Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
completeness, to analyze the data generated, and to stimulate expression of conver-
gence or divergence perspectives on issues brought out by the group activity. Group
presentations were held at the end of a group activity. Participants were requested
to review the outputs of their group, prepare visual aids, and decide on a mode of
presentation. Several members of the group were selected to present various topics or
aspects of the outputs. The group presentation forum was similar to a public lecture,
with questions and comments reserved until the end of the presentation, followed by
a general session at which comments were made by other workshop participants.
3.2.4.13
Wealth Ranking
Wealth ranking (Grandin, 1988; Chambers, 1994; Rietbergen-McCracken and
Narayan, 1998) was used to rank households according to their perceived well-being
or wealth. The objective was to reveal potential socioeconomic stratifications of
the population and to identify local people's definitions and criteria of wealth and
well-being. This technique involved a series of individuals or focus groups of local
participants ranking the entire community based on predefined criteria. Facilita-
tors introduced the technique using local terms for wealth and poverty, encourag-
ing participants first to discuss how they define these terms. Subsequently, local
participants were asked to list the criteria they would use to classify a household or
individual as poor or rich. If many, divergent criteria were given, pairwise ranking
was used to determine the most important of these. If possible (based mainly on time
constraint), ranking was repeated serially with different people and the results com-
pared, looking for any large discrepancies or differences in the classification of the
households, especially in the proportion of households in each of the categories. The
actual ranking was done using card sorting. First, participants constructed a list of
all households to be ranked. The name of each household was written on a separate
card. The person or group doing the ranking was asked to sort the cards into three
groups (poor, average, and rich) based on his or her perception of each household's
wealth and well-being status and using the predefined criteria. The actual propor-
tions of households in each category were recorded for each ranking exercise and
then averaged.
3.2.4.14
Health analysis
Health analysis begun by a listing of health issues deemed to be the most important in
the village. Local participants were assembled into age- and gender-specific groups
for this. The lists were then compiled onto sorting cards and a pairwise ranking car-
ried out to identify the most important of these. Gender differences, if any, were noted
and discussed in a group presentation forum. For each of the most important health
issues identified, the causes, coping strategies, and opportunities were identified.
3.2.4.15
Problem Identification and Ranking
Problem ranking was used to assess the relative importance of problems, issues, and
concerns as perceived by the local participants. An initial list of problems, issues,
and concerns in the study site were constructed through triangulation. Triangulation
Search WWH ::
Custom Search