Case Study - Philippines Metagora Pilot Project

CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND LOCAL CONSULTATIONS (page 3)

2.1.4.2 Informants and Focus Groups

For each tribe, a total of 24 informants were invited to participate in three focus groups: women, youth and tribal leaders. There were thus 72 focus group discussion informants for all tribes.

2.1.4.3 Conduct of FGD

Registration of participating informants, moderators, recorders and supervisors was undertaken before the start of the data-collection.

The data-collection started with a brief opening programme which consisted of the following:

1. Welcome by a tribal leader or LGU official

2. Statement of objectives of the activity

3. Presentation of participants

4. Brief overview of Metagora

5. Mechanics of data-collection implementation

After the briefing, the FGD team and the informants proceeded to their respective places assigned for the FGD. In each FGD, the Recorder noted the time of the start and end of the FGD. The supervisors observed and monitored the FGD to ensure that the FGD Guide was being followed, all questions were asked, and each informant was given the opportunity to respond.

2.1.4.5 Orientation on Human Rights, IPRA and IP Rights

After the FGD, lectures on human rights, IPRA and IP rights were provided by CHRP and NCIP resource speakers. The lectures were given after the FGD session in order to avoid their influencing the informants responses. Since the project integrates capacity-building as a major component, the orientation was important.

2.1.5 Reporting System on FGD Results

2.1.5.1 Introduction

In his book, Analysing and Reporting Focus Group Results, Richard Krueger wrote that focus group reports have been traditionally presented in a narrative style. Alternatives include the report memo, the top line report, and the bulleted report.

Under this project, the narrative report was chosen for the project's written report. However, for the presentations during Metagora meetings, the bulleted report was used. For informing the participating informants about the results, the report memo was used.

2.1.5.2 Narrative Report Outline

The narrative report outline contains the following:

• Results or Findings. The results or findings are organised according to the key questions or themes that are in the FGD Guide. These are:
  1. Perceptions and Awareness
  2. Enjoyment and Violations of Rights
  3. Measures To Fulfil Rights To Ancestral Domain and Lands
  4. Individual Duties To Fulfil Rights To Ancestral Domain and Lands
  5. Customary Laws on Ancestral Domains and Lands Practiced

  After the results were narrated, an analysis of these results was undertaken.

• Summary or Conclusions. A summary or conclusions was undertaken after the analysis.

• Recommendations. Recommendations consisting mainly of policy measures were drawn from the results and conclusions reached.

An eclectic style of reporting on recorded qualitative raw data was chosen based on the styles of reporting by Krueger. This style consisted of the following:

• Each question asked was followed by the informants’ comments or responses (the raw data model). The responses were categorised according to content. There could have been one or more categories of answers per question asked.

• The moderator and recorder of each focus group did the raw model of reporting.

• The raw model report was then delivered to the FGD supervisor who wrote a descriptive summary of each question. The descriptive summary begins with a summary paragraph and includes quotes from the informants that are contained in the raw model report.

• The NCIP supervisor wrote the descriptive summary.

• The descriptive summary was then delivered to the CHRP supervisor who prepared the interpretive report. This report built on the descriptive summary by including a section found at the end of each descriptive summary. This section interpreted what the data in the descriptive summary meant. An interpretation was made for every question that was descriptively summarised.

In some focus groups, the descriptive summary and interpretive report were produced by one supervisor, as in the case of the Bago Youth Focus Group. In other cases, NCIP supervisors from other regions were asked to join the FGD conducted in other regions, as in the case of the Bugkalot FGD in Nueva Vizcaya where the NCIP supervisor from Region CAR was FGD supervisor for the Tribal Leader Focus Group because there was only a limited number of CHRP and NCIP supervisors who underwent the FGD Training.