Cross-border citizens’ network for human security in Turkey and the Western Balkans

Cross-border citizens’ network for human security

in Turkey and the Western Balkans

Belgrade meetingResearch methods and methodologies

Dr Sally Stares8 November 2013

2

Introduction This research programme is rich in both its diversity and its

shared core in project themes in methodological approaches

In this presentation, some ideas for how to strengthen the connections between the different projects, in terms of research questions methodological approaches

3

Quick sketch of methodologies proposed Desk research – e.g.

To identify key themes, and background information, e.g. statistics, legal frameworks, institutional arrangements, advocacy context

Case selection – e.g. Probability (random) sampling – crucial for generalisation,

inference Key informants, volunteers? Comparative (or single) case studies: selected for

characteristics of interest

Data collection – e.g. unstructured/semi-structured interviews, focus groups, media structured interviews, questionnaires, secondary analysis of

existing data

Data analysis – e.g. content analysis, narrative analysis, discourse analysis counting frequencies or proportions of certain behaviours or

perceptions

4

Illustrations of diversity of our research questions Questions of exploration:

What kind of threats exist to young people in virtual spaces? What are perceptions of insecurity?

Questions of distribution: What is the scale of conventional crimes committed by Roma

population in North-Northwest Bulgaria? Are legal limits/standards of working time and sick support

observed?

Questions of process: What is the mechanism of controlled voting in small

municipalities in Bulgaria? How are schools compromised as safe spaces?

Questions of causation: What are the consequences of housing reforms in Montenegro? How has the privatisation process increased vulnerability of

former workers?

5

Examples of methods for exploration Qualitative approaches are well indicated, especially where

respondents are free to raise issues, to set the agenda Interviews Focus groups

Desk research and analysis of existing data sources may reveal key insights e.g. survey results, text data

Quantitative data collection methods not so directly useful, because of their highly structured format, predetermined by the researchers Although, multivariate analyses can reveal interesting

patterns and associations

6

Examples of methods for distribution Quantitative data collection methods are the most obvious

choice e.g. surveys

Then, sampling strategy is crucial For results to be generalisable to the target population,

probability (random) sampling must be used Typically outsourced to survey agencies who have

necessary sampling frame information, field force, etc.

Desk research and analysis of existing data sources may be a key tool here, if primary data collection cannot be done

Possibility of a quantitative data collection exercise at a later point in the research programme?

7

Examples of methods for process Qualitative approaches again well indicated

Interviews Focus groups

Suggest that a narrative approach to these methods might be useful? Encouraging respondents to relay sequences of events, etc.

Desk research and analysis of existing data sources may reveal key insights, and suggests avenues of enquiry for primary qualitative data collection

Quantitative data collection methods typically not so directly useful; tend to comprise a snap-shot of components rather than information on the dynamic links between them

8

Examples of methods for causation Gold standard: randomised control trials! To make claims of a causal relation between two phenomena

(say, housing reforms and insecurity), need to fulfil three requirements:1. Demonstrate an empirical association between them2. Establish the one doing the causing happened before the

one that suffered the effect3. Rule out all other possible explanations for the association

between them

Extremely difficult to achieve claims of causality, and harder as the extent of desired generalisation increases

However…connects to approaches such as process tracing, which maps on nicely to a more general narrative approach

…and, I think, is expressed in softer form in core human security questions…

9

Core research focus Understanding the spaces and forms of insecurity in the region,

using violence as a proxy for insecurity

Key overarching questions:1. How does the particular form of violence under study happen,

how is it manifested?2. How do people respond to it?3. What do people want to change? What would they wish the

situation to be? If possible to answer: how could that be achieved?

1 and 2 speak to questions of exploration and process 3 speaks to process and tentatively to questions of causation None speak directly to questions of distribution! Maybe 1 is

indirectly linked?

10

Questions for discussion (1) Can your existing research questions be reframed in terms of

these? I have a hunch that they can, but I may be wrong! Means in many cases a slight rearrangement, e.g. CRDP wants to inquire on conditions of occupational safety in

infrastructure projects in Kosovo, and examine the institutional support available to the vulnerable workers of this industry

1. Please tell me what it’s like to work here. What’s good, what’s not so good? How about your working hours, what are they like? And holidays? If people have problems, e.g. injury, what happens then?

2. How do you manage the difficult aspects of working here? Do you have any support, e.g. from the company, some security from

contracts?3. In an ideal world, what would you like it to be like here?

In the abstract, and in practice - any thoughts on what you would like to change?

Consider effects of calling security into question; double hermeneutic?

11

Questions for discussion (2) Can we arrive at a shared strategy/elements of a shared

strategy for case selection? I think case selection is key Being explicit about the communities we are studying How far we intend the results to be generalisable

Empirical generalisation, e.g. classic case of opinion poll Analytical generalisation, mapping out and identifying themes and

issues

Suspect that formal sampling may not be possible in many instances? For qualitative research, can adopt a strategy of corpus construction,

i.e. trying to discover all the relevant themes – keep sampling respondents until you are not hearing any new themes

Whichever way, explicit documentation of respondent selection will be key to methodological rigour and quality of our research

12

Questions for discussion (3) (Broader version of second question)… Exactly which parts of the different projects are core,

shared, and which are unique or peripheral or idiosyncratic? In terms of

Substantive topic (e.g. youth violence) Social group (e.g. Roma) Methods (e.g. types of information gained from interviews, from

focus groups, etc.)

A while ago I developed a taxonomy of choices in research, which I find helpful for clarifying the scope and nature of different pieces of research Then facilitates comparisons of different studies Others have found it useful, but don’t be obliged! Here it is

anyway…

Taxonomy of choices

13

Substantive research topic

Substantive theoretical framework

Research method / tool

Generalisability

Observations and data

Levels of analysis

Ways of representing (analysing and reporting)

Relationship between researched and

researcher / research instrument

Validation

Taxonomy of choices

14




Generalisability


Levels of analysis




Validation

Substantive research topic:

Concrete questions; Mary’s what, when, how, who, why?

Taxonomy of choices

15




Generalisability


Levels of analysis




Validation

Substantive theoretical framework:

Human security

Other tacit frameworks of knowledge? Contextual

social, cultural knowledge

Theoretical framework may play a major or minor role

Taxonomy of choices

16




Generalisability


Levels of analysis




Validation

Research method / tool:

e.g. survey, interviews…

Broadly, How to select

participants What mode of data

collection to use Key variation in extent

of: Personal contact

with subjects (internet surveys vs. in-depth interviews)

Intervention (covert observation vs. action research)

Formality of structure (experiments vs. participant observation)

Taxonomy of choices

17




Generalisability


Levels of analysis




Validation

Observations and data: Observations =

information in its rawest form (e.g. tape recording of interview)

Data = information in analysis format

A set of observations can be converted into different types of data

Data not ‘given’, but involve creative choices

Sometimes observations = data (e.g. questionnaires); sometimes several steps from observations to data (e.g. text coded from interviews)

Taxonomy of choices

18




Generalisability


Levels of analysis




Validation

Ways of representing How to represent data

to oneself as researcher: analyse

How to represent findings to an audience Sometimes

synonymous, sometimes two distinct steps

Conceptual question: nature of representation (prose, numerical system?)

Technical questions: details of system (e.g. for statistical models)

Taxonomy of choices

19




Generalisability


Levels of analysis




Validation

Validation Reassuring audience

and oneself of quality of research

For quantitative approaches, many angles E.g. convergent

validity, discriminant validity, reliability

For qualitative approaches, no direct equivalents, but… Quality markers, e.g.

richness of data, ‘thick description’, openness to surprise

Key that is often lacking: how would I know if this finding were wrong? i.e. guard against verificationism

Taxonomy of choices

20




Generalisability


Levels of analysis




Validation

Generalisability Of substantive

findings, to broader population/setting? Requires

probability sample

Of research instrument? E.g. questions

asked in interviews; standardised questionnaire

Empirical and analytical generalisation

Taxonomy of choices

21




Generalisability


Levels of analysis




Validation

Levels of analysis E.g. intra-individual,

inter-individual, individual-group, societal-level, individual-societal

May employ multiple levels of analysis Structural conditions

for violence Individual agency in

the face of violence Clarity on levels of

analysis used is often lacking

Harre’s ‘distributed’ and ‘collective’ representations

Taxonomy of choices

22




Generalisability


Levels of analysis




Validation

Relationships between researcher, research instrument, research subjects

i.e. what happens during the research process, and how prominent this issue is

E.g. questionnaires assume respondents understand and answer questions in basically the same way; where they don’t it is a nuisance

E.g. in action/participatory research, relationship defines the project

Ethical concerns key here

Key nature of human security

23

Possible next steps? Desk research completed

To clarify substantive and theoretical frameworks; set out research questions Level and/or type of generalisability agreed Levels of analysis greed

Method(s) selected To best serve research questions, and given capacities, time frame etc.

Cases selected ‘Sampling’ procedure explicitly defined Relationship between researchers and subjects explicitly defined, especially re

‘transformative’ potential of human security as a topic; measures for managing expectations, duty of care to respondents and all affected; advocacy implications

Plan made for forms of observations and data E.g. interview notes coded in any way?

Plan for how data will be analysed and reported Different for individual projects than regional report? Can we devise a common

core? Can we devise a scheme for validation/quality assurance? E.g. a standard

reporting frame for how the respondents were selected?

Documents

Cross-border citizens’ network for human security in Turkey and the Western Balkans