The Global Impact Study » Ricardo Ramirez

Common research tools, contrasting contexts: lessons from the Infomediaries team

Ricardo Ramirez — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:44:36 +0000

The Lessons Report, written by Ricardo Ramirez, Andy Gordon, and Balaji Parthasarathy and the country research teams in Bangladesh, Chile, and Lithuania, captures the methodological journey covered to develop the Infomediaries study.

If you are wondering how we combined three country research teams (separate continents, different languages), three primary investigators (an additional set of separate countries and time zones), and six hypotheses to come up with common data collection tools… the answer is: through many iterations and adjustments.

While the fieldwork is currently underway, this brief review will be of interest to scholars who are balancing highly contrasting contexts with a common set of research tools. View the Lessons Report here.

Bangladesh infomediary inception trip report

Ricardo Ramirez — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:41:59 +0000

Our visual report of the inception trip to Bangladesh (December, 2009) summarizes the different venues we visited for our in-depth study. We met with infomediaries in libraries, schools, non-profit organizations, cybercafes as well as mobile “info ladies”. This was the second of three inception missions that allows us to revise the study hypotheses and data collection tools. A first trip to Chile took place in August 2009 and a third to Lithuania in January 2010.

Download the Bangladesh inception report.

Chile infomediary inception trip report

Ricardo Ramirez — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:35:51 +0000

Our visual report of the inception trip to Chile (August, 2009) summarizes the different venues we visited. We met with infomediaries in libraries, schools, non-profit organizations, cybercafes, and youth centres. This was the first of three inception missions that allowed us to revise the study hypotheses and data collection tools. A second trip to Bangladesh took place in December 2009 and a third to Lithuania in January 2010.

Download the Chile inception report.

Exploring information ecologies in public access settings

Ricardo Ramirez — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:09:48 +0000

We used an information ecology methodology to conduct exploratory research during the first phase of this study. This qualitative data collection tool allows a group to illustrate the networks of trust that exist in a geographic community. The tool works like a photograph of people’s personal networking experience. After developing several linkage maps, researchers can detect patterns in terms of trusted sources of information, or the information ecology around a focal point (a public access site in the context of the Global Impact Study project).

Steps:

Study goals are presented to a convenor (someone respected in the community, a public access site manager, an organization that already brings people together, etc.)
The researchers and the convenor discuss criteria for selecting informants (homogeneous vs mixed group, in terms of age, sex, profession, wealth or income level, etc.)
The convenor(s) agree on a time and place for the gathering
When people gather, the convenor and researchers explain the purpose of the exercise and its duration (a half day); and they document who is there
The convenor and the researchers agree on a guiding question and time scale

Guiding question example in health with a one-year time scale:

Think back to the last year. Tell us: Who has brought you information on health? Think of people with similar problems, trusted experts, nurses, doctors, remedies, medical treatments or drugs, alternatives, insurance, rehabilitation, support organizations. Also think about where and through what information sources and media you acquired that information.

(If the group hesitates, ask: Think back when you or a loved one got sick, who did you contact first? And then next and after that person?)

Start an inventory on a flip chart. Draw an icon for each person or source, and add a name to each. You will find that important information intermediaries will be mentioned more than once. In that case add lines or bars to account for popular ones.
When all have spoken, and stories have run out, shift to the next step: begin transferring the inventory onto another flip chart along a hierarchy that is locally relevant. Ask them about it: village, sub-county, district, region, etc.
Copy each person or source, one by one, with the group. Those who are listed often can be drawn with a thick circle around them, or larger, or using another color.
As you draw, ask about the nature of the relationship or linkage. Did communication happen once or often? Is it a two-way or a one-way linkage? (Who initiates it?) Make lines thicker for permanent or regular linkages, and thinner or dashed for rare ones. Use arrows to indicate whether the linkage is one way, the other way, or two-way.
When you have listed all the persons or sources, ask the group whether the diagram is an accurate representation of the discussion. Ask them to comment on the pattern that emerges. If the groups want to keep the map, take a photo of it and leave it behind.
When you have several linkage maps, compare them and contrast them with representatives of the informants for each map.