Case Study - Philippines Metagora Pilot Project CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND LOCAL CONSULTATIONS
The project employed Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) as a data-collection tool to obtain qualitative data that could enrich the findings of the study and to substantiate the quantitative results. During deliberations by the project’s Implementing Group of Experts (IGE), it was agreed that human rights, the topic of this pilot survey, require more than statistics to be fully described and interpreted. Issues and concerns raised during several local consultations enriched the data obtained from the FGDs and the survey. 2.1 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 2.1.1 Rationale for the Use of FGDs in a Data-collection Project A focus group discussion (FGD) is a qualitative method of obtaining in-depth information on concepts, perceptions and ideas of groups of approximately 6-12 informants guided by a facilitator. Their purposes are generally to:
The Philippines Metagora Project decided to undertake FGD among selected participants in the project sites because it was determined necessary to give the Philippines Metagora survey a sharper focus. It was also determined that interaction amoung important sectoral groups and community leaders would allow in-depth discussions of issues and problems faced by these communities. This would provide valuable insights for the survey. FDGs also contribute to solve queries around the appropriateness or suitability of the purpose and content of certain questions. 2.1.2 Training on FGD After agreeing with the target tribes during the Ancestral Domain Consultations to hire FGD moderators and recorders from among tribe members, a training on FGD for the chosen moderators and recorders was conducted at La Trinidad, Benguet on January 4 and 5, 2005. 2.1.2.1 Training Objectives The training sought to equip the participants with knowledge and skills to be able to:
The design of the training, the basic materials and implementation were undertaken by a contracted trainer, Dr. Eligio Barsaga of SEAMEO, Innotech. The PIO project staff provided supplementary technical assistance for the training. 2.1.2.3 The Participants A total of 41 participants, including IP recruits and representatives from CHRP, NSCB, and NCIP, attended the training. The IP representatives were to be trained as moderators and recorders for three focus groups—women, youth and tribal leader focus groups—that will be targeted per tribe. There would be one moderator, recorder and supervisor per focus group in each tribe. Participants from partner agencies and the PIO were to assume the role of FGD supervisors. 2.1.2.4 Training Content and Activities The training content covered the following:
Part II Focus Group Discussion
Part III Recording and Interpreting Focus Group Discussion Results Part IV Agreements and Decisions Chair Purificacion Quisumbing set the tone of the training by providing an analytical lecture on the relationship between internationally recognised human rights and the statutory rights of indigenous peoples as provided for under IPRA. She successfully presented IP rights guaranteed under IPRA as a means by which international norms and standards on human rights could be attained. The hired training expert conducted the lectures on FGD. Open forums were included as an integral part of both lectures. To ensure understanding and applications of theories learned, the participants were grouped according to tribes and were given the opportunity to engage in the following activities:
A system of reporting results that would enable Project staff to analyse the results was installed by the project staff through Atty. Anita Chauhan. The project staff facilitated planning on what was done after the FGD training and before the actual FGD. 2.1.2.6 Training Outcomes, Outputs, Agreements, and Decisions The training resulted in the creation of a well-knit and prepared group of moderators, recorders and supervisors ready and confident to carry out FGDs in each tribe. Regional action plans for FGDs were formulated. The FGD schedule was as follows:
The following decisions were reached and agreed upon:
2.1.2.7 Other Observations The FGD training went smoothly and as planned. The participants arrived a day before the training, hence there was no delay in the activities. The hired trainers did their best to deliver the training services according to the agreed training design, and the audio-visual equipment procured for this project facilitated the training. 2.1.3 FGD Guide 2.1.3.1 IP Stakeholders and Partners’ Participation in Development of the FGD Guide Development The FGD Guide that was prepared as part of the training integrated the FGD questions that were drawn from the participants and was finalised by a technical working group from among the participants. 2.1.3.2 Content of the FGD Guide The moderator was identified as the main user of the guide. The moderator’s role during the FGD was clearly specified in the guide. The guide instructs the moderator to set the tone of the FGD by introducing himself/herself, the recorder and the NCIP and CHRP supervisors. Then, the purposes of the FGD are explained. After the preliminaries, the moderator conducts the FGD according to the guide:
2.1.4.1 Data-collection Schedules Three separate dates and venues were planned for the actual data-collection through FGD. The following were the dates and venue of the FGD data-collection:
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:
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:
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:
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. 2.1.7 Consolidation and Organisation of Narrative Reports by Project Researchers The raw model reports submitted by the moderators and recorders, and descriptive summary and interpretive reports submitted by the supervisors, were consolidated and organised according to key themes by the project researchers. The key themes followed the questions found in the FGD Guide. These are:
2.1.8 Other Observations
2.1.9 Conclusions and Recommendations 2.1.9.1 Conclusions
2.1.9.2 Recommendations
2.2 LOCAL CONSULTATIONS 2.2.1 Use of Local Consultations Local consultations were also undertaken to determine the issues and concerns affecting the tribes. However, some consultations had other uses in this study. The local consultations, categorised according to their uses, were as follows:
All local consultations were coordinated with NCIP whose field personnel are in close contact with the tribes. Partners were invited to participate in technical consultations, consultative workshops and ancestral domain consultations. Project staff and trainers, accompanied by NCIP field personnel, undertook the consultations in combination with Livelihood Trainings and site visits. In summary, 12 local consultations were conducted as follows:
2.2.3 Recording the Local Consultations Each local consultation was recorded with special attention to issues and concerns raised. The recorded issues were categorised and summarised. 2.2.4 Conclusions Participation during consultations was largely voluntary. Participants who had concerns were given the opportunity to express them. No one was forced to give his/her opinion. Hence, the data obtained from local consultations served to enrich, substantiate, clarify or facilitate better analysis of the responses given for the survey and FGD wherever applicable. 2.2.5 Recommendations Local consultations serve a purpose in a qualitative approach. They can be improved and maximised if well planned and structured to generate relevant data. For further information, please refer to Appendix 2.1 of this Case Study.
Return to Case Study
|
|||