IV. Methods and Tools for Social Assessment and Research

Background

Next we turn to a brief review of some methods and tools of social assessment. We present this review because during our interviews and field work we learned that many field practitioners and managers are not aware of the wide range of methods and tools they could be using, especially participatory ones, although some are already using various methods such as surveys, community meetings, and participatory rural appraisal. This lack of awareness seems to be due in part to the lack of an active communication network among practitioners interested in the human and social aspects of conservation and natural resources management.

Some scholars and practitioners express the view that only trained social scientists can, or should, do the social assessment needed to plan, implement, and evaluate conservation activities, projects, and programs. Many practitioners and communities, however, lack the resources to hire trained social scientists to provide all, or even some, of the social information they need. We believe that conservation practitioners and natural resources managers can benefit from learning some basic methods and tools of social assessment.

Although there are many methods and tools for gathering social information, these are not sufficient by themselves. As discussed in the previous chapters, information-gathering methods alone do not provide a conceptual framework for setting goals and objectives, designing and implementing activities, and evaluating the effectiveness of those activities. The combination of a process for understanding and influencing behaviors, like that described in the previous chapters, with methods and tools for gathering information is needed.

Methods And Tools

This chapter is meant only as an introduction to the wealth of information available about methods and tools of social assessment and research. It provides a summary or sketch of some key methods, and cites some of the relevant literature that should be consulted for more details about each. Of course, this brief review can in no way substitute for actual field experience.

There are several reasons for knowing and using a wide range of methods. No single technique is universal enough to be successfully applied in all situations. Choosing the best method depends upon the goal, the situation, and the participants. Because participation is an essential ingredient of effective conservation and natural resources management, participatory methods of social assessment are necessary, not optional. Using a wide range of methods can help practitioners better understand which factors influence critical behaviors, including sometimes-neglected sociocultural factors.

Every method has its own biases, which can be overcome by using a diversity of methods (Freudenberger and Gueye, 1990). Together the various methods “provide different information which is mutually enriching. Thus, when possible, it is better to select techniques that are complementary in that they provide crosschecks and new information” (Whyte, 1977). Some of the methods and tools reviewed below are for information gathering only. Others, however, work as analytical tools at the same time; they set up a simple analytical framework while gathering information. Quantitative matrices, such as those shown in many of the figures in this chapter, do so, for example. When these methods are participatory, they give people a framework for analyzing the information they are compiling themselves - often an empowering experience!

Knowing and using a wide range of methods for getting information can help practitioners and their community partners avoid problems of several kinds. Some methods of social research are time consuming and expensive, and if not used properly they may not give practitioners and communities the information they need to make decisions, thus wasting time and money. A flawed design or poorly done statistical analysis may invalidate the results of a survey and lead to bad decisions. Community meetings, if not carefully planned and facilitated, may increase tensions between outsiders and the community or increase polarization within the community itself. Social research can also raise false expectations. By doing so, it may increase polarization and make open explorations of options less likely by suggesting solutions prematurely. For example, during our field work we saw a questionnaire used by the staff of a government agency that asked villagers, “Do wild animals damage your crops?” It then asked, “What do you think the government should do about this problem?” Such a question raises expectations that the government might do something, when in fact government managers may be unwilling or unable to act on the problem.

Literature Review

Although the most up-to-date, relevant information about the social context of a conservation situation will probably come directly from people themselves, and be gathered using a combination of the methods and tools mentioned below, such primary research is often slow and expensive. Before undertaking such information gathering from primary sources, practitioners should try to find and make use of any information that has already been gathered. Such secondary research can provide an introduction to the social and ecological context of a situation for those not already familiar with it or it can broaden the perspectives and challenge the assumptions of those people who are already familiar with the situation. Secondary sources can provide a historical understanding of the social and ecological context - of changes and trends over time. It can help practitioners develop questions and hypotheses to be addressed by direct information gathering. Such secondary research can save a lot of time and expense and is an opportunity that should never be passed up. The literature on topics relevant to natural resources management and conservation in many parts of Africa, and elsewhere, is extensive. Universities, government agencies, and individual scholars and researchers are all potential sources of the kind of secondary information that could be tapped by practitioners working to foster conservation.

Surveys and Questionnaires

Surveys and questionnaires can be used to gather information about behaviors and the knowledge, skills, and other motivational factors that influence them. Survey questions can range from highly structured ones, with acceptable answers restricted to a few choices such as “agree” or “disagree,” to open-ended questions in which possible answers are not suggested, such as “What is your opinion of...?” Each type of question has advantages and disadvantages; question choice depends on the kind of information needed. Some examples of the types of survey questions that have been used to learn about conservation and natural resources management behaviors in Africa are given in Box 7.

Developing good survey questions requires field-based knowledge. Pretesting the questions on a small sample group and revising ambiguous or problematic questions is a crucial step. An example from the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania shows the local knowledge and sensitivity needed to develop good survey questions. According to Patricia Moehlman, a Wildlife Conservation Society representative in Tanzania, “You can shape or even create attitudes by the questions you ask.” As an example she cites the Maasai attitude toward malignant catarrhal fever, a disease transmitted from wildebeest to cattle, causing cows to lose calves. Long aware of this fact, Maasai have traditionally grazed their cattle away from wildebeest during the calving season. If, however, a researcher asks the Maasai if the disease “is a problem for them,” it may suddenly be placed in a new category. Where once the dis-ease was seen as a fact of life, it is now seen as a problem.

Surveys can be administered in writing or orally. With written questionnaires, the respondent can remain anonymous. When questionnaires probe sensitive issues, respondents may be more willing to give more honest answers. An example would be a questionnaire administered by a government agency that asks villagers whether they have ever engaged in illegal behaviors, such as hunting or cutting trees in a national park. Written questionnaires are not useful in areas with low literacy rates, of course. With oral administration, on the other hand, the interviewer knows who the respondent is. In such cases, the level of trust between interviewers and respondents is a key consideration in assessing the accuracy of survey results. Feuerstein (1986) and Rugh (1992) offer many practical guidelines for preparing survey questions and administering surveys.

Most surveys done in Africa concentrate on demographic and socioeconomic variables and on practices. Few of the questionnaires we examined asked about potentially important factors other than direct material benefits and other economic factors.

Surveys and questionnaires can provide information about the diversity within communities. The actual or relative anonymity of some types of surveys encourages people to express views they might not express in public. Women, for example, may give truthful answers on a survey but hide their real opinions at a meeting that includes men. When this information is made public, or used in a participatory process, it can educate community members about community diversity. Information about community diversity can help to structure more representative participatory processes (Schindler, List, and Steel, 1993). A survey used by the Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) and African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) as a tool to better understand the communities they work with, and to open channels of communication between park managers and local communities, is described in Box 8.

Comparing the results of an initial survey with the same survey administered later can be a useful tool for evaluation. The Quebec marine bird and Brazil golden lion tamarin conservation examples described in Boxes 2 and 3 used surveys for impact evaluation in that way.

Direct Behavioral Observation

Direct behavioral observation is another useful method for understanding behavior. One of its advantages is that it preserves the holistic nature of the behavior being observed and its complex interaction with the environment (Thomas-Slayter, Esser, and Shields, 1993). It provides direct evidence for behavioral steps, antecedents and consequences, rather than indirect information via self-report methods like surveys and questionnaires (Graeff, Elder, and Booth, 1993). “The direct observation of behavior complements assessment via self-report in several ways.... Although each session is labor intensive, observational research uses small samples, which generally require less time and fewer resources than other research methods. As a result, small observational studies are often used in conjunction with other data-gathering techniques as a validation of survey data or as a way of teasing out elements of a complex set of interactions” (Graeff, Elder, and Booth, 1993).

A number of types of behavioral observation, including performance observation, narrative recording, frequency recording, duration recording, and behavioral products observation, can be used (Graeff, Elder, and Booth, 1993). Simple checklists, prepared in advance, help in all of these types of direct observation.

In the Guatemalan hand-washing example discussed in Box 5, it was direct behavioral observation that showed how complicated and time consuming correct hand washing actually was in a village setting. Direct observation provided the clue to understanding the motivational barriers that had to be lowered in order to increase hand washing by mothers. In the Honduran immunization example also discussed in Box 5, health practitioners carefully observed a number of interactions between immunization clinic workers and mothers and their children, and described what they saw in simple notes. This technique of “narrative observation” provided the initial clue that a lack of interpersonal communication skills in clinic workers was creating psychological barriers to return visits. After hypotheses about potential benefits and barriers have been formed using narrative observation, more quantitative techniques such as frequency or duration recording can be used if necessary (Graeff, Elder, and Booth, 1993).

Participatory, or participant, observation involves accompanying people as they carry out everyday activities, such as hoeing and weeding, gathering firewood and carrying water, searching for medicinal barks and roots, cooking and cleaning, caring for children, protecting crops from animals, hunting and trapping, and constructing shelter - or even actually taking part in those activities. This participatory observation can help practitioners and other community members learn things about behaviors that they would not have thought to ask (Thomas-Slayter, Esser, and Shields, 1993). Actually taking part in an activity or doing a behavior can give a better understanding of its benefits and costs than watching others do it (see Box 9). The participant observation method is often blended with an informal interview, with questions being asked and answered as they arise during the course of the activity.

According to Lazaro Ole Mariki, a Maasai staff member of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, participant observation is the most useful method for understanding the needs of local people. On visits to local communities, he eats and sleeps in the villages and helps with whatever manual labor needs to be done. He sometimes accompanies Maasai herders as they drive cattle to salt licks and water points.

Observation is sometimes more effective than self-report methods like surveys and interviews because it can more easily avoid asking direct questions. For example, rural people sometimes do not know the names of the plants they use, according to Mark Auslander, a social anthropologist who has worked in Zambia, so one cannot ask direct questions about those plants and their uses. Participating in plant collecting with community members may reveal that they nonetheless recognize the plants and know their uses.

Interviews

Interviews are one-on-one conversations or question-and-answer sessions. People with special knowledge of, or roles in, key natural resource management practices are often interviewed to tap their knowledge and perceptions. Depending on the issue and situation, these people may be well-to-do and respected community leaders or poor and marginalized individuals, men or women, outsiders or local residents.

Practical tips about how to interview effectively are given by Feuerstein (1986) and Freudenberger and Gueye (1990), including how to develop an interview checklist, interview protocol, and how to ask good questions. Freudenberger and Gueye (1990) recommend a semistructured interview process, in which the interviewer knows what topics he or she wants information about, but doesn’t prepare a list of structured questions in advance. “Instead of formal, prepared questions, semistructured interviewing uses a checklist to guide the interviewers through the topics they wish to address.... With semistructured interviewing you make up the questions as you go along and that requires some fast thinking.... Once you begin interviewing on a certain topic, you will begin to probe the issue by asking related questions and trying to deepen your understanding. This is where the interviewer has to be particularly alert as she or he listens to the answer and thinks up what to ask next.... To the informant, a semistructured interview should seem like an informal conversation, with one topic leading naturally into another. Of course, this requires a fair amount of skill on the part of the interviewer...” (Freudenberger and Gueye, 1990).

Posing direct questions in an interview sometimes has disadvantages, and in these cases indirect questioning techniques may work. Interviewers can use a range of conversational techniques, including reflective listening and hypothetical musings instead of asking direct questions. Instead of asking, “Why don’t you people do more deep-sea fishing?” researchers could instead wonder aloud, “I’ve been wondering how I could fish past the coral reef if I wanted to” or “I heard that people on other islands like to go deep-sea fishing. Is that a good idea?”

As with all methods, researchers should remember that communities are not homogeneous. One can never assume, for example, that men necessarily know what women do, or vice versa. Similarly, elders and youths or rich and poor may not understand each other’s activities. Asking members of one subgroup about their perceptions of the behavior of other groups during interviews can reveal stereotypes about behavior that may be important to address as part of a participatory problem-solving or dispute-resolution process.

Focus Groups

“A focus group is a carefully planned discussion held in a permissive, nonthreatening environment that is designed to provide indepth information about how a certain group of people perceive a certain area of interest. Focus group members are led to interact with each other so that they respond to opposing ideas and comments and reveal many facets of a given issue. A focus group is considered a qualitative rather than quantitative research method because the information gives decision makers valuable insights into the target audience’s perspectives without providing statistical data” (Moulton and Roberts, 1993).

In practice, a focus group facilitator leads a small group of respondents, roughly six to ten, through an informal discussion of a selected topic. Focus group discussions are repeated with several such groups until little new information emerges. “The moderator uses a prepared list of probing questions to collect information, but at the same time allows discussants to talk freely and spontaneously about the selected health problem” (Graeff, Elder, and Booth, 1993). All participants are encouraged to offer ideas and opinions during this “group interview” process (Thomas-Slayter, Esser, and Shields, 1993).

Focus group participants can be chosen on the basis of membership in organizations, place of residence, gender, age, occupation, or economic status. Focus groups are especially useful for understanding “the diversity of perceptions and opinions found in the community.... Meeting with men and women in separate groups may bring out issues obscured in joint meetings” (Thomas-Slayter, Esser, and Shields, 1993). “Focus group discussions can clarify the community’s level of awareness in regard to resource degradation and can provide a means for gathering baseline data on existing management practices. Discussions can also help community members to understand their own roles in resource degradation, to recognize alternatives, and to consider collectively the opportunities and constraints for changing current behavior patterns” (Thomas-Slayter, Esser, and Shields, 1993).

Effective focus groups require skillful facilitation. “The point of a focus group is to elicit sincere responses from the discussants - not correct ones. The unconscious inclination of a facilitator to lead a group in some preconceived direction can be difficult to overcome” (Moulton and Roberts, 1993).

Community Meetings

Community meetings bring together representatives of interested parties to discuss issues and problems. These meetings may bring out important dimensions of behavioral motivations that methods aimed at individuals, such as questionnaires, interviews, and direct behavioral observation, sometimes miss. Community meetings often reveal opinion leaders - people who are respected and listened to by many community members - who can play key leadership roles in programs to maintain or change behaviors.

Because communities are not homogeneous, practitioners must understand the community’s actors and institutions when deciding who to invite to meetings. Some possibilities include political leaders, religious leaders, other kinds of opinion leaders, women or men, children, or a whole village at once. Separate meetings with each of a community’s many subgroups may be useful. Meetings to consider especially contentious issues, if poorly planned or facilitated, can increase tensions and strengthen divisions in communities rather than build consensus. Meeting format and protocol can influence the quality of participation. Bergdall (1993) presents some excellent, practical suggestions for organizing effective community meetings. Some experiments with nontraditional meeting format and protocol used by the Tanzania Community Conservation Project are discussed in Box 10.

Mass meetings are sometimes held to elicit local priorities for community development. Because these meetings are often organized by party or government authorities, people in many parts of Africa do not consider them forums for truly democratic participation. The vast majority of people at such meetings may be afraid to voice their honest opinions, desires, and frustrations.

Gender and status are important considerations in planning and facilitating community meetings. Involving women in community meetings is a particular challenge for field practitioners in many parts of Africa. Even when women do show up at large public meetings, they may not speak. Miriam Zacharia, a community extension specialist with the Tanzania Wildlife Department, told us that, at a meeting in the Selous area, an unusually outspoken woman pointed out that women are chastised at home by men if they speak frankly at meetings. Even having separate meetings for women does not necessarily solve these problems, since men still interrogate women about what they said once they return home. Because women often fear that their answers will somehow get back to their husbands, they may provide false information.

Maps and Transects

Maps and transects are ways of representing information about ecological and social systems, such as the spatial distribution of natural resources, their uses, and relevant opportunities and problems. Maps take an aerial perspective, while transects take a cut-away, horizontal view of a place. Both of these can be very simple and still contain a large amount of relevant information. They can be produced by local people or by practitioners working with local people, using very simple materials. A patch of smooth sand or soil; a stick for drawing lines in the sand; and perhaps a few stones, sticks, or leaves to represent houses, trees, or other features are enough. Maps made on the ground can be sketched or photographed later, if a record is needed. Or a large piece of paper and markers for drawing can be used to make the map initially. Sheets of transparent acetate plastic can be used to overlay maps containing different kinds of information. Such low-technology “geographic information systems” can often provide as much relevant information to practitioners and communities as their much more expensive high-technology computer-based counterparts can (see Fig. 8 below and Figs. 12 and 13 in Chap. V for examples).

Calendars

Calendars and timelines are tools for gathering information about how people’s interaction with the environment varies through time, usually through an annual cycle of seasons. Seasonal calendars, for example, show the changing patterns of livelihood activities throughout the year (see Fig. 14). Information about the timing of activities can be gathered using participatory methods such as interviews and community meetings. Information about changing natural resources use over longer time periods can be represented in matrices of historical trends (see below).

Matrices and Contrastive

Analysis Matrices, or two-dimensional tables, are simple tools for organizing information. Rows and columns in the matrix indicate different categories of information (see Fig. 9, for example). This kind of organization automatically provides the basis for contrastive analysis - for comparing something with something else. Contrastive analysis is used to find patterns in the information, form questions and hypotheses, and understand the situation better. The simplest matrices compare two categories or groups - men and women or wealthier and poorer people, for example. Environmental and resource use trends can be compared using matrices, such as “a generation ago,” “now,” and “in the future” (see Figs. 9, 15, and 16 for examples). Creative use of matrices can help to organize a diversity of information useful in assessing a situation, identifying critical behaviors, and understanding the factors that motivate those behaviors, as many examples given in Chapter V will demonstrate.