OUTCOME SURVEY CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

on Oct 23,2018

OUTCOME SURVEY CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

  1. Are there any baseline data for intervention and control group?

Answer:

There is baseline report that captures the reference data for the indicators we have, given in the Terms of Reference (TOR).

 

  1. Are there any indicators that will provided apart from those in the TOR?

Answer:

Currently, those are the only indicators available for this study, the only thing that matter is to collect as much informations as possible with focus on the questions and obvious objectives of the study itself. Consultant is expected to go extra mile.

 

  1. Question on sample size, the TOR on outcome survey refers to table of sample of interviewees, the number of wards is 72 instead of 36 as per your explanation on survey design and sampling. I understood that 2 wards per district, there are 18 districts from 9 regions and therefore 36 wards from 18 districts. This also implies that 2 leaders per ward and total should be 72 leaders instead of 144 as shown from the table.

Answer:

The table is not wrong, but from explanation it seems 36 wards but if you multiply by 2 to include control group, the total will change. So number of wards in the intervention areas are 36 and control area will be 36, making a total of 72.

 

  1. From the ToR, we learned of the existence qualitative and quantitative data collected in the past. With more persistence with the quantitative data, we will appreciate receiving the description of variables used, to inform the instruments and triangulation of existing information between LSF, service providers and beneficiaries.

Answer:

A variable in research simply refers to a person, place, thing, or phenomenon that you are trying to measure in some way, as seen from our ToR, the sphere of interest of LSF at implementation level is pegged to paralegals who directly interact with clients (beneficiaries at the ground). It is therefore, the major two variables that we love to see, the improved outcomes intervention are around these two variables (change is working environment of paralegals and improved access to justice to clients as well as how the justices brought about change in other life aspects. Why we have requested mixed methodologies in ‘OUTCOME SURVEY’ which supposed to have only qualitative instruments, it is because LSF believes that both qualitative and quantitative research methods are often juxtaposed as representing two different world views and to have good results you need to mix the two, because some of indictors will require quantitative data. Therefore, in quantitative circles, qualitative research is commonly viewed with suspicion and considered lightweight because it involves small samples which may not be representative of the broader population, it is seen as not objective, and the results are assessed as biased by the researchers' own experiences or opinions. In qualitative circles, quantitative research can be dismissed as over-simplifying individual experience in the cause of generalization, failing to acknowledge researcher biases and expectations in research design, and requiring guesswork to understand the human meaning of aggregate data. Possibly as explain in other questions above, the win will have access to past work to explore how we can improve this work this time around.