TY - JOUR
T1 - Individual interviews versus focus groups for evaluations of international development programs
T2 - Systematic testing of method performance to elicit sensitive information in a justice study in Haiti
AU - Schuster, Roseanne C.
AU - Brewis, Alexandra
AU - Wutich, Amber
AU - Safi, Christelle
AU - Vanrespaille, Teresa Elegido
AU - Bowen, Gina
AU - SturtzSreetharan, Cindi
AU - McDaniel, Anne
AU - Ochandarena, Peggy
N1 - Funding Information:
These data were collected as part of a baseline survey for the USAID-funded and managed Haiti Justice Sector Strengthening Project (JSSP), in partnership with contractors Chemonics International and sub-contractors Diagnostics and Development Group (DDG) under No. AID-OAA-I-13-00032 TO No. AID 521-TO-16-0005. The results herein however reflect the authors' analyses and interpretations only. We thank those responsible in these teams for acute attention to the quality and integrity of sampling, data collection, and data entry processes, most especially Helga Klein and Donald Vertus (*ORGANIZATION), Executive Director Isnel Pierreval, Technical Director Luckny Zephyr, and Shirley Augustin, Rosalvo Dort, Mireille Guerrier, James Lachaud, and Nelson Sylvestre (DDG), as well as other social scientists with relevant expertise in Haiti who assisted by generously answering various design queries (Bonnie Kaiser, Benedetta Faedi Duramy, Mark Schuller, and Andrew Tartar). We are grateful to the 55 students from State University of Haiti for their significant and important efforts during data collection. We thank Morgan Richards, Mary Saxon, and Noelle Haro for early assistance with coding of the transcripts. Finally, we appreciate the thoughtful suggestions of our reviewers that helped to strengthen this paper.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2023/4
Y1 - 2023/4
N2 - Focus group discussions (FGDs) and individual interviews (IIs) with community members are common methods used in evaluations of all kinds of projects, including those in international development. As resources are often limited, evaluators must carefully choose methods that yield the best information for their particular program. A concern with FGDs and IIs is how well they elicit information on potentially sensitive topics; very little is known about differences in disclosure by methodology in the domain of justice. Using FGDs (n = 16) and IIs (n = 46) from a USAID project in Haiti, we systematically coded responses based on a shared elicitation guide around access to and engagement with the formal and informal justice systems and performed thematic and statistical comparisons across the two methods. We introduce the continuous thought as the novel standard unit for statistical comparison. Participants in IIs were statistically more likely to provide themes relevant to genderbased violence. Importantly, sensitive themes extracted in IIs (e.g., related to sexual violence, economic dimensions, and restorative justice) did not emerge in FGDs. Given these results and other limitations to the FGD, prioritizing interviews over focus group modalities may be appropriate to guide targeted, effective programming on justice or other socially sensitive topics.
AB - Focus group discussions (FGDs) and individual interviews (IIs) with community members are common methods used in evaluations of all kinds of projects, including those in international development. As resources are often limited, evaluators must carefully choose methods that yield the best information for their particular program. A concern with FGDs and IIs is how well they elicit information on potentially sensitive topics; very little is known about differences in disclosure by methodology in the domain of justice. Using FGDs (n = 16) and IIs (n = 46) from a USAID project in Haiti, we systematically coded responses based on a shared elicitation guide around access to and engagement with the formal and informal justice systems and performed thematic and statistical comparisons across the two methods. We introduce the continuous thought as the novel standard unit for statistical comparison. Participants in IIs were statistically more likely to provide themes relevant to genderbased violence. Importantly, sensitive themes extracted in IIs (e.g., related to sexual violence, economic dimensions, and restorative justice) did not emerge in FGDs. Given these results and other limitations to the FGD, prioritizing interviews over focus group modalities may be appropriate to guide targeted, effective programming on justice or other socially sensitive topics.
KW - Genderbased violence
KW - International development
KW - Qualitative methods
KW - Restorative and retaliatory justice
KW - Rule of law
KW - Sensitive topics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85145825791&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85145825791&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102208
DO - 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102208
M3 - Article
C2 - 36603349
AN - SCOPUS:85145825791
SN - 0149-7189
VL - 97
JO - Evaluation and Program Planning
JF - Evaluation and Program Planning
M1 - 102208
ER -