply disappeared. He was indicating that unanalysed data can
easily disappear without being missed.
In
Bangladesh, CARE project staff tried to meet this challenge by introducing
participatory methods into their project monitoring systems. Shifting
their monitoring activities from CARE headquarters to the field
level grew out of concern that data analysis was not done by those
who collected the information nor who were involved in the day-to-day
running of the project. Also, it took so long for headquarters-based
staff to receive monitoring forms, enter data, send forms back to
the field for corrections and so on that data processing sometimes
took over a year.
More
participatory M&E was introduced to:
1.
Increase the validity of monitoring data by having field trainers
and project participants involved in analysis;
2.
Increase the quality of data by helping participants become aware
of why they are being asked certain questions.
One
project team has now prepared forms that are one-page pictorial
summaries of production and input data, which will be used with
farmers. This data will then be entered and analysed at the "thana"
and district levels. Composite reports will then be sent to headquarters,
where they will be compiled and analysed for the project as a whole.
|
|
| |
Box
6-7. Random sampling within a non-random sample5
In
a total of nine villages, nine to ten households were selected randomly
from four different income categories from each village. The nine
villages consisted of three villages from clusters in three different
geographical areas. In each cluster, villages were selected on the
basis of the length of the project in the area (i.e., one, three
or five years). This sampling allowed for two types of comparisons
to be made. A comparison was made based on the length of the project’s
presence in the village and one was made across clusters (geographical/topographical
conditions).
|
|
-
Do
you have several methodological options or is there only one?
Armed with all these details about how you hope to find information,
ask yourselves if you actually have any options. Sometimes the type
of information you are seeking can be found clearly only in one way.
For example, knowing how many turtles have laid eggs on breeding beaches
will require you to go and look. However, it is more likely that you
will have several options.
-
List
your method options and make an initial selection. Once you know
what the method needs to do, then it is time to list all options and
choose. Table 6-5 provides one way to help you organise your thinking
for this step.
Table
6-5. Helping you match methods for performance questions and indicators
|
Performance
Question / Indicator
|
Issues
in Gathering Data
|
Potential
Methods
|
Comments
on Possible Methods
|
|
Take
this from your M&E matrix (see Section
5 and Annex
C).
|
Coverage,
degree of participation, qualitative, quantitative, who is to
do it, etc.
|
See
Annex
D.
|
List
particular potential problems and key advantages.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Selection
of your method will depend largely on the type of information needed,
the skills of those involved and the degree of precision needed. Also
make sure that methods complement each other to provide the information
you are seeking and that they allow you to crosscheck information. For
example, a forestry resource management plan may involve GIS maps (Method
19), resource mapping (Method 17) and transects (Method 18) to gather
information on the forest resources, an analysis of historical trends
to understand changes in forest use and ownership, an institutional analysis
diagram (Method 27) to help with stakeholder analysis and various discussion
methods (Methods 11 to 16) to understand local priorities and dynamics.
Critical
in your selection process is ensuring appropriateness. Table
6-6 provides an example of the appropriateness of different soil-erosion
assessment methods for different audiences. Especially in the case of
participatory monitoring, methods should be selected so they can eventually
be incorporated into everyone’s everyday activities, as few people are
likely to be remunerated for the effort involved. Methods might need to
be created after negotiations about appropriateness (see Box
6-8). Where possible, the information collection, analysis and the
use of the results should be undertaken by the same people, who should
understand the method(s) and agree that they are appropriate.
Table 6-6. Appropriateness of soil-erosion assessment
methods for different stakeholder groups 6
|
Assessment
Method
|
Farmer
|
Researcher
|
Policy
Maker
|
Funding
Agency
|
|
Visual
(rills, turbidity of run-off water, etc.)
|
Excellent
|
Good
|
Poor
|
Poor
|
|
Stick
in the ground
|
Good |
Fair
|
|
|
|
Total
suspended solid
|
Fair
|
Excellent
|
|
|
|
Run-off
plots
|
Fair
|
Fair
– Good
|
|
|
|
Soil
horizon
|
Poor
|
|
|
|
|
Vegetation/Pedestal
formation
|
Good
|
|
|
|
|
Simulation/Modelling
|
Poor
|
Excellent
|
Good
– Excellent
|
Good
– Excellent
|
|
Remote
sensing
|
Poor
|
Good
– Excellent
|
Excellent
|
Excellent
|
|
Sediment
deposition
|
Fair
|
|
|
|
| |
Box
6-8. Negotiating appropriate methods in Brazil 7
In
Brazil, the farmers, NGO staff, union representatives and university
academics were deciding which method could assess "the percentage
of vegetation cover" (one of the chosen indicators for monitoring
their agroforestry activity). First, the academics suggested using
a wooden frame (with four quadrats of about one square metre in
total), to be placed on the ground in several sites within the agroforestry
plot) and visually estimating the surface area covered by vegetation.
They also suggested a form to fill in the percentages. While the
wooden frame was acceptable, the farmers thought the form would
be too complicated. The academics then suggested a form with pre-drawn
quadrats that the farmer could shade to depict the area under vegetation.
Again, it was rejected as too alien to the farmers’ way of registering,
as they are reluctant to use pen and paper. Finally, they all agreed
on the use of wooden sticks or rulers, on which the farmer scratches
a mark to indicate the estimated percentage of vegetation cover
in terms of a certain segment of the ruler. Each farmer uses a new
stick for each measuring event. When the farmers meet for the agroforestry
project, they bring their rulers, register the measurements on paper,
and discuss the findings and the significance for their plots.
Scientists
might well debate the accuracy of a scratch mark on a wooden stick
compared with written percentages on a piece of paper. However,
if the paper-based method had been imposed, the reliability of the
information would probably have been low because the farmers were
reluctant to use this approach. In this case, participation probably
ensured a more realistic version of "rigorous" data collection.
|
|
- Use
this checklist to see if you have the right method for the task at hand.8
- Feasibility.
Do you have the right skills and equipment for the method? Can the method
realistically help cover the intended questions/indicators? Do you have
enough time? Can you cover the geographic area adequately? What is the
distance between participants and what are the language requirements?
Are sufficient technical support and training provided?
- Appropriateness.
Does the method suit the conditions of the project? Does everyone involved
agree that the method is appropriate and do they understand it? Is the
unit of analysis appropriate for the method?
- Validity.
Do the people who are to use the information believe the method is valid,
i.e., able to assess the desired indicator with enough accuracy?
- Reliability.
Will the method work when needed? Is the error that will occur acceptable?
Are you using different methods to verify the information collected,
rather than using only one particular method so risking distorted information?
- Relevance.
Does the method produce the information required or is it actually assessing
something similar but, in fact, basically different? Does the method
complement the basic philosophy and approach of the project?
- Sensitivity.
Is it able to pick up data variations sufficiently? Can it be adapted
to changing conditions without excessive loss of reliability?
- Cost
effectiveness. Have sufficient financial resources been allocated?
Will the method produce useful information at relatively low cost –
or is there a cheaper alternative that provides information that is
good enough?
- Timeliness.
Is there an acceptable level of delay between information collection,
analysis and use? Do the methods use the least amount of time possible
outside of everyday work? Have you looked for ways to incorporate the
use of the methods into other daily tasks?
-
Pre-test
your method. You should pre-test all M&E methods to make sure
they are feasible and will give you the desired kind of information.
Pre-testing is particularly critical prior to a major data-gathering
exercise. It involves a trial run with a small number of participants
who are similar to those from whom information is to be sought. Check
that the questions are clear and see how long the method takes per
person or group. Adjust your method based on the outcome of the test
run. You might need to organise additional training if the method
seems to require more skills than those possessed by the people who
are to use it.
-
Determine
the frequency of use. Monitoring implies repeated use of a method
to make comparisons, for example, returning to a map (Method 17) every
six months to update the information or holding a focus group (Method
12) to see if views have changed. Methods need to be consistently
applied at each monitoring moment so that information is not distorted,
comparisons are possible and findings are reliable.
Back
to Top 
6.3 Gathering Data from the Field
6.3.1
Preparing and Planning for Data Collection
After selecting
and pre-testing the method – but before starting the data collection –
you will need to make the final preparations. Consider what you might
need to do to limit common problems in the field.
Consider
carefully how to select interviewers and facilitators. Two types of
fieldworkers will be needed: interviewers to collect data and facilitators
to conduct group-based discussions and analysis. Interviewing and facilitating
are two sets of complementary skills. Consider whether the following factors
may influence the quality of interviews and discussions: age, gender,
background and position in the community, educational level, socio-economic
level, personality and attitude, physical health, language, religion and
cultural customs. These factors may impair or enhance an interviewer or
facilitator’s capacity to understand certain topics or be acceptable to
whomever he/she is meeting. Select those people who fit best with the
task at hand and the stakeholders with whom they will interact.
Consider
how to distribute the tasks of collection and analysis among different
people and what is needed to limit errors. The number of people involved
in each stage of the data journey will affect the consistency and accuracy
of data. The greater the number of people involved, not only the more
organisation is needed but also the greater the risk of data inaccuracies
and inconsistencies. Plan how you will ensure that fieldworkers achieve
consistent quality of data collection/facilitation and how data will be
verified (see 6.3.2).
Ensure
that those using the methods are comfortable with them. Each method
should be pre-tested and practised by individuals who are to apply them.
Facilitation techniques need to be mastered by those who will interact
with stakeholders to collect and analyse information. This means understanding
and practising facilitation techniques but also having the skills to design
methods jointly with stakeholders. A training session on methods needs
to cover the purpose of each method and of data collection and analysis,
improve the specific skills for working with groups and doing good interviewing,
and teach ways to record information.
Ensure
clarity of language. Ideally, field workers either speak the relevant
language or are accompanied by a trusted interpreter. If working through
translation, spend time getting the translations right with native speakers
and, if possible, train the translators in the selected M&E methods.
A list of clear translations needs to be prepared before the fieldwork
starts. One way of ensuring that an unusual method, such as matrix scoring
(Method 32, Annex D), is
translated correctly is by having one native speaker translate it and
then asking another person to translate it back to the original language.
Then the two versions can be discussed with the data-collectors to be
sure they understand and can comment upon the nuances involved.
Prepare
each method. Each method will require its own preparations (see Box
6-9). Be sure to organise materials, including sufficient backups
of the measuring and recording instruments (pencils or pens for filling
in forms or questionnaires, notebooks in which to write, markers for flip
charts, batteries for a laptop computer or tape recorder, etc.). Carefully
plan the formats needed to record information (see 6.3.3)
| |
Box 6-9. Examples of methods and their
preparation
-
Questionnaire/Survey:
checking of forms by a professional to be sure that questions
are unbiased and formulated properly, enumerator training to
ensure they understand the questions and record accurately,
availability of enough copies of the questionnaire, provision
of several writing instruments (and tape recorder if necessary).
-
Biophysical
measurement: forms for recording, training in the accurate
use of the measuring instrument, spare instruments and spare
parts if budget allows.
-
Role
plays: effective training for good facilitation and drawing
conclusions together with participants, (video) camera, notebook,
flip chart, tape recorder, pens.
-
Sketch
mapping, flow diagrams, matrices: training on facilitation
and explanation of its purpose, (extra) paper, coloured pens,
notebook for own notes.
-
Discussion
methods: training in facilitation techniques, flip chart(s)
and coloured pens, notebook.
|
|
6.3.2
Ensuring Reliability of Information
Reliability
of information is about consistency. To increase the reliability of information,
stop to consider possible causes of inconsistency. Errors creep into the
system when, for example, field staff document answers inaccurately, selected
respondents are not the best information sources, field staff are unclear
about the purpose of information gathering, etc. Two basic types of data
errors are "sampling errors" and "non-sampling errors".
A
sampling error occurs when you have chosen the wrong sample (see 6.2.3
and D.1, Annex D). It
is the difference between an estimate derived from a sample survey and
the value that would result if a census of the whole population were taken.
For example, if a sample has a response rate of 30%, the sample error
estimates how accurately the sample has estimated the 30% of the population
that it supposedly represents. Sampling errors arise when the information
you have collected does not accurately represent the target population.
Casley and Kumar (1988: 81) list the types of households that could be
missed when compiling a sample, resulting in data biases: remote or inaccessible
households, those with frequently absent members (e.g., migrant labourers),
newly created single-person households and ethnic minorities (as they
are often marginalised within a village). See D1 for information on how
to select a sample. Sampling errors do not occur in a census, for example
if you ask all the micro-credit groups the same questions. Because you
have involved all of them, you will only have non-sampling errors.
The
most common and diverse types of errors are the non-sampling errors. Knowing
the possible causes of systematic non-sampling errors can help you limit
the error.
-
Interviewer
bias. An interviewer can unfairly influence the way a respondent
answers questions. This may occur if the interviewer or facilitator
is too friendly, aloof or prompts the respondent. Fieldworkers need
to have adequate capacities but also the right incentives. This can
also be caused by a management culture that discourages the reporting
of problems such as low levels of implementation (see Section 7 for
more on incentives).
-
Inadequate
methods. Causes include: complicated collection procedures, inappropriate
formats, ambiguous questions, mismatch of questions and method, etc.
-
Processing
errors. These can arise through miscoding, incorrect data entry,
incorrect computer programming and inadequate checking.
-
Non-response
bias. If a significant number of people do not respond to a certain
question, then results may be biased because the characteristics of
non-respondents may differ from those who have responded. Some questions
may be difficult to understand for certain people.
Non-sampling
error can occur at any stage of a sample survey or census, and unlike
sampling error, it is not generally easy to measure. The non-sampling
errors are difficult to measure due to the diversity of sources (the interviewers,
respondents, coders, data entry operator, etc.).
Information
inaccuracies can have more than one source of error. For example, in a
micro-credit project in India, the implementing partners felt that data
collected were inaccurate due in part to a burdensome and cumbersome process.
The NGOs also questioned the capacity level of local groups to fill out
the lengthy monitoring formats accurately. Furthermore, there was very
high turnover of grassroots workers, primarily due to very low salaries
paid under the programme, so consistency of data collection was bound
to suffer. The NGOs feared that if primary data were not accurate, then
errors would multiply as the information from the different groups and
staff was collated into larger figures, leading to a false picture of
the progress and impact.
Avoiding
Non-Sampling Errors During Data Collection
Many
sources of non-sampling error can be avoided or minimised. Table
6-7 lists some actions you can take to reduce the most common types
of errors.
Table
6-7. Common errors during data collection and how to reduce them
|
Common
Errors
|
Ways
to Avoid Them
|
|
Interviewer
bias
|
-
Make sure everyone understands the purpose of each method.
-
Make sure everyone knows exactly what data she/he is collecting
– clarify units, whom to speak with or where to go for data, and
the frequency of collection.
-
Practise interviewing and facilitation techniques.
-
Brainstorm about possible problems that might occur and agree on
various ways to avoid them or deal with them should they occur.
|
|
Processing
errors caused by poor documentation of data
|
-
Standardise formats for documentation.
-
Practise formats with the users and adapt the formats if necessary.
-
Computerise as soon as possible after data collection and check
the data entries.
-
Have enough material to record all responses and avoid losing data.
|
|
Non-response
bias
|
-
Pre-test questions and methods.
-
Present methods and questions (and especially their purpose) clearly
and confirm that people have understood.
-
Use local terms.
|
Verifying
the Data Once You Have Them
Data
must, from time to time, be verified. Only by checking whether your data
make sense and are valid can you feel safe that you are analysing progress
and process based on correct inputs. You do not have to check data all
the time. Keep your data verification process efficient by undertaking
spot checks at key moments:
When
all goes too smoothly with data collection, then probe to see if there
really are no problems lurking underneath the surface. Problems are inevitable
and their absence may signal that problems are suppressed. Keep an eye
out for signs of problematic data and investigate where problems might
be occurring.
-
Overly
accurate data. When the data collected match targets too perfectly
the data are probably problematic. In one IFAD-supported project in
Asia, large variations emerged in reporting per county. Most counties
consider the targets written in the appraisal report as compulsory
and strive to achieve them. They only report when achievements are
close to 100% of the targets. For instance, in two counties, the 1996
performance records a 100% achievement for practically all activities.
In another project, a review in 2001 of the data on physical progress
showed that targets and actual figures of implementation were exactly
the same, every month, for every parameter. These are clear cases
of unreliable data.
-
Sudden,
large changes in data. In northeast Brazil, an NGO was monitoring
the adoption rates of contour ploughing and noticed a huge increase
in adoption rates. The NGO knew it had not undertaken much training
with farmers on contour ploughing so doubted the data. Focused research
was undertaken in several communities to see if the data were accurate.
It turned out that the data were, in fact, accurate but that adoption
to contour planting had been triggered by a surge in animal traction.
Animals cannot plough up and down steep slopes so contour ploughing
had become the side effect of increased use of animal traction. 9
-
Gaps
in the data. When certain information has many non-respondents,
this may point to a respondent error or an error in the choice of
method for that information.
Options
for Verifying Data
Every
project needs to find its own way to incorporate verification into its
data-collection process. In Yemen, the RADP project deals with data verification
when management senses a problem with the data collected by component
departments and sent via the M&E unit. Management forms a committee
from the department concerned and the M&E unit to verify the information.
The department concerned may also make a field visit and submit a report
directly to the project director and copies to the M&E unit.
Other
projects outsource data verification. In the ADIP project in Bangladesh,
the reliability and validity of data are crosschecked using additional
data-collection exercises. This includes, for example, the evaluation
of demonstration plot performance and research activities by consultants.
The responsible governmental department verifies M&E data, but project
management decides when such verification will happen and who should carry
it out. In the APPTDP project (India), the primary data are collected
through village liaison workers. Data are then verified by an appointed
agricultural/development consultant. Only then are the verified data passed
to the central monitoring unit for analysis.
To
check data yourself, triangulation is an important principle. This means
collecting the same type of information but from different sources and
using different methods. This can be as simple as, for example, asking
the same questions with different focus groups or comparing the outputs
of a map and a transect of the same area.
Verifying
quantitative data is often more straightforward, as more agreed standards
exist. For example, many types of biophysical measurements indicate how
to calculate whether the data are representative. Verifying qualitative
data is more difficult, as there are no clear rules. You can use techniques
like "key judges" to verify the interpretation of information
(see Box 6-10).
| |
Box
6-10. Using different methods and "key judges" to verify
qualitative information in the Philippines10
In
the Philippines, the NGO, Education for Life Foundation (ELF), evaluated
its leadership-training programme. Various methods were used to
gather data, including focus groups (Method 12, Annex D), story-telling,
direct observation (Method 6, Annex D), psychological assessments,
surveys (Method 8, Annex D) and semi-structured interviews (Method
9, Annex D). As the information was mostly qualitative and open-ended,
the field researchers developed the idea of "key judges"
to cluster the information for analysis. They clustered and labelled
data according to topics they had selected earlier. Consensus was
needed by at least three people before labelling the data. The process
of data analysis allowed the researchers to share their different
interpretations of the answers and so it triangulated findings.
As a final check, they presented the draft findings to the communities
where data had been collected and they asked for feedback and suggestions.
|
|
6.3.3.
Recording Data
Besides
knowing how to conduct interviews and facilitate discussions, fieldworkers
need to know how to record responses. Data can be recorded in many ways,
depending in large part on the data collection method. Some methods require
the filling in of forms or tables, others require using a tape recorder,
video recorder or camera, writing answers on cards or flip-charts, or
taking detailed notes.
For
each bit of information, define how it will be recorded. Practise with
the people doing the recording before setting out to collect data.
Whichever
data-recording method you choose, make sure you are consistent in how
you record or it will be difficult to compare and analyse the data. Also
consider the information storage implications (see 6.4.4
for more details). Where and how will data be stored so that they are
safe and accessible? This will affect how data are recorded. Box
6-11 describes one example of the daily recording of information that
can then be fed into reports on the progress of the project.
| |
Box
6-11. Zimbabwean farmers record their day-to-day observations | |