1 / 23

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. Dr Sally Stares 8 November 2013. Belgrade meeting Research methods and methodologies. Introduction. This research programme is rich in both its diversity and its shared core in project themes

brygid
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Cross-border citizens’ network for human security in Turkey and the Western Balkans Dr Sally Stares 8 November 2013 Belgrade meeting Research methods and methodologies

  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: • Demonstrate an empirical association between them • Establish the one doing the causing happened before the one that suffered the effect • 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: • How does the particular form of violence under study happen, how is it manifested? • How do people respond to it? • 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 • 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? • How do you manage the difficult aspects of working here? • Do you have any support, e.g. from the company, some security from contracts? • 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…

  13. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

  14. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • Substantive research topic: • Concrete questions; Mary’s what, when, how, who, why? Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

  15. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • Substantive theoretical framework: • Human security • Other tacit frameworks of knowledge? • Contextual social, cultural knowledge • Theoretical framework may play a major or minor role Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

  16. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • 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) Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

  17. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • 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) Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

  18. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • 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) Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

  19. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • 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 Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

  20. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • 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 Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

  21. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • 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 Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

  22. Taxonomy of choices Substantive research topic Substantive theoretical framework Research method / tool • 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 Observations and data Generalisability Levels of analysis Ways of representing (analysing and reporting) Relationship between researched and researcher / research instrument Validation

  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?

More Related