This Technical Note is a report of piloting work carried out in Peru before the first round of qualitative sub-sample research. The pilot project aimed to implement and develop methods for these sub-studies, especially the use of semi- structured methods with groups of children to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The methods were identified through an extensive review of literature detailing participatory, quantitative and qualitative work with children and adults and developed for the specific age groups and research questions. Methods were chosen and evaluated using the following criteria:
Semi-structured – to ensure that the core themes can be studied consistently through an agreed set of methods, to allow for inter-country comparability;Applicable in diverse settings – these methods will need to be implemented in very diverse settings across all four countries, including by fieldworkers with very variable research training, orientation and experience; Flexibility – to allow children to identify themes and issues that are important to them, including collecting detailed data from selected group discussions and individual interviews; Efficient recording and analysis of structured and semi-structured data - since coding full focus group transcripts can be highly costly in terms of time and money; and Adaptability – since there is a great variation in educational levels, cultures, and preferred methods of communicating among children within the Young Lives study.
The research investigated four inter-related themes: time use, well-being, poverty and social worlds. Four groups (31 children) in an urban site and three (21 children) in a rural site were identified for the research. The children in one group in each site were 8 to 9 years old, while the others were 11-12 years old. A session for each of the themes was designed and conducted with each of the older groups, while a sub-set of these methods were used with the younger groups. A number of individual interviews were also conducted.
The process allowed different groups to focus flexibly on the issues that concerned them, while retaining an overall structure that enabled core research questions to be answered by all groups. On some topics, a degree of consensus emerged between the groups. There were occasions when the semi-structured methods did not appear to create sufficient opportunities for discussion and opportunities for children to explore issues that concern them. Consequently, adaptations need to be made to the methods and additions to the training to ensure that discussion is encouraged alongside the collection of structured information. Recommendations for where there are opportunities for inclusion of more unstructured ‘extension’ methods are given in this report. These are for use flexibly by fieldworkers, according to the circumstances of groups, their preference for more open discussions versus other ways of communicating, recognising that they may be less appropriate in contexts where children are less used to talking to adults. While sessions were audio recorded, most were not fully transcribed because of a desire to find less costly ways to summarise, code and analyse data. For some of the methods, the facilitator made written notes, and a recorder was asked to note down other key features of children’s response to activities and questions, following a simple pro-forma. For other methods, the recorder was asked to note down all the key information raised in the discussion. However, the recorder’s role proved difficult and the structured and semi-structured data were often preserved by two people, sometimes at the expense of children’s other comments. Consequently, decisions need to be made about the depth and detail of data that are required and whether to fully transcribe the sessions. Further, time following each session should be used for drawing data, recollections and notes together to preserve more information.
For each session, this report outlines methods that can be kept, adapted, added or removed in planning for the sub-studies with children. It also outlines modifications for making the methods more appropriate for use with non-literate or younger children and for contexts where more unstructured methods are feasible. These changes need to be worked into future protocols for sub-studies, which then need to be piloted. These protocols should be viewed as a ‘tool box’ for the research, with a core of agreed methods, but scope for teams to make some adaptations and extensions as appropriate.
This Technical Note is a report of piloting work carried out in Peru before the first round of qualitative sub-sample research. The pilot project aimed to implement and develop methods for these sub-studies, especially the use of semi- structured methods with groups of children to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The methods were identified through an extensive review of literature detailing participatory, quantitative and qualitative work with children and adults and developed for the specific age groups and research questions. Methods were chosen and evaluated using the following criteria:
Semi-structured – to ensure that the core themes can be studied consistently through an agreed set of methods, to allow for inter-country comparability;Applicable in diverse settings – these methods will need to be implemented in very diverse settings across all four countries, including by fieldworkers with very variable research training, orientation and experience; Flexibility – to allow children to identify themes and issues that are important to them, including collecting detailed data from selected group discussions and individual interviews; Efficient recording and analysis of structured and semi-structured data - since coding full focus group transcripts can be highly costly in terms of time and money; and Adaptability – since there is a great variation in educational levels, cultures, and preferred methods of communicating among children within the Young Lives study.
The research investigated four inter-related themes: time use, well-being, poverty and social worlds. Four groups (31 children) in an urban site and three (21 children) in a rural site were identified for the research. The children in one group in each site were 8 to 9 years old, while the others were 11-12 years old. A session for each of the themes was designed and conducted with each of the older groups, while a sub-set of these methods were used with the younger groups. A number of individual interviews were also conducted.
The process allowed different groups to focus flexibly on the issues that concerned them, while retaining an overall structure that enabled core research questions to be answered by all groups. On some topics, a degree of consensus emerged between the groups. There were occasions when the semi-structured methods did not appear to create sufficient opportunities for discussion and opportunities for children to explore issues that concern them. Consequently, adaptations need to be made to the methods and additions to the training to ensure that discussion is encouraged alongside the collection of structured information. Recommendations for where there are opportunities for inclusion of more unstructured ‘extension’ methods are given in this report. These are for use flexibly by fieldworkers, according to the circumstances of groups, their preference for more open discussions versus other ways of communicating, recognising that they may be less appropriate in contexts where children are less used to talking to adults. While sessions were audio recorded, most were not fully transcribed because of a desire to find less costly ways to summarise, code and analyse data. For some of the methods, the facilitator made written notes, and a recorder was asked to note down other key features of children’s response to activities and questions, following a simple pro-forma. For other methods, the recorder was asked to note down all the key information raised in the discussion. However, the recorder’s role proved difficult and the structured and semi-structured data were often preserved by two people, sometimes at the expense of children’s other comments. Consequently, decisions need to be made about the depth and detail of data that are required and whether to fully transcribe the sessions. Further, time following each session should be used for drawing data, recollections and notes together to preserve more information.
For each session, this report outlines methods that can be kept, adapted, added or removed in planning for the sub-studies with children. It also outlines modifications for making the methods more appropriate for use with non-literate or younger children and for contexts where more unstructured methods are feasible. These changes need to be worked into future protocols for sub-studies, which then need to be piloted. These protocols should be viewed as a ‘tool box’ for the research, with a core of agreed methods, but scope for teams to make some adaptations and extensions as appropriate.